http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53110
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53120
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53120
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-04-25
23:24:53 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Wed Apr 25 23:24:48 2012
New Revision: 186849
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186849
Log:
PR target/53120
* gcc.dg/torture/pr53120.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53120
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-04-25
23:23:37 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Wed Apr 25 23:23:34 2012
New Revision: 186848
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186848
Log:
PR target/53120
* config/cris/cris.md ("*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52357
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52689
--- Comment #21 from Benjamin Kosnik 2012-04-25
22:48:03 UTC ---
Author: bkoz
Date: Wed Apr 25 22:47:52 2012
New Revision: 186845
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186845
Log:
2012-04-25 Benjamin Kosnik
PR libstdc++/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53125
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-04-25 22:34:17
UTC ---
Out of curiousity I tried compiling the test case with -O2. On x86_64 it took
57.4 seconds, on SPARC it took 20 minutes 33 seconds.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53120
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-04-25
22:33:33 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Wed Apr 25 22:33:30 2012
New Revision: 186844
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186844
Log:
PR target/53120
* gcc.dg/torture/pr53120.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53120
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-04-25
22:31:40 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Wed Apr 25 22:31:36 2012
New Revision: 186843
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186843
Log:
PR target/53120
* config/cris/cris.md ("*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52357
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-04-25 22:15:19
UTC ---
SPARC register allocator slowness filed as PR 53125.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53125
Bug #: 53125
Summary: Very slow register allocation on SPARC
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53120
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-04-25
21:38:14 UTC ---
Forgot to quote the ICE message (here from 4.7 r186809):
/tmp/ph2.i: In function 'f':
/tmp/ph2.i:109:1: internal compiler error: in find_reloads, at reload.c:4069
>From testing o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52428
--- Comment #8 from Janne Blomqvist 2012-04-25 21:15:57
UTC ---
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-04/msg01637.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53124
--- Comment #1 from Kostya Sebov 2012-04-25 20:54:50
UTC ---
Note: 0 also not allowed even though it should be according to the docs.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53035
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|WAIT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53035
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2012-04-25
20:45:26 UTC ---
Reduced test case:
module SysPars
implicit none
character (len = :), allocatable :: lens_dir
end module SysPars
Related: PR 45170 (plus a few others)
* * *
(In reply to commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53110
--- Comment #10 from H. Peter Anvin 2012-04-25 20:32:29
UTC ---
There still seems to be a redundant copy in there, but that's pretty common in
gcc-generated code; the movl %esi, %esi could get completely elided and the
zero extend folded into "mo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38894
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-25 20:19:42 UTC ---
Combining comments #2 and #8 still produces testsuite failures:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/c_ptr_tests_14.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/c_ptr_tests_15.f90 -O
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53035
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-25 20:15:40 UTC ---
Here's a reduced testcase (15 minutes to reduce!).
module syspars
implicit none
character (len = :), allocatable :: lens_dir
contains
function get_lens_dir () res
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17308
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-25
20:00:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Even if you decide that you are unable to warn about a call to foo(var)
> because
> the only way to analyze that var might be NULL is in the middle en
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53087
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Bonzini 2012-04-25 20:00:57
UTC ---
The handling of this code sequence in fold-const changed back and forth many
times, and this is likely the reason why GCC 4.1 produced straight-line code
while GCC 4.3 produced branchy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53124
Bug #: 53124
Summary: Arm NEON narrowing right shift instructions impose
incorrect operand bounds (intrinsic and asm)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53123
Bug #: 53123
Summary: Double return statement in c-omp.c source file
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53035
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=38894
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-25 19:47:52 UTC ---
The errors in comment #5 - #7 can be fixed by the following patch:
Index: gcc/fortran/interface.c
===
--- gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53110
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-04-25
19:40:39 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 25 19:40:31 2012
New Revision: 186839
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186839
Log:
PR target/53110
* config/i386/i386.md (and3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17308
--- Comment #8 from Eric Blake 2012-04-25 19:31:59
UTC ---
I hit this again today, and I'm still upset that gcc is doing such a poor job
with (not) using this attribute as a way to improve code quality via decent
warnings.
Basically, libvirt had
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52857
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-25
19:08:29 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Apr 25 19:08:23 2012
New Revision: 186837
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186837
Log:
Assert dbx_reg_number doesn't return INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53122
Bug #: 53122
Summary: internal compiler error: in unify, at cp/pt.c:15750
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52979
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regress
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
--- Comment #4 from Rich Felker 2012-04-25 18:32:08
UTC ---
Created attachment 27242
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27242
minimal test case
Glibc's mbstate_t is defined as a struct whose first element is an int (not
another
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53121
Bug #: 53121
Summary: Allow static_cast from pointer-to-vector to
pointer-to-object
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53035
--- Comment #2 from Norman S. Clerman
2012-04-25 18:13:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 27241
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27241
see original submittal
Hello Tobias,
Sorry that I forgot to attach the file. It is attached h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-25
18:12:29 UTC ---
I can't get reproduce this.
Could you provide a small reproducible testcase?
Plus the info asked here: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#need
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
--- Comment #2 from Rich Felker 2012-04-25 18:01:41
UTC ---
Sorry, I wrote the bug report without GCC in front of me. The correct name for
the warning option is -Wmissing-braces.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38894
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-25 17:57:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Here is a maximally reduced test case, which yields the same error as
> iso_c_binding_rename_1.f90 (if the code from comment #2 is removed):
Anothe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52357
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29131
Nikos Platis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nplatis at freemail dot gr
--- Comment #20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53120
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53093
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka 2012-04-25 17:06:41 UTC
---
Hi,
the problem seems to be quite easy. We have variable and alias.
The code first counts number of variables and allocated vectors, then it
inserts
aliases, too, and the length of vect
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53120
Bug #: 53120
Summary: [4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8 Regression]: ICE building driver,
exposing strict_low_part / in/out operand thinko
-fno-tree-sra
Classification: Unclassified
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
Bug #: 53119
Summary: -Wbraces wrongly warns about universal zero
initializer {0}
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40039
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53106
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka 2012-04-25
16:21:03 UTC ---
Actually we make the node unanalyzed in this case. There is one misupdated
place. I am testing the following patch.
Index: ipa.c
===
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53106
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka 2012-04-25
16:11:43 UTC ---
This is previously latent bug in frequency verification. We check that
frequencies of edges match frequencies of basic block. This check is disabled
when function is inline, because the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53116
--- Comment #4 from Filippov Aleksey 2012-04-25
16:09:07 UTC ---
I haven't noticed that this behavior is related to lazy instantiation. But
sometimes if template code does not depend on template argument, it can be
checked. If it is not such case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53117
--- Comment #3 from Wouter Vermaelen
2012-04-25 15:30:42 UTC ---
@Jakub: At first I was puzzled by your comment. But after some investigation I
found out that this 'optimization' is indeed not possible when the subtraction
would underflow. So you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40039
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-25 15:24:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> the remaining ToDo item for this PR is: Fixing the intents of non-std
> intrinsics (which are currently all intent(in)).
I just went through the wh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53118
Bug #: 53118
Summary: [4.5/4.6/4.7 regression] -feliminate-dwarf2-dups is
broken for C++
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53115
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2012-04-25
15:14:41 UTC ---
I have no idea what they are doing, definitely FSF 4.7.0 is not affected.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52583
--- Comment #21 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-04-25 14:56:56
UTC ---
I no longer see any failures on i386 Solaris. I see a few failures on x86_64
Solaris. They are all crashing in x86_64_fallback_frame_state when trying to
unwind through a signal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53116
--- Comment #3 from mattipee at yahoo dot co.uk 2012-04-25 14:57:14 UTC ---
I thought lazy instantiation made this expected behaviour.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53064
--- Comment #3 from Wenbin Lv 2012-04-25 14:56:48
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> > a + (++a ? 0 : 0);
>
> Hmm, I don't think there is a sequence point issue here compared to the other
> case where it might cause an undefined code.
>
> (++a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53115
--- Comment #3 from Timothy Tenebekov 2012-04-25
14:55:33 UTC ---
I got this revision of bits/hashtable.h while upgrading gcc to version 4.7.0 on
Debian using http://packages.dotdeb.org repository.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53089
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka 2012-04-25
14:54:35 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Apr 25 14:54:21 2012
New Revision: 186820
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186820
Log:
PR middle-end/53089
* cgraphunit.c (referr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53116
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2012-04-25
14:47:02 UTC ---
Are you sure this issue isn't a duplicate? We have a couple of rather old PRs
in this area (access control vs templates)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53106
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|UNCONFIRMED
Ever Confirmed|1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51267
Oliver changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||godeezy at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9 from Oli
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53115
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53106
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53115
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53116
mattipee at yahoo dot co.uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mattipee at yahoo dot co.uk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53117
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52979
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-04-25
14:27:15 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 25 14:27:08 2012
New Revision: 186819
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186819
Log:
PR middle-end/52979
* stor-layout.c (get_be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53117
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53117
Bug #: 53117
Summary: missed-optimization: worse code for 'x <= 0' compared
to 'x < 0'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53116
Bug #: 53116
Summary: protected member access from derived template
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53115
Bug #: 53115
Summary: _Hashtable::_M_rehash_aux(false_type) is broken
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53086
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53114
--- Comment #3 from Alexey Kravets 2012-04-25
13:37:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 27239
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27239
Assembly generated by GCC-3.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53114
--- Comment #2 from Alexey Kravets 2012-04-25
13:36:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 27238
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27238
Assembly generated by GCC-4.6.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53114
--- Comment #1 from Alexey Kravets 2012-04-25
13:35:47 UTC ---
Created attachment 27237
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27237
Assembly generated by ARMCC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53114
Bug #: 53114
Summary: Extra load store/instructions compared to gcc-3.4 on
ARM
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53086
--- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl
2012-04-25 13:32:26 UTC ---
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 06:46:03AM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> Thus, the -fcheck=bounds error seems to be appropriate. The question is what
> we
> do about x(2). While
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53110
--- Comment #8 from peterz at infradead dot org 2012-04-25 13:15:56 UTC ---
Jakub's patch seems to improve the situation:
--- gcc-bug-4.7.s 2012-04-25 14:58:21.494815266 +0200
+++ gcc-bug-4.7+.s 2012-04-25 15:14:13.784243427 +0200
@@ -2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53110
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-04-25
13:02:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 27235
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27235
gcc48-pr53110.patch
Totally untested patch. We already have a splitter to handle and by
0x,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53110
--- Comment #6 from peterz at infradead dot org 2012-04-25 13:00:47 UTC ---
OK rectification, that's what it _should_ compute, I just noticed
add_u128() is missing: a.hi += b.hi; Anyway, that's all besides the point, the
issue is that gcc shouldn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53111
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53087
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bonzini at gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53110
--- Comment #5 from peterz at infradead dot org 2012-04-25 12:47:31 UTC ---
Yes that's what it computes.. and no the function won't ever get used on
x86_64, but I ran it through the compiler anyway :-)
Thing is we need u128 to work on all archs li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53110
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-04-25
12:35:08 UTC ---
I'm not sure what the function computes, but for
u128 mult_u128(u64 a, u64 b)
{
u128 t1;
__uint128_t r = (__uint128_t)a * (__uint128_t)b;
memcpy (&t1, &r, sizeof (u128));
r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53089
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka 2012-04-25
12:34:18 UTC ---
OK, the problem here is that Fortran produces nested functions that are static
constructors and we are not quite ready for that. I am testing fix.
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45521
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-25 12:29:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> > For for former, we clearly need to add a check in 'compare_parameter' to
> > reject it
Actually, we do have a check for this already, which is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53113
Bug #: 53113
Summary: Build fails in x86_avx.cc if AVX disabled but
supported by as (Solaris & Linux)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Statu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39970
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
AssignedTo|paolo.carlini at o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53112
Bug #: 53112
Summary: Fails at Configuring stage 1 in
sparc64-sun-solaris2.10/libgcc: error: cannot compute
suffix of object files: cannot compile
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53058
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53111
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52880
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53058
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-04-25
11:35:43 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 25 11:35:38 2012
New Revision: 186816
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186816
Log:
PR tree-optimization/53058
* double-int.h (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53088
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka 2012-04-25
11:31:47 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Apr 25 11:31:42 2012
New Revision: 186815
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186815
Log:
PR middle-end/53088
* gcc.target/i386/pr390
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53110
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53088
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka 2012-04-25
11:21:52 UTC ---
Hmm, after some playing with this, I don't really know how to make the warning
output right all the time. To fix the regression I will simply update the
testcase.
The warning now goes o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53110
--- Comment #2 from peterz at infradead dot org 2012-04-25 11:11:19 UTC ---
I'll have to let Linus and Peter Anvin argue this (they're on CC), this report
is
the direct result of their complaints:
"If you can *ever* get gcc to generate those andl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53103
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53105
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53106
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53110
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
--- Comment #1 from Richard Gue
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
