http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52129
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=52131
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52132
Bug #: 52132
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE in loc_descriptor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48374
--- Comment #5 from Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
08:32:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Seems you forgot to actually add the test case.
Thanks, I forgot to svn add, fixed in 183928.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52132
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=52132
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
08:34:22 UTC ---
int l;
void bar (void);
void
foo (int *x, float y)
{
float b;
union { float f; int i; } u = { .f = y };
u.i += 127 23;
u.f = ((-1.0f / 3) * u.f + 2)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52133
Bug #: 52133
Summary: Undefined Symbol to _Bind_simple_helper
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52088
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52091
Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52128
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mario-baumann at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52133
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52128
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
09:32:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 26579
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26579
does this patch fix it?
I can't reproduce this on
i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52128
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52129
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=52132
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
10:23:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 26581
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26581
gcc47-pr52132.patch
Untested fix. What get_true_reg does might be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52118
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-06 10:31:23 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Feb 6 10:31:18 2012
New Revision: 183932
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183932
Log:
2012-02-06 Paolo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52118
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52134
Bug #: 52134
Summary: Does not fold (x * 4) -4
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51514
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[OOP] Wrong code when |[OOP] Wrong code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
--- Comment #7 from Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
12:10:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Can this be applied to 4.5/4.6 please?
Well, the patch was approved for trunk only, but it is committed for two weeks
now and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
12:26:48 UTC ---
Yes, it is ok for the affected branches if bootstrap/regtest passes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994
--- Comment #35 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
12:29:06 UTC ---
So your patch is probably ok (can you try verifying we don't get
(too much) codegen differences on a bootstrap?)
There are no differences for a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51929
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52128
--- Comment #4 from Mario Baumann mario-baumann at web dot de 2012-02-06
12:41:11 UTC ---
Hi Jonathan,
the attached fix works for bug 52133. Thanks!
Mario.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52128
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
12:46:27 UTC ---
Great, thanks for testing it, I'll check it in this evening.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52115
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52115
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|avr |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52136
Bug #: 52136
Summary: g++ is wrongly propagating friend class to the
parent class
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52129
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
13:33:09 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 6 13:33:05 2012
New Revision: 183933
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183933
Log:
PR target/52129
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52129
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
13:35:18 UTC ---
Fixed on the trunk so far.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52136
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
13:40:08 UTC ---
EDG and Solaris CC also accept it, clang doesn't
The code looks similar to this example from [class.protected] in the standard:
class B {
protected:
int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
13:43:06 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Feb 6 13:43:03 2012
New Revision: 183934
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183934
Log:
2012-02-06 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52136
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
13:50:40 UTC ---
I think G++ is correct here.
[class.protected]p1
An additional access check beyond those described earlier in Clause 11 is
applied when a non-static data
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38342
--- Comment #13 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
13:55:09 UTC ---
For avr-libc users, please f'up to
http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?33716
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52136
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51514
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
14:04:29 UTC ---
Created attachment 26583
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26583
Completely untested/not compiled draft patch
The attached patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52134
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52136
--- Comment #4 from Sylvestre Ledru sylvestre at debian dot org 2012-02-06
14:08:21 UTC ---
I found this bug (or behavior) while playing with clang.
I am not really sure to understand why friend class should impact his parent
but if g++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51528
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||52115
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41587
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52136
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
14:24:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I am not really sure to understand why friend class should impact his parent
but if g++ respects the standard, why not...
It
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52060
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2012-02-03 00:00:00 |2012-02-06
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52047
Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52047
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
14:42:11 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Mon Feb 6 14:42:07 2012
New Revision: 183936
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183936
Log:
PR middle-end/52047
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52047
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52115
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
14:54:54 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Feb 6 14:54:47 2012
New Revision: 183937
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183937
Log:
2012-02-06 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7125
Richard Purdie richard.purdie at linuxfoundation dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52115
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52117
--- Comment #2 from steven hirshman sphirshman at yahoo dot com 2012-02-06
15:37:35 UTC ---
Thank you for the information. THe work-around works with the newer (4.6.2)
compiler, but is unrecognized by older versions of gcc that are in use on -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52128
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-02-06
16:03:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Created attachment 26579 [details]
does this patch fix it?
It does, thanks.
What configure command are you running?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51500
gee jojelino at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26574|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7125
--- Comment #11 from Richard Purdie richard.purdie at linuxfoundation dot org
2012-02-06 16:23:16 UTC ---
Sorry, my previous report should be disregarded as it was user error. The
option does appear to work for me, removing the zlib compile where
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52137
Bug #: 52137
Summary: bdver2 scheduler needs to be added to bdver1 insn
reservations
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52137
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52060
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
17:44:36 UTC ---
Created attachment 26586
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26586
gcc47-pr52060.patch
I think the important question is if it is ok that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52117
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
17:45:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Thank you for the information. THe work-around works with the newer (4.6.2)
compiler, but is unrecognized by older versions of gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52138
Bug #: 52138
Summary: Operations on complex values are not inlined, even
with -O3
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52138
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=52138
--- Comment #2 from Pedro gonnet at maths dot ox.ac.uk 2012-02-06 18:33:11
UTC ---
I'm a bit confused... In the gfortran output the multiplication only about 40
bytes. Does that mean that gfortran is using a reduced range by default?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52138
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=52138
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-02-06
18:58:00 UTC ---
From the manual:
-fcx-limited-range
When enabled, this option states that a range reduction step is not needed when
performing complex division. Also,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52138
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52134
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||TREE
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52117
--- Comment #4 from steven hirshman sphirshman at yahoo dot com 2012-02-06
19:45:53 UTC ---
Thanks. I tried the -std=f95 flag and it gave the same (wrong) answer as
without it, in the test code I sent you. What is not Fortran95 compatible with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52139
Bug #: 52139
Summary: ICE: in remove_insn, at emit-rtl.c:3960 with -O -fPIC
-fno-tree-dominator-opts -fno-tree-fre --param
case-values-threshold=1
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52088
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
19:52:47 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Feb 6 19:52:43 2012
New Revision: 183940
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183940
Log:
PR c++/52088
* cvt.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52088
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52139
Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26587|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48490
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52117
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
20:01:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Thanks. I tried the -std=f95 flag and it gave the same (wrong) answer as
without it, in the test code I sent you. What is not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52139
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=48491
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52140
Bug #: 52140
Summary: ICE in Libdfp testcase when compiled with soft-dfp (no
-mcpu).
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52140
--- Comment #1 from Ryan S. Arnold rsa at us dot ibm.com 2012-02-06 20:46:00
UTC ---
Created attachment 26589
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26589
preprocessed .i file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52140
--- Comment #2 from Ryan S. Arnold rsa at us dot ibm.com 2012-02-06 20:46:34
UTC ---
Created attachment 26590
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26590
Preprocessed .s file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52140
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52141
Bug #: 52141
Summary: [trans-mem] ICE due to asm statement in
trans-mem.c:expand_block_tm
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52140
--- Comment #4 from Ryan S. Arnold rsa at us dot ibm.com 2012-02-06 20:51:01
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Have you tried an FSF released 4.6.2?
This also fails in the same way with:
gcc version 4.6.3 20111209 (Advance-Toolchain-5.0-2)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52128
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
20:51:57 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Feb 6 20:51:52 2012
New Revision: 183942
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183942
Log:
PR libstdc++/52128
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52142
Bug #: 52142
Summary: [trans-mem] inlined transaction_pure functions are
instrumented
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52044
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32373
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
21:25:00 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Feb 6 21:24:54 2012
New Revision: 183943
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183943
Log:
2012-02-06 Thomas König
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52128
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52035
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52126
--- Comment #3 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06 21:31:30 UTC ---
I'll be assigning myself to this bug when I come back from vacation next
monday.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52143
Bug #: 52143
Summary: [OOP] ICE with polymorphic function result in
gfc_class_vptr_get
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52142
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com
2012-02-06 21:35:09 UTC ---
Created attachment 26593
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26593
another testcase but with an asm statement
the asm statement is in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28685
--- Comment #19 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-02-06 21:36:01
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Another similar, but yet different case:
Yet another similar test:
int test (int a, int b)
{
int lt = a + b 0;
int eq = a + b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52104
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
21:37:09 UTC ---
please let me know what issues remain on Solaris after r183920
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50969
--- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
21:39:38 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Feb 6 21:39:34 2012
New Revision: 183944
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183944
Log:
2012-02-06 Bill
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30442
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2007-01-14 05:01:04 |2012-02-06
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50969
William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51825
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
21:55:33 UTC ---
Seems to be related to PR 49791, though the patch in PR 49791 comment 19 does
not help.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52107
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06 22:09:17
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Mon Feb 6 22:09:13 2012
New Revision: 183945
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183945
Log:
PR target/52107
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49791
--- Comment #20 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
22:18:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
--- ../../libgfortran/io/list_read.c(Revision 183913)
@@ -2206,3 +2211,4 @@ nml_parse_qualifier (st_parameter_dt *dt
@@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52132
Piero Finizio p.finizio at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p.finizio at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52144
Bug #: 52144
Summary: ARM should support arm/thumb function attribute to
permit different instruction sets in the same source
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52132
--- Comment #4 from Piero Finizio p.finizio at gmail dot com 2012-02-06
23:01:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Created attachment 26581 [details]
gcc47-pr52132.patch
Untested fix. What get_true_reg does might be reasonable for code where
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52144
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm*-*-*
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo