http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51796
Bug #: 51796
Summary: [4.7 regression] internal compiler error: in
distribute_notes, at combine.c:13285 for
libgomp/alloc.c on m68k-linux
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23383
--- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-01-09 08:37:21 UTC ---
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23383
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23383
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-01-09 08:39:37 UTC ---
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012, xinliangli at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23383
--- Comment #20 from davidxl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51797
Bug #: 51797
Summary: Arm backend missed the mls related optimization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33919
--- Comment #6 from gfunck at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09 08:48:51 UTC ---
Author: gfunck
Date: Mon Jan 9 08:48:43 2012
New Revision: 183003
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183003
Log:
libcpp/
PR preprocessor/33919
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51784
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=51787
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=51796
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=51659
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09
09:18:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 26277
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26277
preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51659
Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51638
Sebastien Bardeau bardeau at iram dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26153|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51638
--- Comment #12 from Sebastien Bardeau bardeau at iram dot fr 2012-01-09
09:23:41 UTC ---
Dear Tobias,
many thanks for your help and for the many alternatives you gave us. We are
still discussing which one is the best to choose in our context,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41929
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09
09:50:26 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Jan 9 09:50:19 2012
New Revision: 183005
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183005
Log:
PR ada/41929
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41929
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09
09:50:47 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Jan 9 09:50:42 2012
New Revision: 183006
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183006
Log:
PR ada/41929
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51680
--- Comment #16 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09
09:58:52 UTC ---
This should not be fixed in the early inliner at all.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51638
--- Comment #13 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09
10:01:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
I am surprised to see that none of the compilers I tested (gfortran, ifort,
g95) complain about the fact that the same variable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51173
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||torvald at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48625
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-01-09
10:23:06 UTC ---
libitm.c/memcpy-1.c and memset-1.c are still failing in 32 bit mode on
*86*-*-*. From
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51775
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|ada
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09 10:55:06
UTC ---
Just for once, all the tests pass on powerpc-darwin9 (m32 m64) [last tested
182949].
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42954
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P5
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51773
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51793
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-pc-solaris2.11 |x86_64-*-*,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51784
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09
12:04:30 UTC ---
Please figure out where the address-space information is lost.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49642
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51777
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=18589
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51770
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51775
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|ebotcazou at gcc dot|rguenth at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51796
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18589
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09
13:06:34 UTC ---
Sure, I'll at least have a look at it when I get some time.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51578
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09
13:11:11 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Jan 9 13:11:05 2012
New Revision: 183010
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183010
Log:
2012-01-09 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51578
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51796
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-01-09
13:19:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 26279
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26279
reduced test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51522
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51522
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-01-09
13:38:38 UTC ---
With the following change
--- pr51522.f902011-12-13 00:17:20.0 +0100
+++ pr51522_db.f902012-01-09 12:15:44.0 +0100
@@ -265,9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51758
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51758
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-01-09
13:48:14 UTC ---
See patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-01/msg00066.html .
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51775
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51775
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09
14:06:41 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 9 14:06:31 2012
New Revision: 183012
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183012
Log:
2012-01-09 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50855
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48051
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09
14:15:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 26280
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26280
testsuite patch showing wrong mangling
The change checked in above fixes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51322
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51792
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
--- Comment #11 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com
2012-01-09 14:27:18 UTC ---
libitm.c/memcpy-1.c and memset-1.c are still failing in 32 bit mode on
*86*-*-*.
Fix proposed here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50199
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
Bug #: 51798
Summary: [4.7 regression] libstdc++ atomicity performance
regression due to __sync_fetch_and_add
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50237
--- Comment #34 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09
14:31:30 UTC ---
Another possible fix is to drop autodetecting the feature (defaulting to
the old behavior) and requiring --enable-init_array at configure time.
HJ,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #1 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09 14:37:35
UTC ---
Proposed patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2012-01/msg00044.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50561
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09
14:41:04 UTC ---
Re-confirmed. Reduced testcase:
void f (unsigned *s)
{
int n;
for (n = 0; n 256; n++)
s[n] = 0;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50913
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09
15:14:30 UTC ---
There is a disconnect on how we analyze data-references during SCOP detection
(outermost_loop is the root of the loop tree) and during SESE-to-poly where
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51680
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-01-09 15:18:43
UTC ---
This should not be fixed in the early inliner at all.
Well, it is not (just to summarize the disucssion on ML). The change is into
IPA inliner.
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50199
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-01-09 15:19:30
UTC ---
-flto-partition=none is a workaround for 4.7 compiler.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
--- Comment #13 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com
2012-01-09 15:22:45 UTC ---
As posted here http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01804.html, GCC
explicitly change the calling convention to stdcall when variable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51791
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=50561
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50913
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51766
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51766
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09
15:45:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
The docs of __sync_* say
This builtin is not a full barrier, but rather an @dfn{acquire barrier}.
This means that references
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48075
Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51252
Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51766
--- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09 16:49:10
UTC ---
It says above them In most cases, these
builtins are considered a full barrier. and only __sync_lock_test_and_set and
__sync_lock_release specify different
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51796
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09
16:52:57 UTC ---
I guess the assert should be adjusted, from gcc_assert (old_size != args_size);
to gcc_assert (old_size != args_size || find_reg_note (i3, REG_NORETURN,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
--- Comment #14 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com
2012-01-09 16:52:47 UTC ---
From http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Function-Attributes.html
regparm (number)
... Functions that take a variable number of arguments will
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
--- Comment #62 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-09 16:55:24 UTC ---
Author: ramana
Date: Mon Jan 9 16:55:16 2012
New Revision: 183019
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183019
Log:
2012-01-09
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09 17:11:32
UTC ---
Another alternative is to modify __gnu_cxx::_atomic_add() to perform acquire
semantics for positive increments and release semantics for negative
increments.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51779
--- Comment #9 from Tim Williams zippy at anl dot gov 2012-01-09 17:15:06 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #4)
I forgot to mention that there exist also unofficial binaries for MacOS at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranBinaries#MacOS
Thus, that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51799
Bug #: 51799
Summary: Compiler ICE in vect_is_simple_use_1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51787
--- Comment #3 from Douglas Mencken dougmencken at gmail dot com 2012-01-09
17:43:20 UTC ---
I can re-confirm that snapshots 4.7-20111231, 4.7-20120107 do fail (can't enter
this into Known to fail field, because despite that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51779
--- Comment #10 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-01-09
17:45:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Thanks, Tobias. I did try out the gfortran 4.6.2 from here, and it does
compile
runnable code. Unfortunately, it still does
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51775
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48231
DJ Delorie dj at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dj at redhat dot com
* | grep -e 'glibc-[0-9]' | sort -u
glibc-2.12-1.47.el6.i686
glibc-2.12-1.47.el6.x86_64
g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/app2/gcc/4.7.0-20120109-svn183001/i686/libexec/gcc/i686-unknown-linux-gnu/4.7.0/lto-wrapper
Target: i686-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51800
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51759
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09
18:40:16 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jan 9 18:40:09 2012
New Revision: 183023
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183023
Log:
2012-01-09 Martin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51633
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51801
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45644
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09
18:40:17 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jan 9 18:40:09 2012
New Revision: 183023
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183023
Log:
2012-01-09 Martin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51801
Bug #: 51801
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE in inline_small_functions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51252
--- Comment #11 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-01-09 18:44:24 UTC ---
On 1/9/2012 10:55 AM, patrick.marlier at gmail dot com wrote:
Do all libitm tests passed on PA?
All tm tests pass on PA (well, there is one that fails on 32-bit HP-UX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51758
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09
19:01:44 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Mon Jan 9 19:01:34 2012
New Revision: 183024
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183024
Log:
2012-01-09 Mikael Morin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50023
Tobias Grosser grosser at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51759
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09
19:52:13 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jan 9 19:52:06 2012
New Revision: 183029
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183029
Log:
2012-01-09 Martin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51197
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51197
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09
19:53:32 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Jan 9 19:53:27 2012
New Revision: 183030
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183030
Log:
2012-01-09 Harald Anlauf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51759
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09
20:03:15 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jan 9 20:03:08 2012
New Revision: 183031
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183031
Log:
2012-01-09 Martin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51759
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45644
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nobled at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
--- Comment #33 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2012-01-09 20:13:08 UTC ---
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 04:14:08PM +, bkorb at gnu dot org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51705
--- Comment #32 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51791
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09 20:26:05
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jan 9 20:25:55 2012
New Revision: 183032
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183032
Log:
2012-01-09 Paul Thomas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51792
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09 20:26:14
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jan 9 20:25:55 2012
New Revision: 183032
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183032
Log:
2012-01-09 Paul Thomas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51791
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51792
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-09
20:30:35 UTC ---
It's scalar replacement of aggregates:
With -O1 code is wrong.
With -O1 -fno-tree-sra code is correct.
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
