http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57182
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-05-06
06:08:22 UTC ---
I think the effective part is main part which says it will do it otherwise but
not automatically doing it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57183
Bug #: 57183
Summary: [C++11]auto and -Wunused-variable
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57182
--- Comment #2 from rusty at rustcorp dot com.au 2013-05-06 07:59:02 UTC ---
Sure, once I understood how it worked, I could parse the documentation. But
that's a bit backwards :)
Thanks,
Rusty.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57181
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57183
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57183
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2013-05-06
08:47:25 UTC ---
PI_1 and PI_3 are d instead of r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57180
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56474
--- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-05-06
09:33:53 UTC ---
is the testcase when changed to 'Empty_Vector : Vector (-2);' valid?
Yes, this is the superflat case.
In any case, in 0 .. Size, Size seems
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57180
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50642
--- Comment #10 from Shakthi Kannan skannan at redhat dot com 2013-05-06
10:33:33 UTC ---
Created attachment 30037
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30037
Normal font for smallexample using update_web_docs_svn script
As
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57184
Bug #: 57184
Summary: ICE in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:10478
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57184
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57184
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57184
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-05-06
10:59:39 UTC ---
Looks like COMPOUND_LITERAL_EXPR isn't gimplified properly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57184
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57184
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-05-06
11:24:08 UTC ---
Simplified testcase:
struct S {};
void bar (struct S *const);
static struct S *const c = (struct S) {};
void
foo (void)
{
bar (c);
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57169
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57139
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51927
--- Comment #7 from js at lastlog dot de 2013-05-06 11:37:54 UTC ---
which gcc version will have that patch applied?
thanks for fixing, hope libcppa will work with gcc now again!
On 05/04/2013 02:33 PM, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57162
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57147
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57184
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57184
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57051
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: antoine.balest...@gmail.com
Using GCC 4.9.0 as of 20130506 :
$ cat kk.c
int a, b;
int *d;
void f(void)
{
int c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57185
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57153
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57185
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57183
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57176
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57153
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57176
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-05-06 12:52:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Unless I'm misunderstanding your suggestion I think that a compiler is not
allowed to apply copy-elision here, because that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57176
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2013-05-06 13:11:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Do you have a link to the discussion, or happen to remember the arguments?
I can see that there are more possible
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57176
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-05-06 13:44:51
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
Do you have a link to the discussion, or happen to remember the arguments?
I can see that there
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56560
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57186
Bug #: 57186
Summary: implement load sinking in loops
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg00742.htm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57186
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-05-06
14:51:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 30041
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30041
Testcase #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57186
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-05-06
14:51:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 30042
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30042
Testcase #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57186
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-05-06
14:52:25 UTC ---
Created attachment 30043
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30043
Testcase #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57074
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57187
Bug #: 57187
Summary: [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on
Solaris/SPARC: ICE in check_probability, at
basic-block.h:941
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57187
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188
Bug #: 57188
Summary: [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64:
No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57183
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57189
Bug #: 57189
Summary: [4.9 Regression] Vector register is spilled for vector
extract pattern
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57106
--- Comment #6 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2013-05-06 18:57:21
UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon May 6 14:53:03 2013
New Revision: 198629
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198629root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/57106
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57106
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57190
Bug #: 57190
Summary: verify_ssa failed: SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI
should be set
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52933
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-05-06 20:10:11
UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revisionrevision=198646
PR target/52933
* config/sh/sh.md (*cmp_div0s_0, *cmp_div0s_1, *movsicc_div0s): Add
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57191
Bug #: 57191
Summary: GCC cross-compilers built with MinGW do no include
correct directory
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57191
Matt Grochowalski MatthewS.Grochowalski at ge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55171
--- Comment #13 from niXman i.nixman at gmail dot com 2013-05-06 22:31:01 UTC
---
Kai, any ideas?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51226
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39725
Pete Delaney piet.delaney at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57124
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com 2013-05-07 04:25:27
UTC ---
Yea, 254.gap is definitely overflowing signed types. I've got changes to make
the warnings and -fno-strict-overflow work that I'll put through their paces
56 matches
Mail list logo
