http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55014
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|mikpe at it dot uu.se |
--- Comment #6 from Mikael
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55269
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-11-11
06:21:55 UTC ---
In 4.8, GCC is now written in C++ rather than C, so I don't think it matter
anymore as there is no macro define in C++ for complex.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55269
Bug #: 55269
Summary: Rename tree_node complex field to avoid conflict with
C99 complex type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55268
Bug #: 55268
Summary: gcc4.8 mingw-w64 Wrong stdcall import symbols
generated after rev 193204
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55263
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|st
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-11-10
23:20:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> On the other hand, this is a very contrived testcase. I
> wouldn't expect in normal code that the expansion point to be in a
> system-header and th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55200
Chris Lundquist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-11-10
23:10:32 UTC ---
On the other hand, let's consider:
pr55252.c:
#define bar 256
#include "pr55252.h"
pr55252.h:
#pragma GCC system_header
signed char foo = bar;
In this case, I would expect th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-11-10
22:58:16 UTC ---
Hum, I am not sure why the macro unwinder avoids unwinding if the macro comes
from a system-header. If a warning message comes from a system-header, then it
should have been sup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30162
--- Comment #27 from Janne Blomqvist 2012-11-10
20:21:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> Is this caused by
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=180701
>
> ?
>
> Maybe we need to remember if we have a special fi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55247
--- Comment #14 from Uros Bizjak 2012-11-10 19:41:31
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> With this fix, we don't need to change *movti_internal_rex64
> since it generates redundant load/store.
True, IIRC this was the reason for asymmetr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55247
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-10 19:11:03
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > ~/gcc-build/gcc/cc1 -O2 -mx32 -maddress-mode=long pr55247.c
> >
> > results in following sequence:
> >
> > mov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55247
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Component|middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55202
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55202
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2012-11-10
18:32:27 UTC ---
Author: pinskia
Date: Sat Nov 10 18:32:23 2012
New Revision: 193393
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193393
Log:
2012-11-10 Andrew Pinski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55263
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55267
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
--- Comment #1 from Andr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55267
Bug #: 55267
Summary: double operation giving different results depending on
context and optimization level
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55264
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55266
Bug #: 55266
Summary: vector expansion: 36 movs for 4 adds
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30162
--- Comment #26 from Thomas Koenig 2012-11-10
14:38:03 UTC ---
Is this caused by
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=180701
?
Maybe we need to remember if we have a special file after all, or just ignore
the error on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55264
Bug #: 55264
Summary: [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE: in
ipa_make_edge_direct_to_target, at ipa-prop.c:2141
with -O2 -fno-early-inlining -fno-weak
Classification: Unclassifie
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15184
--- Comment #22 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-11-10
13:36:46 UTC ---
Created attachment 28655
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28655
another test case
I'm using a construct similar to the 'f1' function of the initial te
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54716
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15184
--- Comment #21 from Uros Bizjak 2012-11-10 12:15:14
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> Please can the RMs have a new look at this.
This is tuning decision, and I see Intel folks in the CC. I see no problem in
changing these defaults
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55247
--- Comment #11 from Uros Bizjak 2012-11-10 11:55:55
UTC ---
~/gcc-build/gcc/cc1 -O2 -mx32 -maddress-mode=long pr55247.c
results in following sequence:
movdqu (%eax), %xmm0
movdqa %xmm0, (%rsp)
movq(%rsp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55247
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55247
--- Comment #9 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-10 11:28:17 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat Nov 10 11:28:12 2012
New Revision: 193388
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193388
Log:
PR target/55247
* config
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55263
Bug #: 55263
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE: pre_and_rev_post_order_compute,
at cfganal.c:875 with -O -fgcse-after-reload
-fnon-call-exceptions
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55247
--- Comment #8 from Uros Bizjak 2012-11-10 09:22:03
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> There are 2 issues here:
>
> 1. Should we use
>
> movdqu(%eax), %xmm0# 19*movti_internal_rex64/4[length = 5]
> movdqa%
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55262
Bug #: 55262
Summary: [C++0x] g++.dg/cpp0x/inh-ctor10.C ICEs with -g
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55247
--- Comment #7 from Uros Bizjak 2012-11-10 09:15:32
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (define_insn "*movti_internal_rex64"
> [(set (match_operand:TI 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "=!r ,!o ,x,x ,m")
> (match_operand:TI 1 "general_op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55261
Bug #: 55261
Summary: [C++0x] ICE (SIGSEGV) when inheriting implicit
constructor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55258
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-10 08:52:22
UTC ---
Created attachment 28651
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28651
Something like this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55260
Bug #: 55260
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE: in ipa_get_parm_lattices, at
ipa-cp.c:263 with -O2 -fno-inline -fipa-cp-clone
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Versi
35 matches
Mail list logo
