http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45980
--- Comment #1 from Carrot carrot at google dot com 2010-10-18 06:24:04 UTC
---
The replacement of constant loading with add operations is occurred at pass
postreload in function reload_cse_move2add. It is straight forward to extend
that to other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46060
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18255
--- Comment #13 from Tilo Prütz tilo at pruetz dot net 2010-10-18 08:21:31
UTC ---
Thank you very much!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46019
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-18
08:26:09 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Oct 18 08:26:06 2010
New Revision: 165610
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165610
Log:
PR middle-end/46019
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39669
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43448
--- Comment #1 from ak at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-18 09:39:19 UTC ---
Author: ak
Date: Mon Oct 18 09:39:15 2010
New Revision: 165613
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165613
Log:
Remove gccbug
gcc/
2010-10-18 Andi Kleen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46060
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46055
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46019
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-18
09:57:05 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Oct 18 09:57:02 2010
New Revision: 165617
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165617
Log:
PR middle-end/46019
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46055
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-18
09:58:41 UTC ---
Hmm, does -fuse-linker-plugin have the same side-effects as -fwhole-program?
That will break symbol use by dlopened objects and we have to avoid that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46019
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-18
10:08:52 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Oct 18 10:08:47 2010
New Revision: 165621
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165621
Log:
PR middle-end/46019
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44950
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-18
10:54:21 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 18 10:54:18 2010
New Revision: 165629
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165629
Log:
2010-10-18 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44950
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45472
--- Comment #6 from Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-18
10:57:23 UTC ---
Anybody familiar with the expand/tree level can take a look on this? I can
spare some time later this week if folks are busy.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46019
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|jakub at gcc dot gnu.org|unassigned at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45834
Bingfeng Mei bmei at broadcom dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard.guenther
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45834
--- Comment #2 from richard.guenther at gmail dot com richard.guenther at
gmail dot com 2010-10-18 11:38:03 UTC ---
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 1:33 PM, bmei at broadcom dot com
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46060
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|gfortran crash when |[F03] procedure pointer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45472
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46061
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39653
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andreas.milton.m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46064
Summary: have to enter a comment to resolve a bug as a
duplicate
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45834
--- Comment #3 from Bingfeng Mei bmei at broadcom dot com 2010-10-18 12:16:59
UTC ---
I think that standard specifies that char * may refer to an alias of any
object, that's why QImode is different here. But I am not sure whether a
restrict
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45472
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Bonzini bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-10-18 12:20:39
UTC ---
Would it make sense to make the statement volatile even if only some
subcomponents (or all subcomponents) are volatile?
I like (2); if I understand it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46055
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-10-18 12:23:36
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Hmm, does -fuse-linker-plugin have the same side-effects as -fwhole-program?
That will break symbol use by dlopened objects and we have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46065
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected tree that
contains 'decl minimal' structure, have 'tree_list' in
poplevel_named_label_1, at cp/decl.c:477
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45834
--- Comment #4 from richard.guenther at gmail dot com richard.guenther at
gmail dot com 2010-10-18 13:42:33 UTC ---
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 2:17 PM, bmei at broadcom dot com
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45834
--- Comment #5 from Bingfeng Mei bmei at broadcom dot com 2010-10-18 13:53:37
UTC ---
Sure, but we have other means of dealing with that (MEM_ALIAS_SET == 0).
Do you mean this check is redundant here ? I dig out the ancient code (from
1997)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42987
Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45834
--- Comment #6 from richard.guenther at gmail dot com richard.guenther at
gmail dot com 2010-10-18 13:57:19 UTC ---
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:53 PM, bmei at broadcom dot com
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46066
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: in create_parallel_loop, at
tree-parloops.c:1455 with -ftree-parallelize-loops -g
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46067
Summary: hang or spurious compiler message using procedure
pointer with pass
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46068
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: in consider_split, at
ipa-split.c:313 with -flto/-fwhopr and asm goto
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46018
--- Comment #7 from Art Haas ahaas at airmail dot net 2010-10-18 15:03:56 UTC
---
My bootstrap build succeeded for the this morning again, so I suggest closing
this ticket.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46055
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-10-18 15:11:52
UTC ---
Hi,
I found what is causing the problem. I accidentally comitted also the
following cleanup of visibility code. The difference is that we now trust
linker's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46041
Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45638
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-18
15:16:11 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Oct 18 15:16:07 2010
New Revision: 165638
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165638
Log:
PR lto/45638
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46041
Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2010-10-18 15:11:54 |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45967
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-18
15:32:03 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 18 15:32:00 2010
New Revision: 165641
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165641
Log:
2010-10-18 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45967
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46018
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2010-10-18 15:37:04 UTC ---
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010, ahaas at airmail dot net wrote:
Running 'git bisect' but interpreting a failed build as 'good' and a
successful
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46065
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46066
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46068
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45472
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-18
15:42:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Would it make sense to make the statement volatile even if only some
subcomponents (or all subcomponents) are volatile?
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45983
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: |[4.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46055
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-10-18 15:47:24
UTC ---
Hi,
the plugin seems to give bit funny resolutions in side cases, so I will revert
the accident commit now, will commit the cleanup part of change incrementally
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
--- Comment #17 from Steve Ellcey sje at cup dot hp.com 2010-10-18 15:51:52
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
Based on my posted test results for hppa2.0-hp-hpux11.11, this PR was
fixed on the trunk between r163182 and r163254.
Need to find
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45785
--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2010-10-18 15:54:45
UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46015
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-18
15:55:31 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Oct 18 15:55:25 2010
New Revision: 165643
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165643
Log:
PR c/46015
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46064
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-18
15:56:11 UTC ---
I think this is the right thing to do. when bugs are marked as dups the
majority of the time, we want an explication. Because if there was none; the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45472
--- Comment #10 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-18 15:58:26
UTC ---
One idea we had was that this is all frontends business anyway, and hence
it should (if it so desires) simply create volatile MEM_REFs for references
to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46064
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46041
--- Comment #6 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-18
16:12:21 UTC ---
Does anyone honestly expect a pre-processor macro to change due to
attributes on a function? I sure don't -- that would seem to be a
clear translation phase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43804
Thorsten Glaser tg at mirbsd dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tg at mirbsd dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46015
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46041
--- Comment #7 from Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-18
16:21:31 UTC ---
Yes, though the issue originally came up in terms of the pragma and not the
attribute, because people wanted to include the various include files that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45866
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2010-10-18
16:35:45 UTC ---
I don't see c++/45114 resolved very soon, thus, for 4.6.0, let's provide anyway
those constants, seems simple.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45866
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45472
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2010-10-18 16:41:03 UTC ---
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Also consider memcpy (vv1, vv2) and eventually the compiler optimizing
that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
--- Comment #18 from Steve Ellcey sje at cup dot hp.com 2010-10-18 16:55:32
UTC ---
It looks like this was fixed (for hppa at least) in r163190.
2010-08-12 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR tree-optimization/45232
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44776
Dave Korn davek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davek at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45472
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Bonzini bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-10-18 17:12:59
UTC ---
It would be nice if for
struct a {
char a,b,c,d;
volatile int e;
};
struct a v1, v2;
...
v1 = v2;
the compiler emitted
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
Paolo Bonzini bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #21699|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
--- Comment #19 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-10-18 17:27:04 UTC ---
It looks like this was fixed (for hppa at least) in r163190.
2010-08-12 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR tree-optimization/45232
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45866
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-10-18 17:28:21 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Oct 18 17:28:15 2010
New Revision: 165649
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165649
Log:
2010-10-18 Paolo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45866
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46067
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
--- Comment #20 from Steve Ellcey sje at cup dot hp.com 2010-10-18 17:54:42
UTC ---
Not really, there are about 300 lines of new code (mostly in a new routine).
It might be that only the change in can_reassociate_p is needed to fix this
bug.
That
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46071
Summary: ill-formed use of decltype and auto (c++0x) causes
segfault
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46071
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46040
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-10-18 18:28:07 UTC ---
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46040
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46068
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|lto |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
Summary: AIX linker chokes on debug info for uninitialized
static variables
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46068
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46073
Summary: __builtin_choose_expr outputs warnings for unused
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46073
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-18
19:00:51 UTC ---
I think this is correct as __builtin_choose_expr still does semantically
checking on the two arguments. Not to mention __builtin_choose_expr was added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45999
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46073
--- Comment #2 from kevin.waugh at gmail dot com 2010-10-18 19:17:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I think this is correct as __builtin_choose_expr still does semantically
checking on the two arguments. Not to mention __builtin_choose_expr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #86 from Steve Ellcey sje at cup dot hp.com 2010-10-18 19:52:39
UTC ---
I was able to bootstrap the 32 bit PA compiler using the latest patch. I
haven't done a full test run yet but I will do that overnight.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46073
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2010-10-18 19:55:25 UTC ---
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
checking on the two arguments. Not to mention __builtin_choose_expr was
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46041
--- Comment #8 from Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-18
20:01:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 22083
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22083
Patch that redefines mode_has_fma so that it works with -save-temps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46067
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46075
Summary: g++ wrongly lookups builtin types in ADL (compiles
wrong code)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46075
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich slyfox at inbox dot ru 2010-10-18
20:23:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 22084
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22084
test example. compilation should fail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46075
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-18
20:24:25 UTC ---
Actually there is an open question if clang or gcc is correct according to the
C++ standards committee. There is a defect report about foundational types.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46075
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29131
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at inbox
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225
--- Comment #4 from Antony King antony.king at st dot com 2010-10-18 20:29:01
UTC ---
I am out of the office until 25th October 2010 and am unable to respond to your
email until then. If you have any enquiries concerning the ST40 Micro Toolset
then
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46075
--- Comment #4 from Sergei Trofimovich slyfox at inbox dot ru 2010-10-18
20:43:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Actually there is an open question if clang or gcc is correct according to the
C++ standards committee. There is a defect report
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[meta-bug] Mozilla does not |[meta-bug] Issues
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46060
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46075
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-18
20:49:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #2)
You mean standard is buggy and gcc refuses to implement ill behaviour,
right?
Or behaviour is not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46076
Summary: [4.6 regression] constant propogation and compile-time
math no longer happening versus 4.4 and 4.5
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46076
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-18
21:15:16 UTC ---
This is a micro benchmark really; we would inline it as far as I can tell if we
have other things going on.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46018
--- Comment #9 from Art Haas ahaas at airmail dot net 2010-10-18 21:27:59 UTC
---
Once the patch discussed in the following mail was applied:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg01538.html
I can confirm that the bootstrap failure I've
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46067
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-18 21:29:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
potential problem 2: if the error message is correct and if the type of the
passed-object dummy argument in the sample code is changed from a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46067
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2010-10-18
21:31:54 UTC ---
Beware the INVALID recursive IOs: they hang on darwin!-(see pr 30617).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43760
--- Comment #8 from Steve Ellcey sje at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-18 21:34:51
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Mon Oct 18 21:34:46 2010
New Revision: 165664
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165664
Log:
2010-10-18 Steve Ellcey
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36898
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey sje at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-18 21:34:51
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Mon Oct 18 21:34:46 2010
New Revision: 165664
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165664
Log:
2010-10-18 Steve Ellcey
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo