http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
07:23:10 UTC ---
From the standard:
C568 (R536) A data-i-do-object or a variable that appears as a
data-stmt-object shall not be an object designator in which a
pointer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45290
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=48649
--- Comment #6 from Popielewicz vasco at icpnet dot pl 2011-10-18 07:25:24
UTC ---
OK.
Because I suspected, that IRA could help I have decided to port 4.4.6, the last
with coff.
Another motivation was tree-vectorizer.
I have discovered
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50706
Paulo J. Matos Paulo.Matos at csr dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Paulo.Matos at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50706
--- Comment #4 from Paulo J. Matos Paulo.Matos at csr dot com 2011-10-18
07:51:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 25537
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25537
Another testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50772
Bug #: 50772
Summary: Inline assembler A constrain works non-expectedly on
64-bits target
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48087
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-10-18 08:26:04 UTC ---
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48087
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50716
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
08:46:06 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Oct 18 08:46:00 2011
New Revision: 180125
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180125
Log:
2011-10-18 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50672
--- Comment #11 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 08:57:43 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue Oct 18 08:57:39 2011
New Revision: 180126
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180126
Log:
2011-10-18 Tom de Vries
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50741
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
09:17:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
And of course, it's the ctor cloning:
DECL_CONTEXT of _rL_53 is function_decl 0x753db000 A,
but current_function_decl is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50350
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
09:19:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 25538
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25538
gcc46-pr50350.patch
I couldn't reproduce it with a x86_64-linux - ia64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50772
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50771
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50769
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50773
Bug #: 50773
Summary: float values are printed with greater precision than
the float data type has when given as an argument to
printf()
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50768
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50767
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48087
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-10-18
09:41:11 UTC ---
Indeed, after a day of work I should not even try sending drafts. Anyway, the
substantive point I was missing is *per function*.
Is there a simple
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50724
--- Comment #33 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
09:41:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #31)
I can't add an attribute to the system isnan from my user code, or can I?
I've
never been quite sure what Paolo was referring
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50767
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
09:51:17 UTC ---
PRE produces
bb 2:
# VUSE .MEM_4(D)
pretmp.5_8 = 0B;
bb 3:
# .MEM_3 = PHI .MEM_4(D)(2), .MEM_6(4)
# VUSE .MEM_3
s.0_1 = s;
ss.1_2 =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50765
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50774
Bug #: 50774
Summary: Internal Compiler Error when march=bdver1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10980
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
09:54:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
(In reply to comment #10)
I bet it just ignores the attribute that is not how the attribute is
supposed to work.
We
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50764
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50763
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50724
--- Comment #34 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
10:03:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
To be honest, this bug report is not under any discussion anymore. I tried to
get any sort of sanity, but in the end it's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50773
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44648
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50773
Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aph at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50773
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44648
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-10-18 10:46:18 UTC ---
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44648
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
--- Comment #17 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 10:48:15 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Oct 18 10:48:12 2011
New Revision: 180130
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180130
Log:
2011-10-18 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44648
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50741
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
--- Comment #18 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 11:06:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
* treat BT_CLASS in decl.c (comment #1)
Fixed with r180130.
Left to do:
* the error in comment #0 could be downgraded to a warning (which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25520|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50763
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 11:12:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 25541
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25541
patch, handles case that either vuse1 or vuse2 is NULL_TREE in update_vuses.
Currently
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50672
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50097
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47346
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50743
--- Comment #4 from Nicola Pero nicola at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 11:31:49
UTC ---
Author: nicola
Date: Tue Oct 18 11:31:45 2011
New Revision: 180132
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180132
Log:
In gcc/objc/:
2011-10-18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45690
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |tromey at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50743
--- Comment #5 from Nicola Pero nicola at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 11:39:55
UTC ---
Can you confirm that trunk is now OK ?
Thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50775
Bug #: 50775
Summary: Register allocator sets up frame and frame pointer
with low register pressure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50767
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
11:44:22 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Oct 18 11:44:15 2011
New Revision: 180134
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180134
Log:
2011-10-18 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50350
--- Comment #6 from Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
11:44:57 UTC ---
the proposed patch lets the build succeed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50716
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50767
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
--- Comment #19 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 12:03:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
* reject proc-pointers for SIZEOF (comment #7)
Example:
use iso_c_binding
procedure(real), pointer :: pp
procedure(real) :: proc
pp = sin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50775
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
12:07:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 25542
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25542
in.c
Source code from comment #c0 as attachment for conveniance.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
--- Comment #20 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 12:17:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
* reject proc-pointers for SIZEOF (comment #7)
I think one could also allow them, but then the implementation of SIZEOF needs
to be fixed to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
--- Comment #21 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 12:19:54 UTC ---
The question is also how SIZEOF should act on data pointers:
use iso_c_binding
integer(2) :: i
integer(2), pointer :: p
print *,sizeof(i)
print *,sizeof(p)
end
Output:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50205
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
12:36:20 UTC ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Tue Oct 18 12:36:16 2011
New Revision: 180135
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180135
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50205
Alexander Monakov amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
--- Comment #22 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
12:48:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
The question is also how SIZEOF should act on data pointers:
Output:
2
2
Should it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50737
--- Comment #14 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 12:55:12 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Oct 18 12:55:06 2011
New Revision: 180137
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180137
Log:
2011-10-18 Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50016
--- Comment #14 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
12:58:46 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Oct 18 12:58:42 2011
New Revision: 180138
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180138
Log:
2011-10-18 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50326
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50016
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50016
--- Comment #16 from xunxun xunxun1982 at gmail dot com 2011-10-18 13:20:27
UTC ---
Good job. I will extract the patch to 4.6.1 release.
( I don't use gcc4.6 latest branch temporarily because PR 50664 )
Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50754
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
--- Comment #23 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 13:45:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
(In reply to comment #21)
The question is also how SIZEOF should act on data pointers:
Should it give the size of the pointer itself, or the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50552
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com 2011-10-18
13:55:31 UTC ---
I am traveling in Korea, and I cannot look at the standard now.
If you believe this is a non-issue then please close it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50776
Bug #: 50776
Summary: unused object optimized out, despite having
constructor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50769
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50776
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
14:18:49 UTC ---
I can't reproduce this with any version.
What platform are you using? (You failed to provide that, as requested by the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ page)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50106
--- Comment #6 from Sebastian Huber sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
2011-10-18 14:19:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 25543
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25543
arm-eabi-g++ -march=armv5t -mthumb -Os -S compiler1.test.ii -o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50719
--- Comment #3 from Sean McGovern gseanmcg at gmail dot com 2011-10-18
14:25:20 UTC ---
Have not been successful building trunk on i386-pc-solaris2.10 yet. Will answer
these questions when I have a working build again.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45690
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50769
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 14:32:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 25544
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25544
tentative patch
This PR is similar to PR50672.
We discover that blocks 6 and 7 are equal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
14:42:24 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Tue Oct 18 14:42:21 2011
New Revision: 180142
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180142
Log:
PR fortran/50420
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
14:45:49 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Tue Oct 18 14:45:46 2011
New Revision: 180143
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180143
Log:
PR fortran/50420
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50773
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2011-10-18 14:49:28 UTC ---
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Needs -fexcess-precision=standard -m32 to trigger. libcpp does the
parsing of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
14:55:54 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Tue Oct 18 14:55:48 2011
New Revision: 180145
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180145
Log:
PR fortran/50420
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50106
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
14:59:11 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Tue Oct 18 14:59:07 2011
New Revision: 180146
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180146
Log:
PR fortran/50420
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
15:02:46 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Tue Oct 18 15:02:38 2011
New Revision: 180147
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180147
Log:
PR fortran/50420
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
15:05:34 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Tue Oct 18 15:05:30 2011
New Revision: 180148
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180148
Log:
PR fortran/50420
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50759
Joseph S. Myers jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44236
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
--- Comment #9 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
15:11:27 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Tue Oct 18 15:11:21 2011
New Revision: 180150
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180150
Log:
PR fortran/50420
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21659
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
15:13:58 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Tue Oct 18 15:13:45 2011
New Revision: 180151
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180151
Log:
PR fortran/50420
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50777
Bug #: 50777
Summary: [4.7 regression] bootstrap fails on Solaris 10
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
--- Comment #11 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
15:17:34 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Tue Oct 18 15:17:29 2011
New Revision: 180152
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180152
Log:
PR fortran/50420
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #44 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
15:22:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 25540 [details]
demonstration of the fault using c++/vendor's tools
after Eric solved my inverted-logic thinko ...
.. I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
--- Comment #12 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
15:23:10 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Tue Oct 18 15:23:04 2011
New Revision: 180153
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180153
Log:
PR fortran/50420
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50777
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
15:26:08 UTC ---
My guess would not be a missing header, but missing feature test macro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #45 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 15:32:33
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #44)
I think we'll need to apply the patch in the short/medium term and then
figure
out how to control it - which will depend on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50735
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
15:33:16 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Oct 18 15:33:12 2011
New Revision: 180154
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=180154
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-18 15:37:49 UTC ---
--- Comment #16 from Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-17
17:37:11 UTC ---
Sorry, I was being imprecise -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48087
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50776
Nadav Har'El nyh at math dot technion.ac.il changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48087
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-10-18
16:08:02 UTC ---
Note however that the bug I closed as duplicate of this one shows that in some
cases the problem manifests itself as *bogus* warning.. But I'm pretty
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48087
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-10-18
16:02:26 UTC ---
Thanks Manuel: if I understand correctly, this way we could not only avoid the
regression but even do better than 4.4, and again, the fix could be very
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50777
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #46 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18
16:03:20 UTC ---
that seems reasonable if the result can be cached - otherwise it's potentially
a big hit.
We don't really care about performances here: a signal has
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #47 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-18 16:22:10
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #46)
that seems reasonable if the result can be cached - otherwise it's
potentially
a big hit.
We don't really care about
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47485
nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo