http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48308
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50313
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50150
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50373
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50374
Bug #: 50374
Summary: Support vectorization of min/max location pattern
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50374
Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38306
--- Comment #27 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch
2011-09-13 07:59:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
2) Then find the earliest optimization pass where they differ (you may even
use
diff to make this faster).
The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50374
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=49452
Carrot carrot at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carrot at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50374
--- Comment #3 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2011-09-13 08:45:40 UTC ---
with
gcc version 4.7.0 20110910 (experimental) (GCC)
int lmin(float const * __restrict__ c, int N) {
int k=0;
for (int i=1; i!=N; ++i)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50375
Bug #: 50375
Summary: gfortran must complain on NULL() ambiguity without
MOLD
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50375
--- Comment #1 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com 2011-09-13
08:54:47 UTC ---
Created attachment 25254
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25254
Just compile it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50376
Bug #: 50376
Summary: pure procedure allows assignment to iterator variable
in array constructor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50377
Bug #: 50377
Summary: gfortran must not accept an external formal argument
not declared external
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50377
--- Comment #1 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com 2011-09-13
09:01:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 25256
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25256
just compile it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50378
Bug #: 50378
Summary: MALLOC_CHECK_ glibc detects free() invalid pointer in
compiler
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50379
Bug #: 50379
Summary: ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec at fortran/trans-types.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50380
Bug #: 50380
Summary: cc1 hangs eating 100% CPU
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50379
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50378
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=50377
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50358
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-13
09:23:40 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Sep 13 09:23:36 2011
New Revision: 178806
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178806
Log:
PR target/50358
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50381
Bug #: 50381
Summary: Wrong dtor condatgroup section name
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50375
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50378
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40770
--- Comment #10 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2011-09-13 09:52:53 UTC ---
resurrecting this:
just checked with gcc version 4.7.0 20110910
-mveclibabi=svml
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50376
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-13
09:54:27 UTC ---
The constraint leading the rejection is the following (C1283) - though having a
variable in as ac-do-variable is something different (cf. 16.4).
Other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49533
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24602|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49533
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-13
10:14:30 UTC ---
*** Bug 50381 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50381
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50379
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49533
--- Comment #13 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2011-09-13 10:57:28 UTC ---
The fix is fine. Thanks.
Please don't forget to also close Bug 49665 when you close this bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49282
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-13
12:31:00 UTC ---
Hi,
still stuck on this problem? vlagrind or libefence should do the job given
enough time memory.
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50382
Bug #: 50382
Summary: Reassoc doesn't optimize pointer arithmetics
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50379
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50326
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50375
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-13
13:55:13 UTC ---
Created attachment 25262
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25262
Draft patch
This patch handles NULL() properly, including passing it to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50379
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-13 14:02:53 UTC ---
Or better:
Index: gcc/fortran/symbol.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/symbol.c(revision 178778)
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19805
Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49533
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-13
14:28:47 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Sep 13 14:28:39 2011
New Revision: 178810
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178810
Log:
PR other/49533
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48320
--- Comment #5 from Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-13
14:39:29 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Tue Sep 13 14:39:25 2011
New Revision: 178812
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178812
Log:
c++/48320 - Template
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48320
--- Comment #4 from Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-13
14:39:18 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Tue Sep 13 14:39:15 2011
New Revision: 178811
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178811
Log:
c++/48320 - Template
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50383
Bug #: 50383
Summary: ICE in lto_symtab_register_decl, at lto-symtab.c:148
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50384
Bug #: 50384
Summary: Copying a char array
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50383
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at suse dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49533
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49665
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50385
Bug #: 50385
Summary: missed-optimization: jump to __builtin_unreachable()
not removed
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50010
--- Comment #19 from gfunck at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-13 15:16:54 UTC ---
Author: gfunck
Date: Tue Sep 13 15:16:42 2011
New Revision: 178815
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178815
Log:
Merge trunk version 178795 into gupc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50183
--- Comment #9 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-13
15:24:08 UTC ---
OK, the problem appears to originate earlier, sometime during
canonicalize_loop_closed_ssa_form (). After canonicalization, we have:
bb 45:
#
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50378
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=49282
--- Comment #7 from Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org 2011-09-13
16:00:24 UTC ---
I haven't tried 32bit or GCOV recently, so not sure. I can try next time.
I was still stuck on the other problem with the confused linker plugin ids.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49665
Pat Haugen pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50375
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50183
--- Comment #10 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-09-13 16:40:05 UTC ---
The problem arises during canonicalization in the presence of nested loops.
Loops are processed outward-in. When each loop is processed, its single
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50183
William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50379
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-13 18:19:18 UTC ---
The patch in comment #4 regtests cleanly. Will commit as obvious.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50379
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-13 18:37:41 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Sep 13 18:37:33 2011
New Revision: 178829
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178829
Log:
2011-09-13 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50379
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50386
Bug #: 50386
Summary: libgomp.h:87:5: error: unnamed struct/union that
defines no instances
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50378
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com 2011-09-13
20:08:33 UTC ---
I thought I had the latest version of gfortran...
Where can I find the latest one, with sources?
Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com 2011-09-13
20:08:33 UTC ---
I thought I had the latest version of gfortran...
Where can I find the latest one, with sources?
What does gfortran -v report? Your code causes not problem for
gcc version 4.5.4 20110913 (prerelease) (GCC)
gcc version
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50378
--- Comment #6 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com 2011-09-13
20:19:56 UTC ---
I have gfortran 4.6.1
I am downloading gcc-4.7.tar.xz from gfortran.org right now.
Tomorrow I'll check it, it is night here.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50387
Bug #: 50387
Summary: Doesn't process _Pragma when expanding a token
sequence for #include
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50378
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-13
20:31:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I thought I had the latest version of gfortran...
Where can I find the latest one, with sources?
While 4.6.1 (released 2011-08-17)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50388
Bug #: 50388
Summary: Segmentation fault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50388
--- Comment #1 from Elias Pipping pipping at exherbo dot org 2011-09-13
21:38:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 25264
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25264
delta-reduced dump
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50389
Bug #: 50389
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: in execute_todo, at
passes.c:1730 with -O -freorder-blocks -ftracer
testcase.c and __builtin___memcpy_chk()
Classification:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50390
Bug #: 50390
Summary: gcc hangs while compiling invalid c++ code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50087
--- Comment #7 from eric-gcc at omnifarious dot org 2011-09-13 22:15:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
I still think it's a missed optimization opportunity.
Yes, it definitely is. I'm just not sure whether it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50365
--- Comment #5 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2011-09-13
22:54:56 UTC ---
Test case from Comment 4 compiles fine at r175670, but fails at r175671 with...
[MacPro:~] howarth% /Users/howarth/dist/bin/g++ -c test.cc
test.cc: In
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50365
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=50365
--- Comment #7 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2011-09-13
23:15:17 UTC ---
At r176120 which fixed PR49691, the test case from Comment 4, begins to fail in
the current mode...
[MacPro:~] howarth% /Users/howarth/dist/bin/g++ -c
/src/gcc-git/configure
--prefix=/home/jarrydb/current/soft/install-latest --disable-multilib
--enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20110913 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49452
--- Comment #20 from Carrot carrot at google dot com 2011-09-14 03:02:03 UTC
---
Instruction 2 and 24 refer to the same location, but have different offset
relative to FP because the call to y changes FP. DSE doesn't (and can not, if
it is
75 matches
Mail list logo
