http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48454
--- Comment #2 from Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com 2011-04-06 06:15:10 UTC
---
Created attachment 23894
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23894
char_result_13.s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48453
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2011-04-06 06:34:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I agree, I just recognize that 13.3.1.6 [over.match.ref] p. 1 b. 1 is written
to support this:
The conversion
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43601
Dongsheng Song dongsheng.song at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48477
Summary: [4.7 Regression]: gfortran.dg/coarray_13.f90
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48404
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06
06:53:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
My gcc4.5 and gcc4.4 apparently did not have libquadmath-support
Yes, libquadmath is a new GCC 4.6 feature, cf.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48377
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48476
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-04-06
07:38:39 UTC ---
Hi. Not having looked into it in detail yet, your patch looks indeed
reasonable. Do you have more testcases, for at lease some of the other issues
you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48199
Deny archicharmer at mail dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48445
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48465
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48476
--- Comment #2 from Takaya Saito gintensubaru at gmail dot com 2011-04-06
08:32:09 UTC ---
Created attachment 23896
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23896
simple test for operator=( Tuple )
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48476
--- Comment #3 from Takaya Saito gintensubaru at gmail dot com 2011-04-06
08:32:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 23897
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23897
simple test for std::tuple_cat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #17 from Claudio Bantaloukas rockdreamer at gmail dot com
2011-04-06 08:35:27 UTC ---
Comment on attachment 23120
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23120
Patch to simply not use bss section with .bs, but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47663
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06
08:51:27 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 6 08:51:23 2011
New Revision: 172023
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=172023
Log:
2011-04-06 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48340
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-04-06 08:55:22 UTC ---
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-03
17:58:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 23858
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48476
Takaya Saito gintensubaru at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23896|application/octet-stream|text/plain
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48476
Takaya Saito gintensubaru at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23897|application/octet-stream|text/plain
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43920
--- Comment #9 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06
09:41:10 UTC ---
Author: ramana
Date: Wed Apr 6 09:41:07 2011
New Revision: 172031
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=172031
Log:
Fix commit for PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48465
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48467
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48477
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47663
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48465
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06
11:08:40 UTC ---
Adding these exports to libstdc++ does fix it though:
GLIBCXX_3.4.16 {
_ZNSs10_S_compareEmm;
_ZNSbIwSt11char_traitsIwESaIwEE10_S_compareEmm;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48465
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=48466
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06
11:50:03 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 6 11:49:59 2011
New Revision: 172039
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=172039
Log:
PR debug/48466
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48478
Summary: Valid array-constructor syntax rejected/invalid
accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
hello there... i am trying my hands on gcc optimisations options.
i tried e.g. -finline-functions, -funroll-loops and the likes but none
worked for me
for ex. i tried -funroll-loops for code
for (int i = 0; i 3; ++i)
a[i] = i;
which should unroll like
a[0] = 0
a[1] = 1
a[2] = 2
but it didn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48479
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Many ICEs in the obj-c++.dg test
suite on *-apple-darwin*
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48480
Summary: FAIL: staticrootslib.lo -O2 (test for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48465
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48477
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48480
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-04-06 13:20:24 UTC ---
On x86_64-apple-darwin10 the test staticrootslib.lo in the boehm-gc suite
fails
due to the following warnings
Excess
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48478
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48468
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48479
Nathan Froyd froydnj at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||froydnj at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48442
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06
13:39:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 23899
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23899
proposed patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48479
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Froyd froydnj at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06
13:41:01 UTC ---
Created attachment 23900
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23900
untested patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48442
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06
13:41:33 UTC ---
Confirmed. The 4.4/4.5 failure is most likely a dup of PR 46204. The 4.6/4.7
failure is due to selective scheduler removing a conditional jump during
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48442
Alexander Monakov amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48227
--- Comment #3 from Zuxy zuxy.meng at gmail dot com 2011-04-06 13:42:21 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
A good question is does it make a difference in actual performance numbers, it
might still make a positive difference. Until someone tries
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48480
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06 13:42:55
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
On x86_64-apple-darwin10 the test staticrootslib.lo in the boehm-gc suite
fails
due to the following warnings
Excess errors:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48476
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-04-06
14:07:19 UTC ---
Ok, thanks. Still, I believe we have other std::move which should be turned
into forward, in std::tuple. Those in std::tuple_cat itself also seem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6709
cheburnae osa252 at mail dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||osa252 at mail dot ru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48273
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06
14:40:28 UTC ---
There's little value in allowing bookkeeping for calls, and the (untested yet)
patch below forces calls to be unique. The test case also shows that our
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48465
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48479
Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48480
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-04-06
14:58:45 UTC ---
... Could you please try the following command instead? ...
This fixes the failure: i.e., running
make -k check
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48465
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06
14:59:03 UTC ---
ok, will do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48480
--- Comment #4 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06 15:23:36 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Wed Apr 6 15:23:33 2011
New Revision: 172050
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=172050
Log:
PR testsuite/48480
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48480
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48481
Summary: C++ overloading memory hog
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: memory-hog
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48476
--- Comment #7 from Takaya Saito gintensubaru at gmail dot com 2011-04-06
15:32:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Ok, thanks. Still, I believe we have other std::move which should be turned
into forward, in std::tuple. Those in std::tuple_cat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48481
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06
15:48:35 UTC ---
During perform_overload_resolution add_candidates allocates lots of ggc memory
which splice_viable immediately throws away and we don't ggc_collect during
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48479
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-04-06
15:58:42 UTC ---
seems to do the trick on i686-darwin9 ...
On x86_64-apple-darwin10 too (incremental update with the patch in comment #2
on top of r172043 and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48302
Alexander Monakov amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45114
--- Comment #4 from Simon Hill yacwroy at gmail dot com 2011-04-06 16:17:35
UTC ---
I was trying out this patch to see whether it might be usable to me, just as a
preview.
Firstly: Is this patch at a stage where it could be possible to complete
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48380
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48476
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48389
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48389
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com 2011-04-06 16:54:41
UTC ---
Elimination of a PHI caused a loop to be inserted on an edge. The edge
insertions were committed after calling rebuild_jump_labels resulting in a null
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48455
Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48465
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-04-06
17:02:30 UTC ---
Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47612
--- Comment #8 from Vincent Riviere vincent.riviere at freesbee dot fr
2011-04-06 17:07:26 UTC ---
Excellent! Your patch fixes both testcases here.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48158
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06
17:22:39 UTC ---
Ping, just hit this during Ada LTO bootstrap, so it isn't limited to Go...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47612
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06
17:28:43 UTC ---
Any chance you can run the testsuite before/after the patch? m68k is
problematic due to lack of a simulator.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48482
Summary: ICE: in omega_alloc_problem, at omega.c:5498 with
-fcheck-data-deps --param omega-max-vars=1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48483
Summary: Construct from yourself w/o warning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47612
--- Comment #10 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06
17:52:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Any chance you can run the testsuite before/after the patch? m68k is
problematic due to lack of a simulator.
I can test with RTEMS
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47650
--- Comment #29 from joe at mcknight dot de 2011-04-06 17:55:30 UTC ---
FWIW, I can reproduce this now on Solaris without any magic compiler switches:
The program is just this here:
---
void
foo(char *buf, int bufsz);
void
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18918
--- Comment #31 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06
18:29:58 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Apr 6 18:29:55 2011
New Revision: 172059
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=172059
Log:
2011-04-06 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18918
--- Comment #32 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06
18:31:03 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Apr 6 18:30:58 2011
New Revision: 172060
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=172060
Log:
2011-04-06 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48477
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06
18:32:31 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Apr 6 18:32:27 2011
New Revision: 172061
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=172061
Log:
2011-04-06 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18918
--- Comment #33 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06
18:32:31 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Apr 6 18:32:27 2011
New Revision: 172061
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=172061
Log:
2011-04-06 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48483
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com
2011-04-06 19:20:02 UTC ---
No warnings and deep stillness.
$ g++ -O -Wuninitialized pr48483.cc
pr48483.cc: In function 'int main()':
pr48483.cc:13:30: warning: 'a.A::b' is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48484
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: vector VEC(use_pred_info_t,base)
index domain error, in pred_chain_length_cmp at
tree-ssa-uninit.c:1626 with -Wuninitialized
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48484
Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48485
Summary: mudflap don't discover mistake - negative one index on
static array i.e. a[-1]=b;
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
hello there... i am trying my hands on gcc optimisations options.
i tried e.g. -finline-functions, -funroll-loops and the likes but none
worked for me
for ex. i tried -funroll-loops for code
for (int i = 0; i 3; ++i)
a[i] = i;
Try -O -funroll-loops.
--
Eric Botcazou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48435
Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48470
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-04-06
19:48:25 UTC ---
Created attachment 23903
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23903
reduced test case
The test case reduces to the following:
void
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27557
Brooks Moses brooks at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||brooks at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48335
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06
20:39:24 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 6 20:39:20 2011
New Revision: 172063
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=172063
Log:
Backported from mainline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48466
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06
20:40:28 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 6 20:40:24 2011
New Revision: 172064
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=172064
Log:
PR debug/48466
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48335
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48389
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48466
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=48455
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48483
--- Comment #2 from Lisp2D lisp2d at lisp2d dot net 2011-04-06 21:15:42 UTC
---
Try the next example, more close to my code:
#includeiostream
classA{
public:
inta;
A(intx):a(x){}
intTheInt(){returna;}
};
void
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32691
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32691
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48389
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06
21:52:54 UTC ---
OK, not quite. We somehow have a barrier _inside_ a basic block, and that's
somehow a problem after the patch but not before?!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48453
Jens Maurer jens.maurer at gmx dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jens.maurer at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48486
Summary: cfgexpand leaves BARRIERs at the end of basic blocks
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48486
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48377
--- Comment #10 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2011-04-06 22:22:41 UTC
---
I do see the alignment problem you point out (though I'm disappointed that
neither PC-Lint nor GCC's warnings alerted me). I made the changes you
proposed, but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38875
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-04-06
22:25:44 UTC ---
Johannes, I lost a bit track of this enhancement PR: what do you think, now
that we are again in Stage 1 in mainline, are there chances we can resolve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48483
Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48486
--- Comment #2 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06
22:38:51 UTC ---
find_many_sub_basic_blocks breaks its own STATE:
Breakpoint 6, find_many_sub_basic_blocks (blocks=0x19b6ea0) at
../../trunk/gcc/cfgbuild.c:577
577
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48447
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Oppenlander patrick at motec dot com.au
2011-04-06 22:47:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
For now, option -Wl,-plugin-opt=-pass-through=$(LIBGCC) can be manually added
to the command line (as discussed in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48389
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com 2011-04-06 22:51:26
UTC ---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/06/11 15:52, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48389
---
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo