http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52642
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30 06:43:26
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Jul 30 06:43:20 2012
New Revision: 189952
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189952
Log:
PR target/54089
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #45 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30
06:46:40 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Jul 30 06:46:36 2012
New Revision: 189953
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189953
Log:
PR target/51244
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39423
--- Comment #22 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30
06:48:45 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Jul 30 06:48:40 2012
New Revision: 189954
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189954
Log:
PR target/39423
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54121
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #70 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-07-30 08:43:09 UTC ---
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #69 from Mikael Morin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53773
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-07-30 08:47:35 UTC ---
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53773
William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54123
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54117
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54114
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47353
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34548
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34548
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #71 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30
10:35:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #70)
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
So, is this a fortran front-end bug, a middle-end bug, or a lto bug ?
=189951), although I suspect
there will still be a compile time increase from GCC 4.7 to GCC 4.8 because of
the macro expansion tracking stuff. Could you please try a recent trunk GCC
4.8
and report back how compile times look for you now?
gcc version 4.8.0 20120730 (experimental) (GCC)
markus@x4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53975
Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #72 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-07-30 11:04:39 UTC ---
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #71 from Mikael Morin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #23 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30
11:08:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
Still a 98% compile time regression on todays trunk.
What revision number is this? If it includes r189951, could you please see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #24 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-07-30 11:21:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
(In reply to comment #22)
Still a 98% compile time regression on todays trunk.
What revision number is this? If it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29776
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-07-30 11:36:23
UTC ---
Perhaps REE can be taught about ctz giving a non-negative result.
Maybe we need some VRP pass to remove these extensions. Please note an example
from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54124
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30
11:37:18 UTC ---
That section is formatted the same in HTML and the info pages.
If you go to the options summary at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54114
--- Comment #3 from jimis jimis at gmx dot net 2012-07-30 12:18:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 27894
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27894
XPatch.cpp preprocessed source from xalanc
Hi thanks for your patience, I resurrected my
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #73 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30
12:29:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #72)
(In reply to comment #63)
That's bogus as TYPE_FIELDS
is supposed to be shared amongst variant types.
Then we'll have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #74 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-07-30 12:33:01 UTC ---
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #73 from Mikael Morin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29776
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-07-30 12:48:19
UTC ---
Created attachment 27895
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27895
Target patch that handles ctz extensions
x86 target patch that teaches gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54125
Bug #: 54125
Summary: [4.8 regression] s-atopri.adb:40:10:
Support_Atomic_Primitives is undefined broke Ada on
sparc64-linux
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #26 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30
13:17:25 UTC ---
FWIW, the resulting PCH for GCC 4.8 is more than twice as large as the PCH for
GCC 4.7.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #27 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30
13:51:58 UTC ---
The problem is the quadratic behavior invoked by the loop in
gt_pch_nx_line_maps:
{
size_t l2 = (size_t)(((*x).info_macro).used);
if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54125
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54126
Bug #: 54126
Summary: ICE on constexpr move ctor with const ref type instead
of error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54126
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30
14:22:18 UTC ---
The attachment is missing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #28 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30
14:22:37 UTC ---
With -ftrack-macro-expansion=2 (the default):
(gdb) call dump_line_table_statistics()
Number of expanded macros: 237994
Average number
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
--- Comment #7 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-07-30 14:25:32
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
And this is why uninitialized warnings shouldn't be silenced like this...
* expmed.c (expand_mult): Initialize coeff and is_neg.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54125
Arnaud Charlet charlet at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||charlet at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54126
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Mikhaltsou morpheby at gmail dot com 2012-07-30
14:33:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 27896
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27896
Preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54127
Bug #: 54127
Summary: [4.7] ICE in maybe_record_trace_start with asm goto,
--target=powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54126
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54126
--- Comment #3 from Ilya Mikhaltsou morpheby at gmail dot com 2012-07-30
14:56:31 UTC ---
Reduced source:
namespace std {
templateclass _E class initializer_list {
};
}
using namespace std;
class ClassB {
public:
constexpr ClassB(int x) {}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #29 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30
15:04:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 27897
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27897
Unswitched gtype-desc.c at r189965
Manually unswitching
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
--- Comment #8 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30
15:46:13 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Jul 30 15:46:08 2012
New Revision: 189980
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189980
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #30 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30
16:15:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 27898
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27898
Hack to avoid quadratic loops
This makes use of the assumption that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
Bug #: 54128
Summary: GCC does not bootstrap on little endian mips due to
mis-compare on tree-data-ref.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #31 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-07-30 16:26:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #30)
Created attachment 27898 [details]
Hack to avoid quadratic loops
This makes use of the assumption that this_obj and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53664
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30
18:30:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
Tests gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/neon/v*.c are generated by the script
gcc/config/arm/neon-testgen.ml. 54 of these
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53664
--- Comment #5 from Janis Johnson janis at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30
18:34:50 UTC ---
Thanks for looking, Ramana. I noticed in my investigation that the search
string needs to be different for scan-assembler-times than for scan-assembler,
since
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54129
Bug #: 54129
Summary: __thread variables and pthread_*specific data
destroyed in different order on Darwin than Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51081
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30 19:55:45 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon Jul 30 19:55:41 2012
New Revision: 189985
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189985
Log:
2012-07-30 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54129
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51081
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54129
--- Comment #2 from blucia at gmail dot com 2012-07-30 20:25:52 UTC ---
The man page for pthread_key_create says:
An optional destructor function may be associated with each key value. ...
The order of destructor calls is unspecified if more
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54129
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30
20:29:05 UTC ---
In my program, only one destructor function exists.
Yes in your source only has one but the code really there is two. One for the
__thread
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54129
--- Comment #4 from blucia at gmail dot com 2012-07-30 20:40:31 UTC ---
I don't really see your point. Where is the code in the destructor for the
__thread variables? For the pthread_key_create vars, I wrote down what I want
to do to the data,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54130
Bug #: 54130
Summary: Recognize builtins with bool return type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54129
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30
20:50:21 UTC ---
Where is the code in the destructor for the __thread variables?
in libgcc/emutls.c .
The code is:
static void
emutls_destroy (void *ptr)
{
struct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54120
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54129
--- Comment #6 from blucia at gmail dot com 2012-07-30 21:00:56 UTC ---
Thanks for pointing out where that code is.
I still think this is weird (i.e., possibly a bug) for two reasons:
1)Differs from Linux behavior. I'm sure lots of things
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54131
Bug #: 54131
Summary: ICE building 416.gamess, reload_cse_simplify_operands
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54131
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54132
Bug #: 54132
Summary: Incorrect loop transformation with
-ftree-loop-distribute-patterns
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52983
Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gary at intrepid dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25266
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51662
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54131
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14563
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27100
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27100
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30
23:48:39 UTC ---
It's not clear to me how instantiate_pending_templates protects its
instantiations from GGC.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53664
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-31
00:00:36 UTC ---
Created attachment 27901
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27901
Tentative patch.
Tentative patch - has a few unneeded whitespace
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53664
--- Comment #7 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-31
00:04:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Thanks for looking, Ramana. I noticed in my investigation that the search
string needs to be different for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51631
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48803
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.2,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51662
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-31
00:58:50 UTC ---
Created attachment 27902
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27902
Fix?
Does this fix the bug? The call to instantiate_decl was removed for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49169
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49437
--- Comment #5 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-31
01:05:18 UTC ---
Fixed only in 4.7.0
Ramana
78 matches
Mail list logo
