http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51966
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25
08:12:02 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Jan 25 08:11:56 2012
New Revision: 183511
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183511
Log:
2012-01-25 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51966
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51990
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25 08:39:23 UTC ---
tentative fix:
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c
===
--- gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c (revision 183325)
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43395
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|patch |diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51990
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48308
--- Comment #20 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-25 08:52:43 UTC ---
Author: ramana
Date: Wed Jan 25 08:52:39 2012
New Revision: 183512
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183512
Log:
2012-01-25
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51985
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29751
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25
09:14:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Created attachment 25847 [details]
more correct patch
An updated patch which is more correct than the previous patch and it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51968
--- Comment #9 from Eric Batut eric.batut at allegorithmic dot com 2012-01-25
09:43:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Fixed.
Great, many thanks !
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51879
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26430|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51989
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25
09:48:32 UTC ---
not a gcc bug, you're code is invalid - values of default arguments are not
part of the function type and do not take part in deduction
you can do it in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51989
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51991
Bug #: 51991
Summary: Wrong error message with variables named SAVE*
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: fortran-dev
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51992
Bug #: 51992
Summary: internal compiler error: tree code ‘target_expr’ is
not supported in LTO streams
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51990
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25 10:15:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
This extension is not even documented, see PR 37428 for more info.
There are at least these 3 examples in the testsuite that use this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51993
Bug #: 51993
Summary: Erroneous type component initialization leads to
internal compiler error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: fortran-dev
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
Bug #: 51994
Summary: [4.6/4.7 Regression] git-1.7.8.3 miscompiled due to
negative bitpos from get_inner_reference
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51992
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
Bug #: 51995
Summary: Polymorphic class fails at runtime
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41600
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=29751
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51989
--- Comment #6 from Leonid Volnitsky leonid at volnitsky dot com 2012-01-25
10:29:29 UTC ---
Also, new is_containerT with decltype, have value == 0 for any, non-void
type.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43311
Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51990
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=51986
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=51985
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=51984
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
]
and
4.7.0 20120125 Rev. 183512 (with some unrelated patches)
and all gave exactly the same error:
j = a%j
1
Error: 'j' at (1) is not a member of the 'mytyp' structure
I wonder why it does not work for you with GCC 4.7 2011-11-19.
I do not recall any issue, but it might have been
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
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=51995
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-01-25
10:59:09 UTC ---
I confirm that on x86_64-apple-darwin10 from
gcc version 4.6.0 20100723 (experimental) [trunk revision 162456] (GCC) up to
now,
gfortran gives the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51993
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25
11:05:41 UTC ---
Using today's GCC 4.7 and using one one-week-old one, it compiles without any
error.
It seems as if the bug has been already fixed - or it only affects
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51991
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
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=43311
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25
11:13:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Does the following code have undefined behavior?
typedef struct { unsigned char b1, b2; } __attribute__((aligned(8))) S;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25
11:15:09 UTC ---
Negative bitpos is fine - Ada uses that quite extensively and with MEM_REFs
this just got more prominent. get_inner_reference is declared to return
a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
--- Comment #4 from Prince jilfa12 at yahoo dot com 2012-01-25 11:16:29 UTC
---
Thanks Dominiq.
I tested the program on i686 GNU/Linux running on Ubuntu-Maverick using gcc
version 4.7.0 20120118 (experimental) (GCC).
Using ifort 12, it gives
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
--- Comment #6 from Prince jilfa12 at yahoo dot com 2012-01-25 11:20:58 UTC
---
Thanks for the prompt reply.
I tested the program on i686 GNU/Linux running on Ubuntu-Maverick using gcc
version 4.7.0 20120118 (experimental) (GCC).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-01-25 11:21:34
UTC ---
Created attachment 26459
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26459
Patch to fix function prototypes
To my surprise, attached patch fixes all git
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-01-25 11:39:11
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
What should happen instead is that store_field needs to adjust the address
to properly point before the bitfield for calling
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51990
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51990
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51989
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25
11:56:50 UTC ---
My code was only meant to show a possible problem with invalid expressions
using void* not to solve your issue. GCC's bugzilla isn't a tutorial site and
my
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49829
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25
12:01:44 UTC ---
Actually, please scratch that. I was using wrong abilist command line.
With:
readelf -Ws $1 | sed -n '/\.symtab/,$d;/ UND
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51996
Bug #: 51996
Summary: ICE in extract_insn gcc.dg/pr48335-5.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51989
--- Comment #8 from Leonid Volnitsky leonid at volnitsky dot com 2012-01-25
12:29:22 UTC ---
I understand that. And thank you for giving me a hint and code for
is_container, it was more than I expected if it was non-bug. I've made the
comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51996
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
/Softs/gcc-4.7.0-20120125/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.7.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk-source/gcc/configure
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --enable-checking=release --disable-bootstrap
--disable-libmudflap --enable-libgomp --enable-lto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25
12:41:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Created attachment 26459 [details]
Patch to fix function prototypes
To my surprise, attached patch fixes all git failures.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25
12:42:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Negative bitpos is fine - Ada uses that quite extensively and with MEM_REFs
this just got more prominent.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25
12:47:49 UTC ---
The problem seems to be the following:
One properly calls match_typebound_call, which sets base (alias primary) to
the symtree of db_connect (which is of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43311
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2012-01-25 12:56:30
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
No, s.b2 should be 1.
Thank you for the answer. In that case, the optimisation in comment #0 can't be
done in a general case (unless
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51991
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-01-25
12:59:39 UTC ---
Well, ok, the 2 tests are just different and should raise different errors.
Your original test gives
pr51991.f90:11.11:
j = a%j
1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51985
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51985
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51997
Bug #: 51997
Summary: LTO does not inline available builtin implementations
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43311
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=51997
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25
13:18:56 UTC ---
The original discussion/motivation on this started here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg01258.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #7 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-01-25 13:19:32
UTC ---
Testcase that crashes on alpha:
--cut here--
extern void abort (void);
char __attribute__((noinline))
test (int a)
{
char buf[] = 0123456789;
char *output
-4.7.0-20120125/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.7.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk-source/gcc/configure
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --enable-checking=release --disable-bootstrap
--disable-libmudflap --enable-libgomp --enable-lto --enable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48374
--- Comment #3 from Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25
13:20:47 UTC ---
Author: abel
Date: Wed Jan 25 13:20:43 2012
New Revision: 183519
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183519
Log:
gcc:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51991
--- Comment #6 from Sebastien Bardeau bardeau at iram dot fr 2012-01-25
13:29:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 26461
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26461
Correct version this time.
Sorry, previous version had no problem. The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51991
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-01-25
13:32:34 UTC ---
... I do observe the error reported in my first message with gfortran trunk
...
I am quite confused: in order to have 'savej' in the error message,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51995
--- Comment #9 from Prince jilfa12 at yahoo dot com 2012-01-25 13:32:50 UTC
---
Using five days old gcc version 4.7.0 20120120 (experimental) (GCC),
the problem still persists.
I think the problem has not been fixed for the i686 architecture.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #8 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-01-25 13:33:43
UTC ---
And the test in Comment #7 exposed the same problem in extract_bit_field co.
#19 0x005801f4 in extract_bit_field (str_rtx=0x2e85b760,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51991
--- Comment #8 from Sebastien Bardeau bardeau at iram dot fr 2012-01-25
13:36:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
... I do observe the error reported in my first message with gfortran trunk
...
I am quite confused: in order to have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25
14:08:41 UTC ---
At least at this point I'd feel much safer if libstdc++ used just acq_rel
semantics for the all atomic_fetch_and_add places, instead of somewhere acq and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51992
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51844
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25
14:10:07 UTC ---
Ping?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51998
Bug #: 51998
Summary: compiler hangs on self-recursive alias attribute
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51998
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=51994
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26459|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51986
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51981
--- Comment #3 from Aliaksandr Valialkin valyala at gmail dot com 2012-01-25
14:38:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
It looks like it would be equivalent to uninitialized_copy with
make_move_iterator, not so useful then.
This makes sense,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #10 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-01-25 14:41:39
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Testcase that crashes on alpha:
Actually, the test in comment #7 exposed the problem, but was not 100% correct.
This one is:
--cut
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51998
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=51994
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=51934
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51981
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51981
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2012-01-25
15:02:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
It looks like it would be equivalent to uninitialized_copy with
make_move_iterator, not so useful
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48794
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #8 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25 15:14:29
UTC ---
At least at this point I'd feel much safer if libstdc++ used just acq_rel
semantics for the all atomic_fetch_and_add places, instead of somewhere acq
and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51999
Bug #: 51999
Summary: gcc-4.7-20120114 v. AIX 6.1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48794
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25
15:33:53 UTC ---
Well, that is a different testcase for a different bug, better would be not to
reuse this one for that.
Are you working on it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Macleod amacleod at redhat dot com 2012-01-25
15:36:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
At least at this point I'd feel much safer if libstdc++ used just acq_rel
semantics for the all atomic_fetch_and_add places,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51987
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25
15:38:57 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 25 15:38:51 2012
New Revision: 183524
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183524
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798
--- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25
15:43:51 UTC ---
All that has to be done is replace the two __sync_fetch_and_add(...) with
__atomic_fetch_add(.., __ATOMIC_ACQ_REL) in atomicity.h isn't it?
In
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48794
--- Comment #8 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25 15:54:29
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Well, that is a different testcase for a different bug, better would be not
to reuse this one for that.
Hmm, perhaps. Too late now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51844
Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51985
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-01-25
16:12:49 UTC ---
Untested fix. ...
I just finished to bootstrap revision 183518 with the patch. Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51991
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51987
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51998
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25 16:33:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I think fatal_error is undesirable, you should error on it somewhere and just
drop the alias attribute.
Jakub,
like this? :
...
Index: cgraph.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
--- Comment #22 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25
16:33:56 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 25 16:33:50 2012
New Revision: 183526
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183526
Log:
PR target/51934
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51998
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25
16:38:05 UTC ---
I think remove_attribute would be desirable too. But I wonder if it can't be
detected earlier than here. In any case, I'd like to hear Honza on this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51641
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=51992
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-25
17:16:39 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 25 17:16:28 2012
New Revision: 183527
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183527
Log:
PR c++/51992
*
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
