http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54908
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill 2013-01-19
05:25:32 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Jan 19 05:25:25 2013
New Revision: 195310
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195310
Log:
PR target/54908
c-family/
* c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56043
Bug #: 56043
Summary: ICE in rs6000_builtin_vectorized_libmass for
vsx-mass-1.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56042
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56042
Bug #: 56042
Summary: Many errors building GCC trunk with mingw-w64 rev.
5542
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55995
Sharad Singhai changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56035
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56041
Bug #: 56041
Summary: Constexpr conversion function definition not found in
template argument context
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56040
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |target
--- Comment #1 from Andr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56040
Bug #: 56040
Summary: ld: library not found for -lgcc_ext.10.5
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56039
Bug #: 56039
Summary: ICE in iterative_hash_template_arg, at cp/pt.c:1606
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
:callq 0x1a680
<__cxa_allocate_exception>
(gdb)
__cxa_allocate_exception (thrown_size=4) at
../../../../gcc-4.8-20130118/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/eh_alloc.cc:102
102{
1: x/i $pc 0x1a680 <__cxa_allocate_exception>:push %rbp
(gdb)
105 thrown_si
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56038
Bug #: 56038
Summary: declarations in xmmintrin.h conflict with mingw-w64
intrin.h in c++ mode
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55693
--- Comment #16 from Jack Howarth 2013-01-18
22:02:08 UTC ---
If I compile the failing test case from comment 10 with...
% g++-fsf-4.8 -static-libgcc -fgnu-tm a.C
% otool -L ./a.out
./a.out:
/usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib (compatibilit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56035
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46952
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |
--- Comment #6 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56030
--- Comment #4 from Bill Gates 2013-01-18
20:53:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> X32 isn't usable for Ada. See PR 54040.
Thank you for the feedback besides building the tools i have not tested them ..
the second patch also include
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55433
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56029
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56029
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-18
20:24:49 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 18 20:24:34 2013
New Revision: 195304
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195304
Log:
PR tree-optimization/56029
* tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56037
--- Comment #1 from ricilake at gmail dot com 2013-01-18 20:23:27 UTC ---
Created attachment 29214
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29214
Test cases as described in bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56037
Bug #: 56037
Summary: Spurious syntax error triggered before ambiguity
resolution of type-id
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56030
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||54040
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #38 from Sriraman Tallam 2013-01-18
19:53:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
> Created attachment 29207 [details]
> gcc48-pr55742.patch
>
> This bug is open for way too long given its severity, so let's start talking
> over patche
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56036
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Preud'homme 2013-01-18
18:51:54 UTC ---
Created attachment 29213
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29213
Patch fixing the issue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56036
Bug #: 56036
Summary: Wrong indentation in multiple -O options explaination
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: tri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55493
Fanael changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|WORKSFORME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55995
--- Comment #4 from Sharad Singhai 2013-01-18
18:26:17 UTC ---
Author: singhai
Date: Fri Jan 18 18:26:04 2013
New Revision: 195303
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195303
Log:
2013-01-18 Sharad Singhai
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56028
Pawel Sikora changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pluto at agmk dot net
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56030
Bill Gates changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29205|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55433
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov 2013-01-18
18:15:02 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Jan 18 18:14:52 2013
New Revision: 195302
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195302
Log:
2013-01-18 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #37 from Sriraman Tallam 2013-01-18
18:07:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #35)
> Created attachment 29211 [details]
> gcc48-pr55742.patch
>
> Updated patch with ChangeLog entry and code to prevent issuing errors for the
> s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #36 from Sriraman Tallam 2013-01-18
18:03:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
> Created attachment 29207 [details]
> gcc48-pr55742.patch
>
> This bug is open for way too long given its severity, so let's start talking
> ov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #35 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-18
17:51:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 29211
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29211
gcc48-pr55742.patch
Updated patch with ChangeLog entry and code to prevent issuing errors
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56023
--- Comment #6 from Uros Bizjak 2013-01-18 17:49:33
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Bookkeeping seems somehow broken to me in sched1 pass:
*IF* this is problematic, then 4.7+ releases have the same problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56028
--- Comment #6 from Paul E. McKenney
2013-01-18 17:40:13 UTC ---
The fact that a data-race-free program cannot observe the non-atomicity of a
64-bit store, though true, is beside the point. The plain fact is that
hardware registers (for w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56023
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2013-01-18 17:38:23
UTC ---
Bookkeeping seems somehow broken to me in sched1 pass:
-O2 -fcompare-debug -fdump-rtl-sched1-slim -S:
_.c.190r.sched1:
;;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56035
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #34 from davidxl 2013-01-18 17:27:43
UTC ---
The patch is missing changes in documentation on the new attribute.
David
(In reply to comment #32)
> Created attachment 29207 [details]
> gcc48-pr55742.patch
>
> This b
: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: antoine.balest...@gmail.com
Hi !
Using GCC 4.8.0 as of 20130118 :
$ cat bb.c
short a, c, *p;
void f(void
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56015
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
Summary|[4.6/4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55693
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org|unassigned at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56015
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-18
17:15:17 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 18 17:15:07 2013
New Revision: 195301
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195301
Log:
PR middle-end/56015
* expr.c (e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55693
--- Comment #14 from Aldy Hernandez 2013-01-18
17:14:56 UTC ---
> You can use DYLD_PRINT_BINDINGS to find out which __cxa_allocate_exception
> call
> is being used, it'll also give you the addresses so you can make sure that the
> right o
Bizjak 2013-01-18 17:04:39
UTC ---
4.7.3 [1] bootstraps OK, also passes -fcompare-debug test.
[1] gcc version 4.7.3 20130118 (prerelease) [gcc-4_7-branch revision 195292]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #33 from Jason Merrill 2013-01-18
16:59:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
That sounds good, thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56034
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55889
--- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn 2013-01-18
16:57:00 UTC ---
Neither insn 24/145 nor insn 28 move through insn 17. The two UNSPEC 44 insn
(LC..2,, LCM..2) are inputs to insn 17. The pseudos are moved into r3 and r4,
which are the inputs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56029
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56029
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-18
16:54:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 29209
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29209
gcc48-pr56029.patch
The bug is that neither reserve_phi_args_for_new_edge nor remove_phi_ar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55889
--- Comment #9 from David Edelsohn 2013-01-18 16:49:08
UTC ---
Created attachment 29208
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29208
sched-verbose=9 dump output with debugging patch applied
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56028
--- Comment #5 from Evgeniy Stepanov
2013-01-18 16:38:11 UTC ---
Well, it's true that classes have assignment operators, and basic types don't.
But this does not have anything to do with how the assignment could (or could
not) be implement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56028
--- Comment #4 from Paul E. McKenney
2013-01-18 16:22:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> So, what are these "rules of the abstract machine", and why do they allow
> non-atomic store of a large volatile aggregate (it is definitely not at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21141
--- Comment #10 from Denis Vlasenko
2013-01-18 16:03:37 UTC ---
BTW, testcase needs a small fix:
-static const u64 C0[256];
+u64 C0[256];
or else gcc with optimize it almost to nothing :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21141
Denis Vlasenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vda.linux at googlemail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54793
Frank Ch. Eigler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56032
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-01-18
16:00:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I added a new report because 50025 is about a compilation error, and with gcc
> 4.7 the code compiles, but fails to work as expected, but probably t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #23 from Kostya Serebryany 2013-01-18
15:46:00 UTC ---
in our use-case 5% of run-time (and code size too) is a lot.
We are currently in the process of migrating the chrome builds to zero based
offset (chrome already uses -pie)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-18
15:41:09 UTC ---
Forcing everything to be built as -pie is a non-starter. The 5% just aren't
worth the trouble. Especially, how are you going to deal with say a
-fsanitize=address shared libr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56032
--- Comment #3 from Gábor Horváth 2013-01-18
15:39:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > I guess the origin of this problem is the incomplete fix of the error above.
>
> There is no fix, PR 50025 is still open and t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50025
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xazax.hun at gmail dot com
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56032
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #21 from Kostya Serebryany 2013-01-18
15:33:33 UTC ---
While we are at it...
It is possible to use zero shadow offset of powerpc somehow?
on x86_64 linux, when I build the code with -fPIC -pie
the mapping looks like this:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56027
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56034
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56032
--- Comment #1 from Gábor Horváth 2013-01-18
15:01:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Consider the following code:
>
> // CODE --
>
> #include
> #include
>
>
> class S {
> public:
> S(const std::vector& v_) : v{v_} {}
>
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: antoine.balest...@gmail.com
Hi !
Using GCC 4.8.0 as of 20130118 :
$ cat incompat.c
int a, b, *p;
void f(void)
{
int *q
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56030
--- Comment #1 from Bill Gates 2013-01-18
14:57:29 UTC ---
There is a glitch with this testing it with a native x32 and includeing 64
mutlilib fails on the multilib build as there is no /64 multilib directory
currently included ... sm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56022
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56033
Bug #: 56033
Summary: FAIL: libffi.call/cls_struct_va1.c on
powerpc-apple-darwin9 with -m64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #32 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-18
14:18:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 29207
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29207
gcc48-pr55742.patch
This bug is open for way too long given its severity, so let's start t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56032
Bug #: 56032
Summary: Uniform initialization of references
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56031
Bug #: 56031
Summary: Set ABI/Multilib to x32 when targeting x86_64-*-gnux32
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: en
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-18
13:52:02 UTC ---
Ah yes, it can't be | SHADOW_OFFSET then, but has to be + SHADOW_OFFSET. + is
what gcc emits (the reason for that was primarily that it resulted in better
code on x86_64/i686)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56030
Bug #: 56030
Summary: Ada fails to build when targeting x32 non multilib
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #19 from Andreas Schwab 2013-01-18 13:25:42
UTC ---
MEM_TO_SHODOW does not work when (SHADOW_OFFSET << SHADOW_SHIFT) is less than
kHighMemEnd.
$ ASAN_OPTIONS=verbosity=1 ./clone-test-1.exe
==16778== Parsed ASAN_OPTIONS: verb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #18 from Andreas Schwab 2013-01-18 13:21:02
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> In LLVM trunk: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=172807&view=rev
That only happens when running under gdb which appears to disable address
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56029
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener 2013-01-18
13:14:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 29204
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29204
somewhat reduced testcase
Somewhat reduced testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-18
13:02:41 UTC ---
But why doesn't the 1 << 41 version work with both 44 and 46-bit VA?
It should be:
|| `[0x0a00, 0x3fff]` || HighMem||
|| `[0x0340, 0x09ff
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56029
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener 2013-01-18
13:02:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> It's the PHI arg location of
>
> constant 0>
>
> as seen after IPA inline transform.
>
> Ah ...
>
> FOR_EACH_PHI_ARG (arg_p, p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #16 from Kostya Serebryany 2013-01-18
12:30:11 UTC ---
-#define SHADOW_OFFSET (1ULL << 41)
+#define SHADOW_OFFSET (1ULL << 43)
On my ppc box which uses 44 bit address space this does not work:
% ASAN_OPTIONS=verbo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56029
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56027
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse 2013-01-18 12:08:52
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> > I am mostly wondering what guarantees I have there won't be re-ordering.
> > *mxcsr
> > are unspec_volatile and thus can commute with asm (register)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56028
--- Comment #3 from Evgeniy Stepanov
2013-01-18 11:57:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> See 1.9p8 of the C++11 standard, first bullet:
>
> "Access to volatile objects are evaluated strictly according to the rules of
> the abstract m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56029
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
--- Comment #1 from Rich
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56029
Bug #: 56029
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed, location
references block not in block tree
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56027
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener 2013-01-18
11:49:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > I think you want a pass-thru:
> >
> > #define opaque(x) __asm volatile ("# x" : "=g" (x) : "0" (x))
>
> (opaque re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #15 from Kostya Serebryany 2013-01-18
11:40:57 UTC ---
>> There are two off-by-one:
In LLVM trunk: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=172807&view=rev
Initially I wanted to do a merge to gcc this week, but I think I bet
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56028
--- Comment #2 from Paul E. McKenney
2013-01-18 11:25:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> - Does language standard guarantee atomic store in this case [wikipedia says
> "No." [1]]?
The above example of device drivers storing constants
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53359
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56027
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse 2013-01-18 11:14:53
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I think you want a pass-thru:
>
> #define opaque(x) __asm volatile ("# x" : "=g" (x) : "0" (x))
(opaque returns a value in my example, but that's a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21150
Denis Vlasenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vda.linux at googlemail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56022
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55793
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56028
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak 2013-01-18 11:09:42
UTC ---
- Does language standard guarantee atomic store in this case [wikipedia says
"No." [1]]?
- Can a store to a volatile DImode location be implemented as two consecutive
SImode st
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55889
--- Comment #8 from Andrey Belevantsev 2013-01-18
11:09:13 UTC ---
Created attachment 29202
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29202
more debug printing patch
>From the log, the problem looks as follows. There is
i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54507
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54402
--- Comment #28 from Alexandre Oliva 2013-01-18
11:08:06 UTC ---
Is the mem-clobbering compile-time regression still noticeable after the recent
patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56006
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54114
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Component|middle-
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
