--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 06:28 ---
The extremely long location lists are caused mainly by reverse_op created
equivalences. Wonder whether we shouldn't on RHS replace sp and sp + const_int
with framep and framep + const_int even outside of memory
extern struct { int a, b, c, d; } v;
extern int w;
void
foo (void)
{
int e1 = v.a;
int e2 = w;
int e3 = v.b;
int e4 = v.c;
int e5 = v.d;
__asm__ volatile (/* %0 %1 %2 %3 %4 */ : : nro (e1), nro (e2), nro
(e3), nro (e4), nro (e5));
}
with -O2 -m32 gives:
xlog.i: In function 'foo':
The example program below will exhibit the problem when compiled with
-std=c++0x or gnu++0x flag. The fix appears to be trivial, but requires a
change to ext/algorithm header.
Example program:
#include iostream
#include ext/rope
using namespace std;
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
--- Comment #1 from pzhao at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 08:34 ---
Confirmed.
--
pzhao at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||44592
nThis||
Target
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 08:45 ---
More like a target issue.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
I think at least some of the following block-leaving statements are valid,
probably all. Besides some issues of the type 'rejects valid' there is a big
wrong-code question:
The allocatable objects need to be freed and derived types finalized when one
leaves the scope of the block. How to handle
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 08:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=21035)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21035action=view)
gcc46-pr44694.patch
With this patchlet the compile time on ginac.ii went down from more than 3
minutes to 16
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 09:09 ---
readelf -wo ginac.o1 | grep 'End of' | wc -l; readelf -wo ginac.o2 | grep 'End
of' | wc -l; readelf -wo ginac.o1 | wc -l; readelf -wo ginac.o2 | wc -l;
readelf -wo ginac.o1 | grep fbreg | wc -l; readelf -wo ginac.o2 |
Starting from revision 160625
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg01155.html) if-conversion
generates redundant statements for
for (i = 0; i N; i++)
if (arr[i] limit)
{
pos = i + 1;
limit = arr[i];
}
# pos_22 = PHI pos_1(4), 1(2)
# i_23 = PHI
--- Comment #1 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2010-06-29 09:11 ---
Created an attachment (id=21036)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21036action=view)
Full testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44710
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-29 09:15
---
Fixing momentarily, thanks.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44708
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 09:24
---
Subject: Bug 44659
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Jun 29 09:24:34 2010
New Revision: 161523
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161523
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/44659
* combine.c
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44706
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 09:49 ---
Guess something like:
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/asm-es-2.c 2009-07-20 20:41:46.0
+0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/asm-es-2.c 2010-06-29 11:37:05.482959217
+0200
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ f2 (int
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 10:04 ---
Subject: Bug 44708
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Jun 29 10:03:36 2010
New Revision: 161524
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161524
Log:
2010-06-29 Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com
PR
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 10:04 ---
Subject: Bug 44708
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Jun 29 10:04:01 2010
New Revision: 161525
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161525
Log:
2010-06-29 Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com
PR
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-29 10:04
---
Fixed.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Summary|If-conversion generates
For the following loop
for (i = 0; i N; i++)
if (arr[i] limit)
{
pos = i + 1;
limit = arr[i];
}
PRE fails to eliminate redundant i_24 + 1 computation.
Here is Richard's analysis from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg02982.html:
So the reason is
--- Comment #1 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2010-06-29 11:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=21037)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21037action=view)
Full testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44711
--- Comment #2 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-06-29 11:00 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
- asm (asm2%U0 %0 : =m (*p));
+ asm (asm2%U0 %0 : =m (*p));
That fixed the test case. Thanks. I didn't know about the PowerPC-specific %U
thing, but now I see that the compiler did
--- Comment #3 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 11:31 ---
Can you perhaps run the testsuite without bootstrapping
(configure --disable-bootstrap; make; make check) to see if there occurs some
more obvious bug than a miscompilation of genmodes? Debugging bootstrap
--- Comment #4 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-06-29 12:06 ---
On revision 161462 with the patch of revision 161496 I have located the problem
in:
static void
create_modes (void)
{
/* make_int_mode (BI, 1, 1, ../../work/gcc/machmode.def, 176); */
make_int_mode (QI, -1U, 1,
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 12:07 ---
Note that the issue is that PRE pessimizes code by transforming
if (D.3841_10 != 0)
goto bb 4;
else
goto bb 7;
bb 7:
goto bb 5;
bb 4:
pos_11 = i_24 + 1;
bb 5:
# pos_1 = PHI pos_23(7), pos_11(4)
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 12:12 ---
Subject: Bug 44667
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 29 12:12:10 2010
New Revision: 161527
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161527
Log:
2010-06-29 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 12:24 ---
Fixed on the trunk. Probably not worth to fix on the branch though as it
is a checking-only ICE.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
/* { dg-options -g -O2 } */
extern void abort (void);
extern void exit (int);
extern int printf (const char *, ...);
static int
foo (int x)
{
typedef int T;
T z = 2 * x;
if (x = 0)
{
printf (foo\n);
printf (foo\n);
printf (foo\n);
exit (0);
}
return 6;
}
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 13:09 ---
Subject: Bug 44133
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Jun 29 13:08:46 2010
New Revision: 161532
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161532
Log:
2010-06-29 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
Backport
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 13:10 ---
This is now fixed on both the trunk and the 4.5 branch.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 13:16 ---
4.5 patch submitted to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg02896.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43905
--- Comment #5 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-06-29 13:24 ---
Created an attachment (id=21038)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21038action=view)
reduced test
The reduced test gives an ICE:
[macbook] f90/bug% /opt/gcc/gcc4.6bw/bin/gcc -c -O2 genmodes.c
Thanks for opening PR on this. One thing I was planning to look into soon is
to make
progress at least reversible - i.e. find way to declare the fact that function
is part
of another in GCC and make inliner to produce the problem block tree after
inlining
them back together.
I wonder what the
--- Comment #1 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-06-29 13:25 ---
Subject: Re: New: Debug info for partially inlined
functions
Thanks for opening PR on this. One thing I was planning to look into soon is
to make
progress at least reversible - i.e. find way to declare the fact
--- Comment #6 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-06-29 13:30 ---
The backtrace for the reduced test of comment #5 is
Program received signal EXC_BAD_ACCESS, Could not access memory.
Reason: KERN_INVALID_ADDRESS at address: 0x0022
0x0001007c320a in execute_vrp ()
--- Comment #14 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 13:44 ---
Subject: Bug 43902
Author: bernds
Date: Tue Jun 29 13:43:57 2010
New Revision: 161533
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161533
Log:
PR target/43902
* config/arm/arm.md (maddsidi4,
--- Comment #7 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 13:47 ---
Is /opt/gcc/gcc4.6bw/bin/gcc a bootstrapped compiler or one created without
bootstrapping?
The initial comment didn't reveal it, so maybe my assumption that it's a
miscompiled cc1 is wrong. So, just to be crystal
--- Comment #2 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 13:56 ---
Mine.
Patch 0005 of http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg02250.html
fixes exactly this problem. I have not yet worked on correcting the patch
as Richi asked.
--
spop at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 14:11 ---
Created an attachment (id=21039)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21039action=view)
gcc46-pr44694.patch
Updated patch that actually passed bootstrap/regtested on x86_64-linux and
i686-linux. When
On Linux/x86, revison 161530:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-06/msg01448.html
caused:
../../src-trunk/gcc/config/i386/i386.c: At top level:
../../src-trunk/gcc/config/i386/i386.c:30995:8: error: initialization from
incompatible pointer type [-Werror]
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44713
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 14:15 ---
The patch also misses doc/tm.texi pieces.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 14:19 ---
My build fails with (x86_64):
libbackend.a(i386.o): In function `ix86_setup_incoming_varargs':
/space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/config/i386/i386.c:7050: undefined reference
to `function_arg_advance'
collect2: ld
I am trying to install the new version of gcc and am getting an error in the
process.
Version of gcc: 4.5.0
System type: Ubuntu 10.04
I downloaded the package gcc-4.5.0.tar.gz from
ftp://ftp.fu-berlin.de/unix/languages/gcc/releases/gcc-4.5.0/ and extracted the
file to my Desktop directory and I
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-06-29 14:31 ---
More errors/warnings on i386.c:
../../src-trunk/gcc/config/i386/i386.c: In function
'ix86_function_arg_advance':
../../src-trunk/gcc/config/i386/i386.c:6086:5: error: passing argument 3 of
'function_arg_advance_64'
--- Comment #8 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-06-29 14:36 ---
Is /opt/gcc/gcc4.6bw/bin/gcc a bootstrapped compiler or one created without
bootstrapping?
Sorry for the confusion. /opt/gcc/gcc4.6bw/bin/gcc was built with revision
161462 and the patch of revision 161496 (see
--- Comment #9 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 14:48 ---
Yes, but I'm asking if it was a bootstrapped compiler (in difference to one
built with configuring with --disable-bootstrap) or not.
If it was a bootstrapped compiler, are you saying that bootstrap fails with
r161501
--- Comment #10 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-06-29 14:57 ---
Yes, but I'm asking if it was a bootstrapped compiler (in difference to one
built with configuring with --disable-bootstrap) or not.
If it was a bootstrapped compiler, are you saying that bootstrap fails with
--- Comment #1 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 15:09 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
sudo make
There's no need to build as root.
Then I found out I needed GMP, MPFR, and MPC installed. I downloaded the
packages to my desktop and built and installed them, several times
--- Comment #11 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 15:15 ---
I can reproduce now. It's also the non-bootstrapped compiler failing with
the testcase, thanks for that. I'm on it.
--
matz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 15:20 ---
also, please check whether this is the same issue as Bug 43819 (did you search
for existing bugs with cannot compute suffix before entering a bug?)
It's likely you need to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH so that libgmp etc can be
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 15:24 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 15:43 ---
Fixed then.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from froydnj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 15:57 ---
Subject: Bug 44713
Author: froydnj
Date: Tue Jun 29 15:57:06 2010
New Revision: 161540
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161540
Log:
PR bootstrap/44713
* config/i386/i386.c
The following program exhibits different behavior with gcc vs. g++:
dgregor$ cat t.c
#include stdio.h
int main()
{
int i;
for( i = 0; i 3; )
for( ; ; ({ i++; break; }) )
printf( %d\n, i );
}
With gcc, the break in the statement expression applies to the outer for
loop, so we get
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 16:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=21040)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21040action=view)
gcc46-pr43801.patch
Untested fix.
I think for !DECL_ONE_ONLY decls we can put the virtual clone in the same
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 16:28 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #13 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 16:30 ---
Fixed on the trunk, unfixed on the branch.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-06-29 16:36 ---
Subject: Re: New: Break in increment expression of for
statement inconsistent with g++
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010, doug dot gregor at gmail dot com wrote:
g++ seems to have the right behavior here, and in any case
What does a break with a statement expression do for each frontend? Is
it even valid to have a break there(without a statement expression)?
If it is valid, what does each standard say about the break there? If
they say the same thing then I say both frontends should behave the
same but if
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2010-06-29 16:40 ---
Subject: Re: New: Break in increment expression of for statement
inconsistent with g++
What does a break with a statement expression do for each frontend? Is
it even valid to have a break there(without a statement
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-06-29 16:46 ---
Subject: Re: Break in increment expression of for statement
inconsistent with g++
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010, pinskia at gmail dot com wrote:
What does a break with a statement expression do for each frontend? Is
--- Comment #1 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 16:56
---
I agree, this looks like a longstanding bug in
rs6000_legitimize_reload_address.
What happens here is that find_reloads is called on this insn:
(insn 15 8 18 2 pr44707.c:13 (asm_operands/v (/* %0 %1 %2 %3 %4 */)
--- Comment #2 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 17:03
---
Created an attachment (id=21041)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21041action=view)
Recognize (lo_sum (high ...) ...) in rs6000_legitimize_reload_address
It seems to me that simply extending
--- Comment #4 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 17:32 ---
Reopening, this is a bug. The address of a static member function is a valid
address constant expression: it's a pointer to a function, in this case created
implicitly.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #5 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 17:34 ---
tweaking summary a bit.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 17:34 ---
Dupe of 35167, which I have now reopened.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 35167 ***
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 17:34 ---
*** Bug 41544 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
The ia64-hp-hpux11.23 platform fails when building the C++ library during a
bootstrap build with r161382. r161381 works. r161521, which has some bug
fixes, still fails. The failure only occurs with bootstrap, the compiler
faults when building the libstdc++ library.
Compiling the following code:
extern C static void test();
with a 4.5.1 snapshot results in:
test.cpp:1:12: error: invalid use of static in linkage specification
The supposedly equivalent
extern C {
static void test();
}
works fine.
This used to work before (not sure what version).
--- Comment #6 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 18:22 ---
Subject: Bug 44034
Author: amylaar
Date: Tue Jun 29 18:22:00 2010
New Revision: 161547
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161547
Log:
gcc:
PR other/44034
* target.def,
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 18:23 ---
There was only a few version of GCC which accepted this. They were incorrectly
accepting it. See PR 26068 for the versions which accepted it (marked as known
to fail). This is invalid code.
*** This bug has been
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 18:23
---
*** Bug 44717 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from jbare7 at gmail dot com 2010-06-29 18:23 ---
sudo make
There's no need to build as root.
If I dont build as root I get errors with removing certain files due to lack
of permissions for some reason.
Then I found out I needed GMP, MPFR, and MPC installed. I
--- Comment #4 from jbare7 at gmail dot com 2010-06-29 18:29 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
also, please check whether this is the same issue as Bug 43819 (did you search
for existing bugs with cannot compute suffix before entering a bug?)
It's likely you need to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH
Reported by John McFarland at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-06/msg00286.html
If one uses
procedure(interface), pointer :: f
at multiple scopes of the same program, gfortran treats the proc-pointer name
(f) as external name - and thus rejects using it once as function and once as
subroutine
--- Comment #5 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 18:43 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
sudo make
There's no need to build as root.
If I dont build as root I get errors with removing certain files due to lack
of permissions for some reason.
That's because you've tried
--- Comment #12 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 18:45 ---
also fails when the bootstrap compiler is gcc-4.2 (apple 4.2.1).
i688-apple-darwin9 is ok for the same trunk rev.
--
iains at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 18:58 ---
Subject: Bug 44582
Author: pault
Date: Tue Jun 29 18:57:43 2010
New Revision: 161550
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161550
Log:
2010-06-29 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
Revision 161547:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-06/msg01465.html
caused:
Makefile:3712: warning: overriding commands for target `s-tm-texi'
Makefile:3710: warning: ignoring old commands for target `s-tm-texi'
The problem is the tab at
# check if someone mistakenly only changed tm.texi.
--- Comment #6 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 19:00 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Or if you install from your distro you need the development packages, for gmp
^ that should say for Ubuntu not for gmp
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44714
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #19 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 19:03 ---
Subject: Bug 44582
Author: pault
Date: Tue Jun 29 19:03:41 2010
New Revision: 161551
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161551
Log:
2010-06-29 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 19:06 ---
Subject: Bug 44696
Author: janus
Date: Tue Jun 29 19:06:07 2010
New Revision: 161554
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161554
Log:
2010-06-29 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 19:08 ---
Fixed with r161554. Closing.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 19:13 ---
Sorry, I certainly didn't mean to put a rule there; not sure if it was a typo
or some smartass-autoindent running wild.
I've removed the offending tab.
--
amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-06-29 19:16 ---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg03033.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44695
--- Comment #5 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-06-29 19:21 ---
Fixed.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #3 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 19:29 ---
Subject: Bug 44587
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 29 19:29:02 2010
New Revision: 161559
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161559
Log:
PR c++/44587
* pt.c (has_value_dependent_address):
--- Comment #4 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 19:30 ---
Subject: Bug 44587
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 29 19:29:58 2010
New Revision: 161561
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161561
Log:
PR c++/44587
* pt.c (has_value_dependent_address):
--- Comment #5 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 19:30 ---
Subject: Bug 44587
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 29 19:30:29 2010
New Revision: 161562
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161562
Log:
PR c++/44587
* pt.c (has_value_dependent_address):
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 19:31 ---
The following patch fixes it:
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/resolve.c (revision 161551)
+++ gcc/fortran/resolve.c
--- Comment #6 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 19:31 ---
Fixed for 4.4.5.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 19:37 ---
Subject: Bug 44668
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 29 19:37:46 2010
New Revision: 161563
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161563
Log:
PR debug/44668
* dwarf2out.c
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 19:46 ---
Subject: Bug 43801
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 29 19:46:05 2010
New Revision: 161564
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161564
Log:
PR tree-optimization/43801
* cgraph.c
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-29 20:03 ---
As pointed out by Andrew: One should follow C++ and generate try {} finally{}
blocks (TRY_FINALLY_EXPR).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44709
Bootstrapping revision 161565 on x86_64-apple-darwin10 fails with
...
gcc -c -g -fkeep-inline-functions -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings
-Wcast-qual -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-format-attribute
-pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
