http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
--- Comment #6 from Uros Bizjak 2012-10-09 06:37:12
UTC ---
I can confirm the failure on alpha:
(gdb) bt
#0 0x000120b4c288 in htab_find_with_hash ()
#1 0x000120b4fac0 in lookup_scoped_attribute_spec(tree_node const*,
tree_nod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54427
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-09 06:18:35
UTC ---
Author: glisse
Date: Tue Oct 9 06:18:29 2012
New Revision: 192238
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192238
Log:
2012-10-09 Marc Glisse
PR c++/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-09
03:25:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > I'll try a few other hosts here.
>
> Build also fails for x86_64 Fedora 8 (gcc-4.1.2-33) and Debian squeeze 6.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-09
01:48:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I'll try a few other hosts here.
Build also fails for x86_64 Fedora 8 (gcc-4.1.2-33) and Debian squeeze 6.0.4
"gcc version 4.4.5 (Debian 4.4.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #46 from Jack Howarth 2012-10-09
00:46:08 UTC ---
Revised patch posted to libstdc++ mailing list...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2012-10/msg00047.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54862
Bug #: 54862
Summary: [4.8 Regression] error: comparison between signed and
unsigned integer expressions in simplify-rtx.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Vers
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-10-08
22:46:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> $ ./f951 -quiet ../../prtests/test.f -ffixed-form
> $
>
> I am not seeing the crash.
Does running valgrind on that show anything suspicious
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #143 from Steven Bosscher 2012-10-08
22:30:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 28395
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28395
Use size_t for tree code book-keeping
...because overflow looks so sloppy.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #45 from Jack Howarth 2012-10-08
22:27:08 UTC ---
I can confirm the existence of sched_yield() back to Libc-166 in 1997 on
darwin.
http://opensource.apple.com/source/Libc/Libc-166/pthreads.subproj/sched.h
The nanosleep() c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
--- Comment #2 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-10-08 22:23:25 UTC ---
"hp at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
> Just configure for --target=cris-elf and "make all-gcc" to produce
> f951.
So I did this on my system (a Fedora 17).
config.log says
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #142 from Jan Hubicka 2012-10-08
22:19:55 UTC ---
After updating Mozilla this weekend, I definitely bloat up 8GB machine. The pak
in TOP is around 9-10GB. I checked malloc usage and there are not many
surprises. It is about 30
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54562
--- Comment #3 from Zoltan Glozik
2012-10-08 22:11:26 UTC ---
Thanks Jon, how weird to communicate with you on the gcc mailing lists...
I hope you are doing well.
Cheers,
Zoltan
> -Original Message-
> From: redi at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54861
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
Severity|n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54861
Bug #: 54861
Summary: std::atomic_signal_fence(std::memory_order_seq_cst)
issues unnecessary mfence
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54400
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|recognize haddpd|recognize vector reductions
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54860
Bug #: 54860
Summary: [4.8 Regression]: build fails on cris-elf configuring
libgfortran due to recent "attribute" changes in core
gcc
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54400
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-08 20:46:04
UTC ---
Author: glisse
Date: Mon Oct 8 20:45:56 2012
New Revision: 192223
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192223
Log:
2012-10-08 Marc Glisse
gcc/
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #44 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-08
20:42:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #42)
> You want to find an test such that:
>
> (your test) <=> (nanosleep is the one you want)
That's why I was asking about other feature test macr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #43 from Jack Howarth 2012-10-08
20:31:01 UTC ---
Both OpenBSD and FreeBSD seem to have nanosleep calls documented as...
The nanosleep() function conforms to IEEE Std 1003.1b-1993 (``POSIX'')
like Apple's. On the other hand
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #42 from Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
2012-10-08 20:10:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #41)
> (In reply to comment #40)
> > I still don't see why the _POSIX_TIMERS > 0 check exists at all. On systems
> > that don't have it, the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54562
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #41 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-08
19:50:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #40)
> I still don't see why the _POSIX_TIMERS > 0 check exists at all. On systems
> that don't have it, the tests will simply fail because timespec or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54858
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-08
19:42:12 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Oct 8 19:42:06 2012
New Revision: 192221
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192221
Log:
PR c++/54858
* tree.c (cp_tree_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54858
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-08
19:40:01 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Oct 8 19:39:56 2012
New Revision: 192220
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192220
Log:
PR c++/54858
* tree.c (cp_tree_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54857
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
Donors, This Weekend Our Pink Pick Is: SM_A A
SM_A A Receives High Line Automotive Franchise Approval
10/1/2012 - Market Wire
Unexplored, under valued SM_A A has quietly expanded a revolutionary lead
generation algorythm for virtual automobile dealers, which has, just last
week, gained approva
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54685
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |middle-end
--- Comment #3 from Oleg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #40 from Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
2012-10-08 18:33:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> N.B. prior to POSIX 2008 nanosleep was part of the Timers option, if OS X
> supports that it should define _POSIX_TIMERS to 0, -1 or 200
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54762
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-08 18:07:30
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> When you do this, I'd recommend generating "real" labels in gcc based on %=
> (say, ".L.fb%=" instead of local labels, which should be left to the gcc use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52480
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28391|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52480
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52480
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-08 18:00:25
UTC ---
Created attachment 28391
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28391
Proposed patch
Hm, the line
&& INTVAL (operands[3]) == -24 * (BITS_BIG_ENDIAN != BYTES_BIG_E
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51776
--- Comment #3 from bkorb at gnu dot org 2012-10-08 17:46:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> adding ... PR as a dependency so Bruce gets prodded when it changes state
Bruce has now been prodded. :) I will fix this in 3 weeks or so.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54831
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54831
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-08
17:40:53 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Oct 8 17:38:13 2012
New Revision: 192218
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192218
Log:
PR54831.
Added:
trunk/gcc/tes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54762
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54859
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #39 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-08
17:16:13 UTC ---
Yes, but why do you want to disable it?
Why does that patch define _GLIBCXX_USE_SCHED_YIELD?
That is correctly detected anyway by configure, without any changes, as I said
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54859
Bug #: 54859
Summary: constexpr in template aliase rejected as non-constant
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #38 from Jack Howarth 2012-10-08
17:03:39 UTC ---
I assume the option of using...
Index: libstdc++-v3/config/os/bsd/darwin/os_defines.h
===
--- libstdc++-v3/con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #36 from Jack Howarth 2012-10-08
16:44:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #33)
> So is _GLIBCXX_USE_SCHED_YIELD defined on darwin?
Yes, passing --enable-libstdcxx-time=yes and allowing nanosleep() to be found
on darwin also
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54858
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54858
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-08
16:39:00 UTC ---
Created attachment 28390
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28390
gcc48-pr54858.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54858
Bug #: 54858
Summary: [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE in cp_tree_equal
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #35 from Jack Howarth 2012-10-08
16:31:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #33)
> The problem isn't finding nanosleep, it's finding what version of POSIX or
> X/Open or SUS is supported, so we know what the correct feature test m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54784
Salvatore Filippone changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sfilippone at uniroma2 dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54834
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-10-08 16:19:25
UTC ---
The error shows that libbacktrace is including ../gcc/include/unwind.h, but
that file should not exist at the time that libbacktrace is built. I assume
that it does exist, b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54834
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #34 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-08
16:03:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
> Would something simple like...
>
> Index: acinclude.m4
> ===
> --- acinclude.m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #33 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-08
15:55:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #31)
> (In reply to comment #30)
> > Can we take a step back and determine what exactly this PR is about?
> > Several
> > of the comments make incorre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54857
Bug #: 54857
Summary: Superfluous NOPs on Atom
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #32 from Jack Howarth 2012-10-08
15:31:30 UTC ---
Would something simple like...
Index: acinclude.m4
===
--- acinclude.m4(revision 192212)
+++ acinclude.m4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #31 from Jack Howarth 2012-10-08
15:14:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #30)
> Can we take a step back and determine what exactly this PR is about? Several
> of the comments make incorrect statements about the status quo, so I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #30 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-08
14:47:20 UTC ---
Can we take a step back and determine what exactly this PR is about? Several
of the comments make incorrect statements about the status quo, so I want to
get the report clea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54850
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-10-08 14:45:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 28389
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28389
20041113-1.c.224r.sched2.txt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54850
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-10-08 14:45:48 UTC ---
On 8-Oct-12, at 10:18 AM, bernds at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54850
>
> --- Comment #2 from Bernd Schmidt
> 2012
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54796
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva 2012-10-08
14:37:53 UTC ---
I'm a bit uncomfortable with this approach. On the one hand, it's quite
simple, which is nice, but if all we get from it is the base term, we'll still
have trouble given mult
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #29 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-08
14:32:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> It seems like there is only two possible patches here using the existing
> infrastructure in acinclude.m4 that would allow darwin's nanosleep() to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53540
--- Comment #7 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-10-08 14:26:37 UTC ---
"paolo.carlini at oracle dot com" a écrit:
> Dodji, time to ping? ;)
Right: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg00766.html.
:)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54856
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka 2012-10-08
14:25:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 28387
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28387
My experiemnts with fixup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54855
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54850
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Schmidt 2012-10-08
14:18:58 UTC ---
Could you attach both dumps? (and use -fsched-verbose=5)
Did your test include r191838?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54856
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka 2012-10-08
14:17:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 28386
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28386
preprocessed sqlite.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54856
Bug #: 54856
Summary: Corrupted LTO type merging
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54831
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva 2012-10-08
14:10:25 UTC ---
Marek, the patch looks good, thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #28 from Jack Howarth 2012-10-08
14:02:46 UTC ---
It seems like there is only two possible patches here using the existing
infrastructure in acinclude.m4 that would allow darwin's nanosleep() to be
found when passing --enable-l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54855
Bug #: 54855
Summary: Unnecessary duplication when performing scalar
operation on vector element
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54837
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54850
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #27 from Jack Howarth 2012-10-08
13:47:32 UTC ---
The unistd.h header on darwin12 defines...
#define _POSIX_TIMERS (-1)/* [TMR] */
>From the documentation on --enable-libstdcxx-time...
dnl C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50461
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-08
12:21:53 UTC ---
Because 2.4.2 has received the most testing and is known to work and to be
sufficient for GCC's needs.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50461
--- Comment #13 from Evren yurtesen 2012-10-08
12:16:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > I seem to be having this problem in GCC 4.5.4 , 4.6.3 and 4.7.2 :(
>
> Ys, as already stated in the comments above
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53528
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54844
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-08
12:10:26 UTC ---
REAL_TYPE remains unhandled in tsubst_copy. First blush however, I'm not sure
if we shouldn't be passing REAL_TYPEs at all, or it's just a trivial matter of
adding to the switch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54826
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53528
--- Comment #7 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-10-08 12:06:48 UTC ---
Sorry Michal for getting to your comment this late.
"ethouris at gmail dot com" a écrit:
> Looks nice. Is that a big deal if you also make a standard [[noreturn]]
> att
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54828
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54838
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54844
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54843
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54825
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54825
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther 2012-10-08
11:58:08 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 8 11:58:03 2012
New Revision: 192205
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192205
Log:
2012-10-08 Richard Guenther
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #26 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-08
11:17:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #24)
> > Except that one is POSIX and one is not. Additionally, you shouldn't assume
> > that g++ is being used. Hopefully, libstdc++ would be portable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #25 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-08
10:59:46 UTC ---
N.B. prior to POSIX 2008 nanosleep was part of the Timers option, if OS X
supports that it should define _POSIX_TIMERS to 0, -1 or 200112L to indicate
it's supported. POSIX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54853
--- Comment #2 from Leonid Volnitsky 2012-10-08
10:54:17 UTC ---
> but there are lots of errors
Below 1-line change commit which caused ICE
(http://github.com/lvv/scc/commit/33d60adcf9ea5307ccaf186f558c338424299a56):
//-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54837
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Ta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54831
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54848
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54831
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-08
10:35:46 UTC ---
Created attachment 28384
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28384
Untested fix
Per #c5.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54850
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54854
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-10-08
10:27:26 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Oct 8 10:27:15 2012
New Revision: 192202
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192202
Log:
PR target/54854
* doc/invoke.t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54854
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-10-08
10:14:01 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Oct 8 10:13:56 2012
New Revision: 192201
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192201
Log:
PR target/54854
* doc/invoke.t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54685
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-08 10:09:34
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Oct 8 10:09:28 2012
New Revision: 192200
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192200
Log:
PR target/54685
* config/sh/sh.m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #24 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-08
10:06:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I think Jack is confused regarding --enable-libstdcxx-timer. From emailing
> me,
> he seems to be under the impression that '--enable-libstdcxx-t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50461
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-08
09:50:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I seem to be having this problem in GCC 4.5.4 , 4.6.3 and 4.7.2 :(
Ys, as already stated in the comments above, this is only fixed on the trunk.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51727
--- Comment #9 from Simon Baldwin 2012-10-08
09:32:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Also reported here:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-10/msg00075.html
To add a little more detail, here is one diff seen between two .mod files
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53528
--- Comment #6 from Dodji Seketeli 2012-10-08
09:29:13 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Mon Oct 8 09:29:05 2012
New Revision: 192199
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192199
Log:
PR c++/53528 C++11 attribute support
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
--- Comment #23 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-08
09:25:53 UTC ---
Note that somebody has still to post an updated patch to the library mailing
list.
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
