Snapshot gcc-4.8-20130120 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20130120/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.8 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
Hi ,i am developing a simple plugin that allows me to delete a node from
the cgraph that match a specific pattern but when i delete the node
using cgraph_remove_node , it seams to delete it ( by printing the
cgraph again it doesn't appear ) , but in the compiled file it exist
my plugin is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56049
Bug #: 56049
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Simplification to constants not done
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56049
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56049
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2013-01-20
10:32:18 UTC ---
This occurred between revisions 193542 (2012-11-15) and 193573 (2012-11-16).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56050
Bug #: 56050
Summary: g++ compiler confused with virtual functions.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56047
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56047
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56044
--- Comment #5 from Dimitris Papavasiliou dpapavas at gmail dot com
2013-01-20 11:09:57 UTC ---
Actually trying out -Wno-shadow indicates that it doesn't make any difference
in this case. The compiler keeps complaining about the instance
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56047
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-20 11:30:08 UTC ---
Btw, while the ICE is obviously a 4.8 regression, 4.6 and 4.7 are not much more
helpful, either:
if (template%type_string () == name) return
1
Error:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56047
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2013-01-20
11:35:59 UTC ---
Btw, while the ICE is obviously a 4.8 regression, 4.6 and 4.7 are not much
more
helpful, either:
if (template%type_string () == name)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56047
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-20 11:36:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Btw, while the ICE is obviously a 4.8 regression, 4.6 and 4.7 are not much
more
helpful, either:
if (template%type_string () == name)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56050
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56047
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-20 11:45:22 UTC ---
Note that the patch from PR 55984 comment 4 fixes the ICE for both comment 0
and comment 3. This brings comment 3 to the same error message one gets with
4.6/4.7,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051
Bug #: 56051
Summary: Wrong expression evaluation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56047
--- Comment #9 from Jürgen Reuter juergen.reuter at desy dot de 2013-01-20
11:55:31 UTC ---
Janus, long time no see! XD Greetings to my old home state!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56047
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-20 12:05:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Note that the patch from PR 55984 comment 4 fixes the ICE for both comment 0
and comment 3. This brings comment 3 to the same error message
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56039
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2013-01-20 12:27:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
The code uses C++11 lambda expressions in a constant expression context for
the SFINAE. As far as I can tell, SFINAE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54033
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56047
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-20 12:53:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Janus, long time no see! XD
Right! It's been a while since you submitted a bugreport (after all the
procedure pointer bugs had been
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56008
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2013-01-20
13:34:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 29221 [details]
Fix for this PR and PR 47517
I confirm for this PR. However while the original code of PR 47517 executes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21182
--- Comment #11 from Denis Vlasenko vda.linux at googlemail dot com
2013-01-20 14:39:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
4.4.7 and 4.5.4 generate the same code (no stack use) for -D/-UNAIL_REGS.
With 4.6.3, the -DNAIL_REGS code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55806
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29223|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56052
Bug #: 56052
Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE in omp_add_variable, at
gimplify.c:5606
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56052
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2013-01-20
16:31:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 29226
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29226
Failing test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56039
--- Comment #7 from Hubert Tong hstong at ca dot ibm.com 2013-01-20 16:45:13
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I wonder why you think this would belong to the immediate context. Actually
it seems to me as if the instantiation of the body
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56053
Bug #: 56053
Summary: FAIL: c-c++-common/asan/(global|stack)-overflow-1.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56053
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56054
Bug #: 56054
Summary: f951: internal compiler error: in gfc_free_namespace,
at fortran/symbol.c:3337
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56052
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55679
--- Comment #20 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2013-01-20 16:54:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
I am puzzled as to why this issue with global-overflow-1.c and
stack-overflow-1.c can't be triggered on x86_64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56052
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56052
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56054
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56054
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|f951: internal compiler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56054
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54107
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-20
17:31:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 29228
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29228
Not working patch
This patch implements comment #9.
It fails on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56049
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54730
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-20
17:47:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Untested patch:
Probably better (still not fully correct):
diff --git a/array.c b/array.c
index 6787c05..1641629 100644
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56039
--- Comment #8 from Hubert Tong hstong at ca dot ibm.com 2013-01-20 17:50:50
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
That is, whether the body of the lambda expression is valid or not valid
is not affected by unknowns such as what types it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50627
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56054
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-20 18:09:40
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Untested fix. As the testcase shows, also a widening conversion can be a
problem, if it extends from signed integral type to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50627
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Error recovery: ICE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55493
Ruben Van Boxem vanboxem.ruben at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-20
18:35:20 UTC ---
Yeah, I'm afraid assuming you never do 1 31 is going to break simply way too
much code in the wild.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55603
--- Comment #5 from Damian Rouson damian at rouson dot net 2013-01-20
18:59:54 UTC ---
Hi Janus and Tobias,
We're moving toward an internal release of the open-source package that exposed
this bug. Any chance of this being fixed in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55223
--- Comment #2 from ak at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-20 19:03:29 UTC ---
Author: ak
Date: Sun Jan 20 19:03:22 2013
New Revision: 195321
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195321
Log:
libstdc++: Add
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55433
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-20
19:10:03 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Sun Jan 20 19:09:58 2013
New Revision: 195322
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195322
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55223
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2013-01-20 19:56:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
The underlying compiler supports additional __ATOMIC_HLE_ACQUIRE/RELEASE
memmodel flags for TSX, but this was not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55223
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-20
20:04:30 UTC ---
Typo in the commit, it should be PR 55233
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55233
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-20
20:05:03 UTC ---
N.B. The commit for this is attached to PR 55223
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-20 20:17:31
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Yeah, I'm afraid assuming you never do 1 31 is going to break simply way
too
much code in the wild.
I noticed that clang
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235
--- Comment #14 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-20
20:35:56 UTC ---
Author: mrs
Date: Sun Jan 20 20:35:48 2013
New Revision: 195326
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195326
Log:
2013-01-20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56047
--- Comment #12 from Jürgen Reuter juergen.reuter at desy dot de 2013-01-20
22:11:30 UTC ---
Am 20/1/13 1:53 PM, schrieb janus at gcc dot gnu.org:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56047
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org
as x86_64-apple-darwin...Reading symbols for shared
libraries ... done
(gdb) b main
Breakpoint 1 at 0x1eed: file
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc48-4.8.0-1000/gcc-4.8-20130120/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr51447.c,
line 13.
Breakpoint 2 at 0x1ec8: file
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc48-4.8.0-1000/gcc-4.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56055
Bug #: 56055
Summary: Delete_File won't delete special files
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55233
--- Comment #2 from Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org 2013-01-21
01:22:14 UTC ---
Oops typo, I'll fix the ChangeLog
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56056
Bug #: 56056
Summary: internal compiler error: in
get_builtin_code_for_version, at
config/i386/i386.c:28686
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56057
Bug #: 56057
Summary: libbacktrace STILL doesn't honor --disable-werror
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55819
lailavrazda1979 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56058
Bug #: 56058
Summary: GCC arm-none-eabi build failure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56059
Bug #: 56059
Summary: SIGSEGV on invalid C++11 code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56060
Bug #: 56060
Summary: ICE on invalid code in type_dependent_expression_p, at
cp/pt.c:19742
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
20130120 (experimental).
lto1: internal compiler error: in inline_call, at ipa-inline-transform.c:267
0x8367899 inline_call(cgraph_edge*, bool, veccgraph_edge*, va_heap, vl_ptr*,
int*, bool)
../../gcc-4.8/gcc/ipa-inline-transform.c:263
0x8357d10 inline_small_functions
../../gcc-4.8/gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56059
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com
2013-01-21 06:31:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 29232
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29232
Testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56060
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com
2013-01-21 06:31:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 29233
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29233
Testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56059
Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56059
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56060
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56062
Bug #: 56062
Summary: Enhance -fuse-ld= option
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
2013-01-14 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
* configure.ac (cloog/isl): Also allow ISL 0.11.x and CLooG 0.18.0.
* configure: Re-generate.
The output is strange:
checking for the correct version of the gmp/mpfr/mpc libraries... yes
-g -O2
checking for version 0.10 of ISL... no
Reviewers: bonzini_gnu.org, dj_redhat.com, neroden_gcc.gnu.org,
aoliva_redhat.com, ralf.wildenhues_gmx.de, jakub_redhat.com,
mikestump_comcast.net,
Description:
2013-01-20 Shenghou Ma minux...@gmail.com
* config/isl.m4: don't echo $CFLAGS for ISL_CHECK_VERSION.
*
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
This patch adds lightweight checks for front()/back() on empty vector.
front()
- { return *begin(); }
+ {
+#if __google_stl_debug_vector
+if (empty()) __throw_logic_error(begin() on empty vector);
Isn't the error message
Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com wrote:
2013-01-14 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
* configure.ac (cloog/isl): Also allow ISL 0.11.x and CLooG 0.18.0.
* configure: Re-generate.
The output is strange:
checking for the correct version of the gmp/mpfr/mpc libraries... yes
-g
The following adds an ugly way of doing DImode atomic loads and stores
on 32-bit PA systems. It uses the fact that 64-bit floating point loads
and stores are atomic.
Tested on hppa-unknown-linux-gnu, hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 and
hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 with no observed regressions. Committed to trunk.
Current gcc trunk fails the scan-assembler-times on this test case
due to Apple's incomplete support for dwarf4. The attached patch xfail's
the scan-assembler-times on debug_types until Apple updates its cctools
to fully support dwarf4. Okay for gcc trunk?
Jack
ps I don't see a huge
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 3:16 AM, Gerald Pfeifer ger...@pfeifer.com wrote:
Isn't the error message wrong, then?
Thanks for catching that! Updated patch attached.
--
Paul Pluzhnikov
Index: libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_vector.h
===
Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org writes:
From: Andi Kleen a...@linux.intel.com
The TSX HLE/RTM intrinsics were missing documentation. Add this to the
manual.
Ok for release / trunk?
Could someone please review/approve this (documentation only) patch?
Thanks.
-Andi
2013-01-11 Andi Kleen
After submitting the previous patch for PR55433, Steven found that
powerpc LRA is broken as the original insn for secondary memory reload
can not be used in some cases.
The following patch fixes the problem. The patch might be not necessary
for x86/x86-64 but I submitted it too.
The patch
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson
hans-peter.nils...@axis.com wrote:
Ever since it was changed to a run test (from the default
compile, i.e. just producing assembly code), the test
gfortran.dg/inquire_10.f90 has failed for newlib targets while
linking, because (besides cygwin
Hi!
As the first hunk in the testcase shows, we can't perform this optimization
if the conversion is narrowing.
As the second hunk shows, if we allow 1 31 (we don't optimize
int foo (int x) { return (1 x) 0; } so I think it would be surprising
if we did optimize it in this case, plus I'm
Hello world,
the attached patch fixes a regression where -J dirpath/ would
issue a warning on Windows because of the trailing dir separator.
Regression-tested, but only on Linux. I would appreciate if
somebody could also test it on Windows (and run the test case,
of course).
OK for trunk?
From: Janne Blomqvist blomqvist.ja...@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:14:11 +0100
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson
hans-peter.nils...@axis.com wrote:
Ever since it was changed to a run test (from the default
compile, i.e. just producing assembly code), the test
On Jan 19, 2013, at 7:27 AM, Gerald Pfeifer ger...@pfeifer.com wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013, Marek Polacek wrote:
As the subject says. Ok for trunk?
2013-01-19 Marek Polacek pola...@redhat.com
* cfgloop.c (verify_loop_structure): Fix up grammar.
You generally don't have to ask for
On 13-01-19 9:09 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
It looks like this merge breaks bootstrap on
powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu. The compiler goes into an infinite loop
while compiling libdecnumber. I'm trying to create a small test case.
Here it
I've merged lra branch with trunk @ 195322 to fix PPC bootstrap failure.
Committed as rev. 195323.
On Jan 19, 2013, at 7:38 AM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
When I was messing with TLS tests, I noticed that there's currently no
effective target keyword for alias support. This patch adds that. OK for
trunk?
Ok. [ looks trivial to me :-) ]
+proc check_effective_target_alias
On Jan 20, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Jack Howarth howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu wrote:
Current gcc trunk fails the scan-assembler-times on this test case
due to Apple's incomplete support for dwarf4. The attached patch xfail's
the scan-assembler-times on debug_types until Apple updates its cctools
to
Am 18.01.2013 15:28, schrieb Ramana Radhakrishnan:
On 06/20/12 03:53, Yi-Hsiu Hsu wrote:
marvell-pj4 is added to BE8_LINK_SPEC.
Sorry about the time it's taken to finish this patch up. I seem to have missed
this one in the review process.
I've now applied the attached patch after taking
Hello Maciej,
I tested the calculation with the type float.
ABI o32 with -mhard-float and -msingle-float produces the following
results:
1.00 (0x3f80) / 0.00 (0x) = nan (0x7fff)
0.00 (0x) / 0.00 (0x) = nan (0x7fff)
0.00
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 08:49:38PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
Hello world,
the attached patch fixes a regression where -J dirpath/ would
issue a warning on Windows because of the trailing dir separator.
Regression-tested, but only on Linux. I would appreciate if
somebody could also test
Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org writes:
PING! This patch needs review.
-Andi
From: Andi Kleen a...@linux.intel.com
The libitm TSX hardware transaction fast path currently does quite a bit of
unnecessary work (saving registers etc.) before even trying to start
a hardware transaction. This
gcc/Changelog
2013-01-21 Edgar E. Iglesias edgar.igles...@gmail.com
* config.gcc (microblaze*-*-elf): Add new target
libgcc/Changelog
2013-01-21 Edgar E. Iglesias edgar.igles...@gmail.com
* config.host (microblaze*-*-elf): Add new target
gcc/Changelog
2013-01-21 David Holsgrove david.holsgr...@xilinx.com
* config.gcc (microblaze*-linux*): Add tmake_file to allow building
of microblaze-c.o
libgcc/Changelog
2013-01-21 David Holsgrove david.holsgr...@xilinx.com
* libgcc/config/microblaze/t-microblaze:
Remove test for target_config_cflags for microblaze - not set
anywhere, and causes error while
running testsuite;
ERROR: tcl error sourcing
[SNIP]/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/microblaze/microblaze.exp.
ERROR: can't read target_config_cflags: no such variable
gcc/testsuite/Changelog:
2013-01-21
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
