http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60375
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60658
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Mar 25 19:39:52 2014
New Revision: 208819
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208819root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/60658
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60656
Cong Hou congh at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||congh at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60628
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60646
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 03:36:35PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Can you be a little more specific on what you want
to investigate? AFAIK, the general
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60646
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
Created attachment 32455
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32455action=edit
cdiv.f90
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60656
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50606
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60656
--- Comment #4 from Cong Hou congh at google dot com ---
Yes, there is a quick fix: we can check if the def with vect_used_by_reduction
is immediately used by a reduction stmt. After all, it seems that
supportable_widening_operation() is the only
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60658
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Mar 25 20:13:46 2014
New Revision: 208820
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208820root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/60658
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50507
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60649
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60566
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60658
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Mar 25 20:40:17 2014
New Revision: 208821
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208821root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/60658
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60658
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50347
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60646
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Created attachment 32456
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32456action=edit
an improved complex division
Another variation on the same theme!
The test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60646
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 08:57:56PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60646
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60660
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60645
--- Comment #3 from Chris Johns chris at contemporary dot net.au ---
Yes I agree the error should not happen in this case. I apologise as I should
have looked for a better example to highlight the issue being discussed in the
RTEMS project.
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39525
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60604
Steve Ellcey sje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60465
--- Comment #7 from Mike Frysinger vapier at gentoo dot org ---
it's beyond my (ia64 beginners) experience to track this down further
i can certainly make available ssh access to interested devs ... it's a fast
system on a fast edu connection
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60654
--- Comment #2 from Martin Nowak code at dawg dot eu ---
Those are macros to declare strings in read-only flash memory.
http://www.nongnu.org/avr-libc/user-manual/group__avr__pgmspace.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58959
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60660
--- Comment #4 from Josh Triplett josh at joshtriplett dot org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
This is much harder than you think really. since you have to move all the
arguments of the callee function
That I'm aware of, but it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60661
Bug ID: 60661
Summary: DO CONCURRENT with MASK: Avoid using a temporary for
the mask
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60661
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that one needs to be careful to handle OpenACC/OpenMP correctly to make
sure that, e.g., !$acc loop remains attached to the loop it belongs to.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60465
--- Comment #8 from devurandom at gmx dot net ---
(In reply to Mike Frysinger from comment #7)
it's beyond my (ia64 beginners) experience to track this down further
i can certainly make available ssh access to interested devs ... it's a fast
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60645
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I would not be opposed to a patch improving error handling of such functions,
the calls in atexit_thread.cc are certainly allowed to fail and we should
handle it.
What is the right
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60645
--- Comment #5 from Chris Johns chris at contemporary dot net.au ---
I do not know what the right thing to do is for something like libstdc++ with
such a wide number of different users. I suspect a patch would be easy if the
path to take was
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60642
--- Comment #2 from Luke Allardyce lukeallardyce at gmail dot com ---
I thought the symbols weren't being mangled with the attribute on the
instantiation without the extra tag, but as it turns out they are, sorry.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60649
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Code wise, one has
rtx y;
((void) (!(((enum machine_mode) (x)-mode) ==
VOIDmode) ? fancy_abort (../../gcc/explow.c, 87, __FUNCTION__),
0 : 0));
restart:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60645
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60631
--- Comment #2 from Paul Preney paul at preney dot ca ---
It seems to the similar/equivalent. That said, clearly this is not a constexpr
issue (which bug 59296 does not demonstrate).
A concern of mine is that this appears to effectively,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58139
Maciej W. Rozycki ma...@linux-mips.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60662
Bug ID: 60662
Summary: simple use of call_once throws a system_error
exception, but not if sleep_for is called beforehand
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #40 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 25-Mar-14, at 11:14 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #39 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot
ens.fr ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60315
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Mar 26 02:11:57 2014
New Revision: 208831
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208831root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR ipa/60315
* cif-code.def (UNREACHABLE)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60315
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The compile time hog issue is fixed now. We still fix the predicates for
switch statement (to get pass NOP_EXPR) since it seems very common pattern.
Richard: I suppose we can't fold
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60642
--- Comment #3 from Luke Allardyce lukeallardyce at gmail dot com ---
On further inspection it looks like vtable symbols for template classes are not
being tagged
struct __attribute((abi_tag(test))) foo
{
void f();
virtual ~foo();
};
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60243
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
BTW, compiled with C++ FE we seem to have important bottleneck in
linemap_macro_map_lookup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60645
--- Comment #7 from Chris Johns chris at contemporary dot net.au ---
Thanks and the timing is fine. I saw this as a long term issue. We have a
working rtems thread model that is SMP safe so we are fine for now.
101 - 144 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
