http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46723
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=46757
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=46685
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02
08:40:08 UTC ---
I'd actually prefer to go with the sparc.c change (probably including
flag_reorder_blocks_and_partition), then hppa could just write its own
function_section
Yeh, precisely. The ironly file is a placeholder into which we put the
symbols found in the lto symtab so that they can take part in the link and
their resolutions be determined. We have no way of conveying any symbol type
The error comes out after the lto1 invocation, so why the ironly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-12-02 08:47:28
UTC ---
Yeh, precisely. The ironly file is a placeholder into which we put the
symbols found in the lto symtab so that they can take part in the link and
their
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #14 from Dave Korn davek at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02 08:52:20
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Yeh, precisely. The ironly file is a placeholder into which we put the
symbols found in the lto symtab so that they can take part
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46749
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2010-12-02 08:52:14 UTC ---
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46749
--- Comment #18 from Iain Sandoe iains
Hi,
at one point I tried profiledbootstrap and problem is that we can not merge
multiple LTO files
that has been profiled different amount of times. This happens during our
build because lto1
and cc1 share libbackend. We probably need to add code rescaling corresponding
events...
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46760
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-12-02 09:00:51 UTC
---
Hi,
at one point I tried profiledbootstrap and problem is that we can not merge
multiple LTO files
that has been profiled different amount of times. This happens
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46723
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2010-12-02 09:03:35 UTC ---
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, irar at il dot ibm.com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46723
Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com changed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46679
Jay jay.krell at cornell dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.5.1 |4.6.0
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46760
Dave Korn davek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||42690
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46749
--- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02 09:09:49
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
yeah - it's on my TODO (pr43751).
FWIW, some time ago, I did enquire about
Hi,
you can still test bootstrap with simply commenting out that sorry. It should
give, sort-of, sane results.
I will implement counter rescaling once I get some time for it - it is not too
hard.
Also not too many setups actually train library built into multiple binaries,
so it is not that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46760
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-12-02 09:22:38 UTC
---
Hi,
you can still test bootstrap with simply commenting out that sorry. It should
give, sort-of, sane results.
I will implement counter rescaling once I get some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46762
Summary: gcc crosscompiled for arm optimises away volatile
struct member access when -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02
09:41:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
I am just trying to get Mozilla building with GNU ld instead of gold. First
problem is that Mozilla links some of libraries
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35258
Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46758
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46752
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46749
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2010-12-02 09:50:48 UTC ---
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46749
--- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe iains
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46724
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02
09:51:17 UTC ---
Marked as 4.6 regression. The behavior of 4.5.2 isn't helpful either but it
doesn't return a wrong value as with 4.6.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46763
Summary: gcc 4.5: missed optimization: copy global to local,
prefetch
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46749
--- Comment #22 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02 10:10:06
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46749
--- Comment #20 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46749
--- Comment #23 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02 10:14:22
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
At install-time dsymutil is run and the relevant xxx.dSYM is installed along
with the objects, where required.
s/objects/exes/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46753
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=46720
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46720
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=46763
Alexander Monakov amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46685
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02
11:30:54 UTC ---
Alternatively, we could do something like:
--- gcc/config/sparc/sparc.c.jj2010-11-26 18:39:04.0 +0100
+++ gcc/config/sparc/sparc.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46663
--- Comment #1 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02 11:47:15 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Thu Dec 2 11:47:12 2010
New Revision: 167366
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167366
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46663
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43751
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02 11:49:41
UTC ---
proposed work-around for 4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg00145.html
Note the following web-page describes the intended usage/behavior of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46724
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44871
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02
12:24:50 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Dec 2 12:24:46 2010
New Revision: 167367
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167367
Log:
2010-12-02 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44871
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46678
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02
12:44:57 UTC ---
I think we can close this PR - can't we?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46268
Laurynas Biveinis lauras at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|SUSPENDED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46764
Summary: std=c++0x causes compilation failure on SFINAE test
for methods
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43738
--- Comment #15 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02 13:15:18
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Thu Dec 2 13:15:10 2010
New Revision: 167369
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167369
Log:
2010-12-02 Kai Tietz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43738
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46763
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46678
--- Comment #13 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2010-12-02 13:33:38 UTC ---
Semms to me that Jerry should do the honours :-)
Paul
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:45 PM, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46765
Summary: Superfluous 'const' declaration does not generate
error or warning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46765
--- Comment #1 from Fredrik Hederstierna
fredrik.hederstie...@securitas-direct.com 2010-12-02 13:34:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 22602
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22602
example file for const.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46764
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02
13:43:27 UTC ---
changing typeof to decltype or __typeof__ causes it to work
looks as though 'typeof' simply isn't recognised in C++0x mode
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46764
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46766
Summary: Type 'void' is treated differently if used as return
value or as parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46766
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45240
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02
14:30:41 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 2 14:30:37 2010
New Revision: 167370
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167370
Log:
PR libgomp/45240
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43706
--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02
14:31:31 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 2 14:31:27 2010
New Revision: 167371
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167371
Log:
PR libgomp/43706
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46753
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02
14:37:25 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 2 14:37:20 2010
New Revision: 167372
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167372
Log:
PR fortran/46753
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46766
--- Comment #2 from Fredrik Hederstierna
fredrik.hederstie...@securitas-direct.com 2010-12-02 14:42:35 UTC ---
Ok, but also f1() declares that it does not return any parameters, still it can
return (void)0;
I'm not saying either is wrong, I just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46766
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02
15:14:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
void f1(void)
{
return (void)0; //OK
This is valid in C++ but allowing it in C is a GCC extension.
void f2(void)
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46542
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22447|0 |1
is
It's valid I think and we try to work out fPIC ourselves in the funny
LTO option handling code (but the options are not re-applied at ltrans
stage I think, so it doesn't work at all with WHOPR).
Hmm, the link command above is LTO, not WHOPR. I wonder why we don't work out
-fPIC
ourselves
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-12-02 15:34:48
UTC ---
It's valid I think and we try to work out fPIC ourselves in the funny
LTO option handling code (but the options are not re-applied at ltrans
stage I think, so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46766
--- Comment #4 from Fredrik Hederstierna
fredrik.hederstie...@securitas-direct.com 2010-12-02 15:55:05 UTC ---
Yes, I agree its EURGH.
I guess its not preferred to make C++ template-alike code in C.
I think its worth avoid stuff like:
#ifdef
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46760
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02
15:57:00 UTC ---
Created attachment 22604
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22604
Patch I am testing to allow profile merging
This patch should allow merging
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46723
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02
16:23:26 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Dec 2 16:23:20 2010
New Revision: 167377
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167377
Log:
2010-12-02 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46723
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43814
--- Comment #7 from Maxim Kuvyrkov mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02
16:42:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
...
, as an example look at the types the C frontend
generates for struct X __attribute__((packed)) { int x; };
void foo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45199
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02 16:53:21
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Thu Dec 2 16:53:16 2010
New Revision: 167380
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167380
Log:
Fix PR45199: do not aggregate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45199
Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46765
Joseph S. Myers jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43651
Joseph S. Myers jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43814
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2010-12-02 17:01:08 UTC ---
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43814
--- Comment #7 from Maxim Kuvyrkov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46766
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org 2010-12-02 17:10:15
UTC ---
If you want the standard to be changed then this is the wrong place.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42690
--- Comment #32 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-12-02 17:15:52
UTC ---
Another testcase:
[...@gnu-6 pr12245-6]$ cat y.c
#include stdio.h
#include stdlib.h
#include math.h
int
main (int argc, char **argv)
{
int d = atoi (argv[1]);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46752
--- Comment #3 from Bill Long longb at cray dot com 2010-12-02 17:22:48 UTC
---
Conflicting commentary from the OpenMP testers and James Beyer of the OpenMP
committee:
This test case is derived from OpenMP test omp3f/F03_2_9_3_4_5c.f90 .
The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46767
Summary: r167374 introduce gcc.target/i386 regressions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46667
--- Comment #7 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02
17:52:38 UTC ---
Here's the backtrace I see for arm-eabi.
#0 error (gmsgid=0xf323c8 %+D causes a section type conflict) at
../../combined/gcc/diagnostic.c:747
#1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46667
--- Comment #8 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02
17:54:22 UTC ---
Created attachment 22605
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22605
Testcase for ARM
Backtrace shown in previous comment from the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46752
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02
17:55:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
This usage is not specifically prohibited in the API.
Sound like a paraphrase for implementation defined/processor dependent to
me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45062
--- Comment #7 from Nathan Froyd froydnj at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02
18:00:26 UTC ---
Author: froydnj
Date: Thu Dec 2 18:00:21 2010
New Revision: 167381
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167381
Log:
PR c/45062
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45062
Nathan Froyd froydnj at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46768
Summary: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr37434-[24].c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45948
--- Comment #4 from Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02 18:39:23
UTC ---
For this case, we end up generating two memset (0) for the first loop,
and we completely remove that loop:
void
foo (int i, int n)
{
int a[30];
int b[30];
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46752
--- Comment #5 from Bill Long longb at cray dot com 2010-12-02 18:42:53 UTC
---
Reply from James:
Version 3.1 of the OpenMP specification removes the offending bullet: A
variable that appears in a firstprivate clause must be definable. When
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46645
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46769
Summary: LTO failed to build gold
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46768
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-12-02 19:11:26
UTC ---
On Intel64, I got
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr34256.c scan-assembler-times mov 2
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr37434-2.c scan-assembler pinsrw
FAIL:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45948
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02 19:19:46
UTC ---
First patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg00216.html
However, I am not fully happy with this fix that tweaks scev const prop to work
around
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
Summary: Replace .ctors/.dtors with .init_array/.fini_array on
targets supporting them
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #1 from Mike Hommey mh+gcc at glandium dot org 2010-12-02
19:24:44 UTC ---
Using .init_array/.fini_array instead of .ctors/.dtors removes the need for the
associated (relative) relocations, and avoids the backwards disk seeks on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46752
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46759
--- Comment #3 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2010-12-02 19:47:29 UTC ---
Created attachment 22606
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22606
reproducer with additional tests
I changed the original reproducer to return 0 through 4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45297
--- Comment #13 from Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02
20:13:16 UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Thu Dec 2 20:13:11 2010
New Revision: 167390
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167390
Log:
Fix PR45297: handle ADDR_EXPR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45297
Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46771
Summary: [4.6 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure (length) with
-O -ftree-vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46772
Summary: libquadmath: Build failure - strtod: static
declaration of 'strtod' follows non-static
declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02
22:22:17 UTC ---
Hmm, is it possible to do the change without breaking ABI (i.e. preserving the
proper relative order for binary built with init_arra/fini_array linked with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43751
m...@gcc.gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46685
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02
22:33:24 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Dec 2 22:33:16 2010
New Revision: 167395
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167395
Log:
PR target/46685
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46768
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02
22:50:49 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Dec 2 22:50:44 2010
New Revision: 167398
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167398
Log:
Turn on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46768
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46767
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46771
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-12-02 23:01:14
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Hmm, is it possible to do the change without breaking ABI (i.e. preserving the
proper relative order for binary built with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45888
--- Comment #19 from Cesar Strauss cestrauss at gmail dot com 2010-12-02
23:38:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
(In reply to comment #17)
* anhvofrcaus at gmail dot com wrote on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 01:25:49AM CET:
It is interesting
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46749
m...@gcc.gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo