http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47599
--- Comment #2 from Bastien ROUCARIES roucaries.bastien+bugs at gmail dot com
2011-02-04 08:21:20 UTC ---
I disagree
wchar_t is a building type. Indeed Laa should expand to 16 bits packed char
with short wchar and 32 bits with no-short-wchar.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47599
--- Comment #3 from Bastien ROUCARIES roucaries.bastien+bugs at gmail dot com
2011-02-04 08:27:40 UTC ---
BTW i have checked the source code, and if my memory is correct wchar_t is
defined as
MODIFIED_WCHAR_T = fshortwchar ? Short int : WCHAR_T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47599
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-04
08:33:03 UTC ---
It is a builtin type (for C++ it is exposed as the keyword, wchar_t). For C,
the headers define the type, see the preprocessed source to show that is the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47602
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47599
--- Comment #5 from Bastien ROUCARIES roucaries.bastien+bugs at gmail dot com
2011-02-04 09:25:36 UTC ---
ok thanks it is defined in the header and in this case they are two bugs.
Try the following program
#include stdio.h
typedef
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43366
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-04 09:32:01
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Realloc-on-assign for scalars was implemented in r169356.
Paul, what does it take to make this work for polymorphic scalars?
Not a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47142
--- Comment #4 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-04 09:33:58
UTC ---
Could you please check if this patch solves the issue for multilib? (It treats
multilib scenario like cross for installation of dll files).
Index: config.gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47599
--- Comment #6 from Bastien ROUCARIES roucaries.bastien+bugs at gmail dot com
2011-02-04 09:39:02 UTC ---
I have checked with gcc -E the following program:
typedef __WCHAR_TYPE__ wchar_t;
under linux it output typedef int wchar_t
under linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47599
--- Comment #7 from Bastien ROUCARIES roucaries.bastien+bugs at gmail dot com
2011-02-04 09:41:04 UTC ---
Sorry replace the last linux by cygwin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
--- Comment #49 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-04 10:21:27
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #38)
This would avoid the need for reverting r163267.
I'd rather not revert r163267 because of the behavior described in comment #35.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46788
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
--- Comment #50 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-04 10:52:38
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #49)
(In reply to comment #38)
[ you might want to re-check
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg00274.html would work with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
--- Comment #51 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-04 10:57:39
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #37)
Let me know when the dust settles and you guys agree on the path forward and I
will decloak... I've been trying to avoid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
--- Comment #52 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2011-02-04
11:02:02 UTC ---
ain,
I think the key misassumption you are making is that the internal linker
and dyld behavior for 10.5 is valid under 10.6. Remember that unlike
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47606
Summary: [trans-mem] internal compiler error in expand_block_tm
with O2
Product: gcc
Version: trans-mem
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
--- Comment #53 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-04 11:26:14
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #52)
ain,
I think the key misassumption you are making is that the internal linker
and dyld behavior for 10.5 is valid under 10.6.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47607
Summary: FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/abs-2.c
execution, -O2 -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
--- Comment #54 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2011-02-04
12:02:18 UTC ---
Test results for proposed patch in Comment 45 at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-02/msg00416.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
--- Comment #55 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2011-02-04
12:31:28 UTC ---
Moved conversation upstream for definitive answer from the Apple linker
developer...
http://lists.apple.com/archives/darwin-dev//2011/Feb/msg0.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47607
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=47142
--- Comment #5 from Dongsheng Song dongsheng.song at gmail dot com 2011-02-04
13:29:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Could you please check if this patch solves the issue for multilib? (It treats
multilib scenario like cross for installation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47584
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=46941
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com
2011-02-04 13:54:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
I will tackle the ECF_MALLOC comment separately.
Should I open up a new bug report for this? or is it already on your
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47602
--- Comment #10 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com 2011-02-04 14:16:32
UTC ---
What advantage do we bring to our users by requiring them to be aware of the
details of the PIC register when writing inline asm code? Again, those who
*are*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47142
--- Comment #6 from Dongsheng Song dongsheng.song at gmail dot com 2011-02-04
14:26:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
My next complete building will be started at 23:50 PM(UTC), if I got different
answer, I will inform you.
OOPS,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47602
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org 2011-02-04 14:28:00
UTC ---
If you are writing assembler code you need to know your ABI in and out.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47607
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47548
--- Comment #2 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-04 14:39:37
UTC ---
Created attachment 23245
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23245
Next ICE
With your patch, the build fails earlier.
$ m32c-rtems4.11-gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
--- Comment #21 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-04 14:42:39 UTC ---
Patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg00196.html
This is my previous janitorial patch, + a kludge which I believe should fix
the
issue on HP-UX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47548
DJ Delorie dj at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dj at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47602
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-02-04 15:01:56
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
what way are we helping them by forcing them to know about it? How does that
help them write inline assembler which, e.g., uses the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47548
--- Comment #4 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-04 15:10:00
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
That's odd. Could you take my patch back out, and verify the problem goes
back
to the original one? My patch shouldn't be able to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
--- Comment #56 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2011-02-04
15:11:29 UTC ---
The following works as a testcase for PR47558
test_main.c
--
void main (void)
{
extern int unwindcall(void);
int i;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
--- Comment #57 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2011-02-04
15:16:42 UTC ---
For the testcase in Comment 56 using my proposed patch from Comment 45...
gcc-4 -dynamiclib -o libtestcall.dylib -flat_namespace -undefined suppress
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47548
--- Comment #5 from DJ Delorie dj at redhat dot com 2011-02-04 15:21:40 UTC
---
See if one of these other changes caused the problem. If so, yeah, I'll check
this one in and we'll work on the other one separately. The new error you're
seeing is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47602
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-04
15:23:22 UTC ---
In what way are we helping them by forcing them to know about it? How does
that help them write inline assembler which, e.g., uses the cpuid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941
--- Comment #11 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-04
15:31:14 UTC ---
Patrick. It's already on my TODO. I'm working on it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43695
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=43695
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-02-04 15:36:05
UTC ---
We should add this testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23200
--- Comment #47 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-04
15:50:58 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 4 15:50:51 2011
New Revision: 169831
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169831
Log:
PR inline-asm/23200
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23200
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=47142
--- Comment #7 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-04 15:54:10
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
My next complete building will be started at 23:50 PM(UTC), if I got
different
answer, I will inform
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47142
--- Comment #8 from Dongsheng Song dongsheng.song at gmail dot com 2011-02-04
16:05:13 UTC ---
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 23:54, ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47142
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31782
funto66 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||funto66 at gmail dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43695
--- Comment #8 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-04
17:23:34 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Feb 4 17:23:30 2011
New Revision: 169835
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169835
Log:
Add a testcase for PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47608
Summary: libstdc++ links to bad libgcc_s on OS X (libgcc_s
rebuilt needlessly and incorrectly)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46728
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-04
18:11:09 UTC ---
When the initial changes for bug 42694 was added that optimizes pow (x, 0.75)
into sqrt(sqrt(x))*sqrt(x) under fast math, there was a desire to move this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47608
--- Comment #1 from Pierre Ossman ossman at cendio dot se 2011-02-04 18:12:26
UTC ---
Created attachment 23246
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23246
Hackish workaround
This is what I've done here to workaround the problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47548
--- Comment #6 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-04 18:30:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
See if one of these other changes caused the problem. If so, yeah, I'll check
this one in and we'll work on the other one
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941
--- Comment #12 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-04
18:40:09 UTC ---
Patrick, the reason memory allocated by the C++ new operator does not get
optimized by the TM-memopt pass is not because of a missing ECF_MALLOC
attribute,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47609
Summary: libstdc++ depends on libgcc_s.10.5 but gets linked to
libgcc_s.10.4
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46394
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on|35722 |
--- Comment #5
=/opt/gnu64 --enable-languages=c,c++,objc,obj-c++,fortran,lto
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20110204 (experimental) [trunk revision 169834] (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47554
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941
--- Comment #13 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com
2011-02-04 20:13:04 UTC ---
Hi Aldy,
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:40 PM, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941
--- Comment #14 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-04
20:16:07 UTC ---
Yes, this is an improvement, because once has to figure out why the unadultered
new operator is not handled specially by the alias oracle. You are welcome
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47610
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47611
Summary: [trans-mem] memory allocated by default new/new_vec
operator can be considered as transaction local
Product: gcc
Version: trans-mem
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47610
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-04 20:28:03 UTC ---
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Please provide preprocessed source, so I can try to reproduce it with a cross
compiler.
Attached.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941
--- Comment #15 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com
2011-02-04 20:30:15 UTC ---
Filled a enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47611
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47611Yeah don't lose time of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46886
--- Comment #4 from sebpop at gmail dot com sebpop at gmail dot com
2011-02-04 20:30:46 UTC ---
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:00, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
Seems one extra incorrect iteration is added after
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47612
Summary: RTL crash when cc0 setter moved away from cc0 user
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47612
Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47612
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47613
Summary: [4.6 Regression] namelist read with -static
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47554
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47611
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47612
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com 2011-02-04 21:27:40
UTC ---
It's similar to PR 46878 in that this is also CC0 related, but it is different
code that is splitting up the CC0 setter and the CC0 user. My sources do
include
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46997
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey sje at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-04 21:46:50
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Feb 4 21:46:45 2011
New Revision: 169840
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169840
Log:
2011-02-04 Richard Henderson
lo.f90
troutmask:sgk[212] ./z
-1 T
troutmask:sgk[213] gfc45 -o z lo.f90 -static
troutmask:sgk[214] ./z
-1 T
troutmask:sgk[215] gfc4x --version
GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.6.0 20110204 (experimental)
troutmask:sgk[216] gfc45 --version
GNU Fortran (GCC) 4.5.3 20110131 (prerelease)
So
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47614
Summary: cpu2000 benchmark 301.apsi fails with revision 169782
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47610
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 |hppa*-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47614
Pat Haugen pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47610
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38878
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47610
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47596
--- Comment #5 from Jim Michaels jmichae3 at yahoo dot com 2011-02-04
23:12:20 UTC ---
unfortunately, a release of later versions of gcc in a personal sezero build
are not available.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47607
Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47610
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-05 01:03:51 UTC ---
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-04
23:08:21 UTC ---
Created attachment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-05
01:32:42 UTC ---
For this special case:
print (F1.0), 0.0 ! = 0 expected *
Up to now, we have interpreted the last sentence in F95 10.5.1.2.1 F95 10.2.1.1
to require
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46194
--- Comment #11 from Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-05
01:39:23 UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Sat Feb 5 01:39:20 2011
New Revision: 169847
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169847
Log:
Fix PR46194: fix the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46194
Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.0
Known
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-05
02:10:39 UTC ---
With:
print (F0.0), 0.001 ! = 0.
print (F0.0), 0.01 ! = 0.
print (F0.0), 0.1 ! = 0.
print (F1.0), -0.0 ! = 0
print (F1.0), 0.001 ! = *
print (F1.0),
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47615
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: too deep recursion in
phi_translate/phi_translate_1 with -ftree-pre
-fno-tree-fre -fno-tree-sra
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-05
06:22:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 23251
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23251
A proposed patch
This patch regression tests OK and gives the results
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Henlich thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-02-05 07:40:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
For this special case:
print (F1.0), 0.0 ! = 0 expected *
Up to now, we have interpreted the last sentence in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Henlich thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-02-05 07:45:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Regardless of this choice, the following should all print the same result,
which they currently don't.
print
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Henlich thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-02-05 07:53:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
In extension, the following should also print the same result:
print (F1.0), 0.0 ! = 0
print (F1.0), 1.0 ! = *
88 matches
Mail list logo
