On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Ludovic Courtès l...@gnu.org wrote:
Joel Sherrill joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com skribis:
But it still doesn't address the situation where you have multiple
cross compilers in your PATH all for different targets.
Yeah, I thought about it, but couldn’t come up with
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Ludovic Courtès l...@gnu.org wrote:
Joel Sherrill joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com skribis:
But it still doesn't address the situation where you have multiple
cross compilers in your
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:31 PM, David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
From: David Miller da...@redhat.com
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:33:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Richard Sandiford rdsandif...@googlemail.com
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:14:53 +
...given that the code is like you say written:
I've been studying/reading gccs code, watching it compile though a debugger and
reading. Today I noticed something odd in the c++ parser's file. I saw what
appeared to be a template in a .c file.
I am on a different computer now but it was vec and occurred about 1/6th of
the way in, it should
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
I've been studying/reading gccs code, watching it compile though a debugger
and reading. Today I noticed something odd in the c++ parser's file. I saw
what appeared to be a template in a .c file.
It's just a filename ...
On 13/02/13 12:39, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
It's just a filename ... we compile it with a C++ compiler.
Richard.
I feel silly now, why not use .cpp? SVN's move not good enough?
(or is it just because no one could be bothered?)
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
On 13/02/13 12:39, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
It's just a filename ... we compile it with a C++ compiler.
Richard.
I feel silly now, why not use .cpp?
Hi,
I am pleased to announce the release of ODB 2.2.0.
ODB is an open source object-relational mapping (ORM) system for C++. It
allows you to persist C++ objects to a relational database without having
to deal with tables, columns, or SQL and without manually writing any of
the mapping code.
Richard Biener richard.guent...@gmail.com skribis:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Ludovic Courtès l...@gnu.org wrote:
Joel Sherrill joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com skribis:
But it still doesn't address the
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:47 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
On 13/02/13 12:39, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
It's just a filename ... we compile
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
I have no opinion on whether it is better to rename files now or later.
I do think it is better to rename the files at some point.
I would vote for renaming to an extension of .cc.
Likewise.
One problem I've noticed
On 13/02/13 13:47, Diego Novillo wrote:
I feel silly now, why not use .cpp? SVN's move not good enough?
(or is it just because no one could be bothered?)
The latter. Perhaps we should start renaming the files. It will help
with this confusion and it will also be useful for tools like
On 02/13/2013 03:06 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
One problem I've noticed is that renames seem to confuse svn diff. For
example:
$ cd gcc/cp
$ svn log -r81829 cp-gimplify.c
r81829 | dnovillo | 2004-05-13 22:29:32 -0400
On 13 February 2013 15:33, Alec Teal wrote:
A few questions, what is this stage 1? (link to documentation please, or a
descriptive answer).
See http://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html
for the choice of file extension, this is really a tiny thing, but I do have
a reason for .cpp
On 13 February 2013 15:33, Alec Teal wrote:
I'm also thinking of re-writing the C++ parser there are some interesting
todos (using lookahead rather than try the next option) it's a topic I
enjoy and something I could (probably) do, especially given a working
version already. thoughts and
On 13/02/13 16:24, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13 February 2013 15:33, Alec Teal wrote:
I'm also thinking of re-writing the C++ parser there are some interesting
todos (using lookahead rather than try the next option) it's a topic I
enjoy and something I could (probably) do, especially given a
On 13/02/13 16:11, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13 February 2013 15:33, Alec Teal wrote:
A few questions, what is this stage 1? (link to documentation please, or a
descriptive answer).
See http://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html
for the choice of file extension, this is really a tiny thing, but I do
Hi,
I am working on enabing libsanitizer on ARM.
I have a very simple patch to enable it, and a sample program seems to
work on board.
However, I would like to use qemu as an execution engine, but I get
error messages from libsanitizer at startup:==30022== Shadow memory
range interleaves with an
On 13 February 2013 16:32, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
On 13/02/13 16:11, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13 February 2013 15:33, Alec Teal wrote:
A few questions, what is this stage 1? (link to documentation please, or
a
descriptive answer).
See http://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html
for
On 13/02/13 17:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13 February 2013 16:32, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
On 13/02/13 16:11, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13 February 2013 15:33, Alec Teal wrote:
A few questions, what is this stage 1? (link to documentation please, or
a
descriptive answer).
Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com writes:
One problem I've noticed is that renames seem to confuse svn diff.
For example:
$ cd gcc/cp
$ svn log -r81829 cp-gimplify.c
r81829 | dnovillo | 2004-05-13 22:29:32 -0400 (Thu,
On 02/13/2013 05:01 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
Why not rename them to?
See the archaeology discussion. This is so vitally important
to GCC maintainers that you change things at everyone's peril.
Andrew.
On 13 February 2013 17:01, Alec Teal wrote:
On 13/02/13 17:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I read it. That's not debate, just ill-informed speculation (cpp is
the recommended extension for C++ as far as I know). We already have
C++ code in GCC, the runtime library uses .cc and the G++
On 13/02/13 17:11, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13 February 2013 17:01, Alec Teal wrote:
On 13/02/13 17:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I read it. That's not debate, just ill-informed speculation (cpp is
the recommended extension for C++ as far as I know). We already have
C++ code in GCC, the
From: Richard Biener richard.guent...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:15:13 +0100
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:31 PM, David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
Maybe what we really mean to do here is check both op1 and SUBREG_REG
(op1) against SCALAR_INT_MODE_P instead of INTEGRAL_MODE_P?
On Wed, 13 Feb 2013, Philip Martin wrote:
The new file must have been explicitly added, rather than copied or
moved, and so the history is broken. An example of a history preserving
The issue there is that cvs2svn doesn't / didn't at the time support
detecting moves, so moves from before the
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2013, Philip Martin wrote:
The new file must have been explicitly added, rather than copied or
moved, and so the history is broken. An example of a history preserving
The issue there is that
On Feb 13, 2013, at 5:04 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
...
Ah, so if we rename a file with 'svn rename', its history will be
preserved across the rename? In that case, renaming files should not
be a problem.
Yes, that's one of many ways that SVN (or most other source control systems)
are
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:18 PM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
On Feb 13, 2013, at 5:04 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
...
Ah, so if we rename a file with 'svn rename', its history will be
preserved across the rename? In that case, renaming files should not
be a problem.
Yes, that's one of many
On 13-02-13 1:36 AM, Michael Eager wrote:
Hi --
I'm seeing register allocation problems and code size increases
with gcc-4.6.2 (and gcc-head) compared with older (gcc-4.1.2).
Both are compiled using -O3.
One test case that I have has a long series of nested if's
each with the same comparison
On 02/13/2013 02:38 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 13-02-13 1:36 AM, Michael Eager wrote:
Hi --
I'm seeing register allocation problems and code size increases
with gcc-4.6.2 (and gcc-head) compared with older (gcc-4.1.2).
Both are compiled using -O3.
One test case that I have has a long
On 13-02-13 6:36 PM, Michael Eager wrote:
On 02/13/2013 02:38 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 13-02-13 1:36 AM, Michael Eager wrote:
Hi --
I'm seeing register allocation problems and code size increases
with gcc-4.6.2 (and gcc-head) compared with older (gcc-4.1.2).
Both are compiled using -O3.
Hi Christophe,
Are you talking about ARM Linux?
It will be easier for us (asan developers) to fix this upstream first.
Could you please file a bug at https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/ ?
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Christophe Lyon
christophe.l...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi,
I am
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:36:46AM +0100, Michael Eager wrote:
On 02/13/2013 02:38 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 13-02-13 1:36 AM, Michael Eager wrote:
Hi --
I'm seeing register allocation problems and code size increases
with gcc-4.6.2 (and gcc-head) compared with older (gcc-4.1.2).
On 02/13/2013 11:24 PM, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:36:46AM +0100, Michael Eager wrote:
On 02/13/2013 02:38 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 13-02-13 1:36 AM, Michael Eager wrote:
Hi --
I'm seeing register allocation problems and code size increases
with gcc-4.6.2 (and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2013-02-13 09:05:16 UTC ---
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013, meissner at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494
--- Comment #10 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
09:09:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #24)
Created attachment 29429 [details]
Experimental patch resolving more dependencies
This is my (untested, highly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56302
Bug #: 56302
Summary: [4.8 Regression] sys/sdt.h asms stopped working at -O0
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
09:28:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
The fix causes a build regression for mn10300:
g++ -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -fno-exceptions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56302
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
09:36:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 29431
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29431
gcc48-pr56302.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56302
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P5 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
--- Comment #30 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13 10:06:11 UTC ---
This will probably fix it:
...
Index: Makefile.in
===
--- Makefile.in (revision 195997)
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
--- Comment #31 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
10:09:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #30)
--- Makefile.in (revision 195997)
+++ Makefile.in (working copy)
@@ -115,8 +115,8 @@
touch stamp-libada
-rm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56303
Bug #: 56303
Summary: [C++11] ICE in lambda with closure on member variable
of a template class
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
--- Comment #32 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13 10:19:35
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Feb 13 10:19:26 2013
New Revision: 196002
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=196002
Log:
PR target/52122
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
--- Comment #33 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13 10:20:49
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Feb 13 10:20:30 2013
New Revision: 196003
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=196003
Log:
PR target/52122
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
--- Comment #34 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13 10:21:35
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Feb 13 10:21:25 2013
New Revision: 196004
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=196004
Log:
PR target/52122
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56303
--- Comment #1 from crillion at tiscali dot it 2013-02-13 10:22:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 29433
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29433
the source code which generates the error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
--- Comment #35 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13 10:25:21 UTC ---
Kai,
* Makefile.in (LN_S_RECUSIVE): New.
please fix up the log messages.
Thanks,
- Tom
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56304
Bug #: 56304
Summary: [C++1] ICE in get_expr_operands, at
tree-ssa-operands.c for template class, using lambda
with closure on member variable, also called by the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56304
--- Comment #1 from crillion at tiscali dot it 2013-02-13 10:36:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 29434
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29434
the source code which generates the error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56303
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56304
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|MinGW |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56304
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2013-02-13
10:40:03 UTC ---
Oops, fixed reference Bug.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 53137 ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53137
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56304
--- Comment #4 from crillion at tiscali dot it 2013-02-13 10:41:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 29435
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29435
the ii file generated by the compiler (compressed with 7zip because bugzilla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56304
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2013-02-13
10:44:11 UTC ---
The problem is already fixed in mainline and 4_7-branch, thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
10:55:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 29436
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29436
patch
-fsection-anchors enables pass_ipa_increase_alignment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50494
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56128
Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56294
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
10:56:15 UTC ---
With the debug counters I have identified the first function where the
difference in behavior of intra-SRA behavior with -g vs -g0 caused the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56301
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56204
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-02-13 11:19:37 UTC ---
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-12
19:27:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56305
Bug #: 56305
Summary: passing array of character with len1 to c_loc
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56306
Bug #: 56306
Summary: -m32 does not support all includes
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56295
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
11:51:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Created attachment 29425 [details]
Modified testcase
This slightly modified testcase still shows some strange
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56204
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
12:03:27 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Feb 13 12:03:18 2013
New Revision: 196011
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=196011
Log:
2013-02-13
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56204
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56306
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56305
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54126
--- Comment #5 from Ilya Mikhaltsou morpheby at gmail dot com 2013-02-13
12:20:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Created attachment 29430 [details]
simple fail case
I think I have an even simplier test case, I guess it's the same
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56306
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
12:22:19 UTC ---
GCC can obviously alter its internal include paths to its own headers because
it knows what they contain and how to find the contents. It can't possibly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56306
--- Comment #3 from Uwe Seidler uwe.seid...@siemens-enterprise.com 2013-02-13
12:35:34 UTC ---
enhacemant is ok
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
13:03:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
(In reply to comment #15)
The fix causes a build regression for mn10300:
g++ -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56295
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
13:31:24 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Feb 13 13:31:18 2013
New Revision: 196013
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=196013
Log:
2013-02-13
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56242
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2013-02-13 14:09:26 UTC ---
On 2013-02-12 6:03 PM, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
I've tried to reproduce this bug by building a cross compiler using the
hppa2.0w-unknown-linux-gnu target.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56307
Bug #: 56307
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr55579.c scan-tree-dump esra
Created a debug-only replacement for s
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55852
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
14:38:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
The test case fails because the match is too strict.
Should be fixed - for the the trunk only - since 2012-01-09 via
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55852
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13 14:44:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Should be fixed - for the the trunk only - since 2012-01-09
Ok, so can we close this guy? Or is there need for a backport?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54730
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29428|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55852
--- Comment #13 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
15:09:06 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Feb 13 15:08:59 2013
New Revision: 196016
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=196016
Log:
2012-02-13
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56184
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
15:15:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Unfortunately I'm not really familiar with the live range splitting code;
maybe
Vladimir can help with this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56242
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13 15:44:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 29440
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29440
delete-insn-tentative-fix-PR56242.patch
I'll give your patch a try later today
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
15:58:31 UTC ---
The following testcase shows the issue well:
_Complex double self[1024];
_Complex double a[1024][1024];
_Complex double b[1024];
void foo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56302
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
16:09:35 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 13 16:09:27 2013
New Revision: 196018
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=196018
Log:
PR c++/56302
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56302
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54117
m...@gcc.gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56290
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
17:14:46 UTC ---
Created attachment 29441
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29441
testcase
Preprocessed testcase reproducible with ./cc1plus -O3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56290
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56265
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48133
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56184
--- Comment #8 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
17:40:33 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Feb 13 17:40:22 2013
New Revision: 196019
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=196019
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55852
--- Comment #14 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
17:51:17 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Feb 13 17:51:11 2013
New Revision: 196020
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=196020
Log:
2013-02-13
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55852
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56135
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
17:56:11 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 13 17:56:05 2013
New Revision: 196021
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=196021
Log:
PR c++/56135
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56155
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
17:56:23 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 13 17:56:16 2013
New Revision: 196022
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=196022
Log:
PR c++/56155
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55993
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
17:56:33 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 13 17:56:28 2013
New Revision: 196023
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=196023
Log:
PR c++/55993
1 - 100 of 248 matches
Mail list logo
