The online docs at
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.4.2/gcc/Other-Builtins.html
has a confusing (to me) example of __builtin_expect. Could someone
take a look at this?
start quote from above-referenced page
Since you are limited to integral expressions for exp, you should
use
On 20 December 2011 12:49, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
The point of the example is that you cannot write
if (__builtin_expect (ptr, 1))
error ();
so the != NULL is important here. But you are right that
error () is a bit unexpected; care to send a patch that changes
it
Hello All,
With the code given below, i expected the ppc compiler (e500mc v4.6.2)
to generate 'memset' zero call for loop initialization (at '-O3'),
but it generates a loop.
Case:1
int a[18], b[18];
foo () {
int i;
for (i=0; i 18; i++)
a[i] = 0;
}
Also based on the
Dear All,
I suspect there is a regression from g++ 4.4 in later versions. If the
name of the class is ambiguous in a catch(), this fact is not reported.
I had checked bz, but not found this particular case:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=ambiguous
Attached a simple test
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Rohit Arul Raj rohitarul...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello All,
With the code given below, i expected the ppc compiler (e500mc v4.6.2)
to generate 'memset' zero call for loop initialization (at '-O3'),
but it generates a loop.
Case:1
int a[18], b[18];
foo () {
On 20 December 2011 13:31, Peter A. Felvegi wrote:
I suspect there is a regression from g++ 4.4 in later versions. If the name
of the class is ambiguous in a catch(), this fact is not reported.
Bugs should be reported to bugzilla:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#report
Please also provide a reduced
I've submitted a bug:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51640
Regards, Peter
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20111220 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20111220/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Here is a follow up. I am closer to what I need, but not quite there
yet. Basically I just want to switch the type of one formal parameter
to a different type.
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Matt Davis mattdav...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Martin and thank you very much for your reply. I do have
Ok, here is a patch which improves the example:
--- gcc/doc/extend.texi.ORIG 2011-12-20 17:35:32.236578828 -0800
+++ gcc/doc/extend.texi 2011-12-20 17:37:10.460583316 -0800
@@ -7932,7 +7932,7 @@
@smallexample
if (__builtin_expect (ptr != NULL, 1))
- error ();
+ ptr-do_something();
Hi,
I plan to set up daily regression test on trunk for target
ARM-NONE-EABI and post results to gcc-testresults mailing list. Which
Binutils should I use, the Binutils trunk or the latest released
Binutils? And which way is recommended, building from a combined tree
or building separately? If
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51632
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.6.3, 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51633
Bug #: 51633
Summary: [c++0x] [4.6/4.7 Regression] ICE with invalid
constexpr constructor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51633
Volker Reichelt reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51634
Bug #: 51634
Summary: [OOP] ICE with polymorphic operators
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51630
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20
08:57:19 UTC ---
the code fails for me using any of GCC 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 of 4.7
are you sure that's the actual code you're compiling?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51630
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20
08:59:11 UTC ---
Ah, it's because you're using -fsyntax-only, so it doesn't instantiate
templates. Don't do that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51365
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20
09:09:56 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Dec 20 09:09:50 2011
New Revision: 182523
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182523
Log:
PR libstdc++/51365
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43437
--- Comment #17 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-12-20
09:14:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 26150
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26150
reduced second test case
Reduced test case, very sensitive to control flow
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46796
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20
09:49:22 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Dec 20 09:49:17 2011
New Revision: 182524
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182524
Log:
2011-12-20 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46796
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51624
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51630
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51633
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-12-20
10:30:39 UTC ---
By the way, calling these issues Regression doesn't seem appropriate:
granted, 4.5 may have parsed some constrexpr usages, but didn't have any
semantics
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51612
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-20 10:38:48 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Dec 20 10:38:44 2011
New Revision: 182526
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182526
Log:
/cp
2011-12-20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51612
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20
10:52:19 UTC ---
The point is that even if you use sth like
typedef int myint __attribute__((aligned(1)));
to capture the misaligned pointer to the packed structure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50518
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-12-20
10:54:06 UTC ---
Any news on this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50592
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41159
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41159
--- Comment #20 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20
11:01:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 26151
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26151
patch
I'm testing this patch on x86_64-linux, but it won't make any
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-12-20 11:04:37 UTC ---
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20
11:18:24 UTC ---
Huh, it's not. It's the same as a packed struct or enum type.
No, it isn't, the mode is integral instead of BLKmode. In Ada we do support
misaligned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51621
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51583
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-12-20 11:23:48 UTC ---
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20
11:34:00 UTC ---
You mean that handling the TYPE_ALIGN != MODE_ALIGN case when
expanding a MEM_REF (thus, INDIRECT_REF on old branches) won't work?
But you cannot have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-12-20 11:56:22 UTC ---
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
Bug #: 51635
Summary: [4.7 regression] ICE in in dwarf2out_finish, at
dwarf2out.c:22494 when building Firefox's libxul
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
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=51635
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20
12:13:27 UTC ---
(gdb) call debug_tree (context)
record_type 0x758bd7e0 nsSVGEffects asm_written QI
...
(gdb) call debug_tree (context-type_common.name)
type_decl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20
12:25:13 UTC ---
You can. Just check what you get with that aligned(1) int typedef.
Well, we're going in circles as this example precisely doesn't work.
Is it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41159
--- Comment #21 from Ryan Mansfield rmansfield at qnx dot com 2011-12-20
12:27:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
I'm testing this patch on x86_64-linux, but it won't make any difference
there.
So can you guys test on arm/alpha please and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51636
Bug #: 51636
Summary: Thread-safeness of new and delete operators
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51636
Ingo K. ingo at pyrillion dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48189
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-12-20 13:21:02 UTC ---
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50518
--- Comment #2 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20 13:29:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Any news on this?
No, sorry, I'll try to work on it before the end of stage 3.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49951
--- Comment #11 from Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20
13:36:08 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Tue Dec 20 13:36:04 2011
New Revision: 182532
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182532
Log:
PR debug/49951 - jumpy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49951
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51637
Bug #: 51637
Summary: Add compile-time error if array is too large
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49951
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20
13:49:28 UTC ---
Thanks! It would be very helpful to get this into 4.6.3 too if it's safe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20
14:16:35 UTC ---
It's actually easy to do. We just have to make sure that the TYPE_DECLs we
refer to are those of their type. Thus,
Index: gcc/lto/lto.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388
Andreas Tobler andreast at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andreast at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20
14:47:25 UTC ---
Doesn't work. Instead testing a similar
Index: gcc/lto/lto.c
===
--- gcc/lto/lto.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43437
--- Comment #18 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-12-20
15:14:41 UTC ---
The second test case started failing with r170199:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2011-02/msg00744.html
This is the reversal of the same change that was
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51638
Bug #: 51638
Summary: gfortran optimization breaks a single variable used as
both input and output for subroutine call
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2011-12-20 15:31:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Doesn't work. Instead testing a similar
Index: gcc/lto/lto.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-12-20 15:38:16 UTC ---
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, markus at trippelsdorf dot de wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #5 from Markus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-12-20 15:40:01 UTC ---
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, markus at trippelsdorf dot de wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org 2011-12-20 15:48:28
UTC ---
Does this work?
diff --git a/config/warnings.m4 b/config/warnings.m4
index 292e5a4..b64b594 100644
--- a/config/warnings.m4
+++ b/config/warnings.m4
@@ -32,7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388
--- Comment #12 from Andreas Tobler andreast at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20
15:57:36 UTC ---
Seems to work. At least in stage one, compiling gcc.
Thank you!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51639
Bug #: 51639
Summary: Nested type pointer null initialisation fails
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51639
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-12-20
16:27:46 UTC ---
This seems to have been fixed on trunk between revisions 181881 (valgrind
error) and 182076 (OK).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51640
Bug #: 51640
Summary: Misleading error if the type in the catch() is
ambiguous
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51640
--- Comment #1 from petschy at gmail dot com 2011-12-20 16:49:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 26155
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26155
a slightly more verbose test case
Extended test case with ambiguous type name in variable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51639
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=51640
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51472
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |aldyh at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51641
Bug #: 51641
Summary: Lookup finds enclosing class member instead of
template parameter
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51037
Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51639
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-12-20
17:13:31 UTC ---
Tobias,
Do you have a 4.6.3 build after r182062 (p51435)? If yes, could you check its
behavior for this pr? TIA.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51638
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=51622
--- Comment #9 from Domingo Alvarez mingodad at gmail dot com 2011-12-20
17:30:55 UTC ---
Some mistakes corrected and it was compiled with mingw 4.6.1 and wotk as
expected.
The results:
lua 5.1.4 with _Decimal64 from 2.4MB to 681KB
sqlite3 with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51642
Bug #: 51642
Summary: Weak variable reference triggers ICE with -flto option
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51639
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20
17:43:07 UTC ---
What Ada does looks just like a workaround for what should be done properly in
the expander. So no, IMHO we shouldn't be changing all other FEs and the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51638
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51435
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jonathan.hogg at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51635
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2011-12-20 18:06:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
This one is extremely slow. lto1 has already used 12min of CPU time when
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19185
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19185
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51636
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51630
Robert Ramey ramey at rrsd dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
Bug #: 51643
Summary: Incorrect code produced for tail-call of weak function
with -O2/-O3 option
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-eabi|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20
21:27:15 UTC ---
Also the linker seems funny to replace a branch to null with a nop.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49865
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20
21:29:40 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Tue Dec 20 21:29:36 2011
New Revision: 182553
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182553
Log:
2011-12-20
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: jan.kratoch...@redhat.com
PASS: gcc (GCC) 4.6.3 20111220 (prerelease)
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.7.0 20111220 (experimental)
#include stdarg.h
extern
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42839
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Osipenko sipych at gmail dot com 2011-12-20
21:39:11 UTC ---
This behavior is explicitly defined in ARM RealView compiler, and GCC seems try
to follow this convention.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39586
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Osipenko sipych at gmail dot com 2011-12-20
21:58:39 UTC ---
From ARM EABI specification (doc: ARM IHI 0044A)
On platforms that do not support dynamic pre-emption of symbols an unresolved
weak reference to a symbol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51645
Bug #: 51645
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/alias-decl-debug-0.C (test for
excess errors)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2011-12-20 22:34:43 UTC ---
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, sipych at gmail dot com wrote:
On platforms that do not support dynamic pre-emption of symbols an unresolved
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43437
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51643
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Osipenko sipych at gmail dot com 2011-12-20
23:33:06 UTC ---
It seems reasonable to expect minimal consistency, either generating invalid
(zero for example) reference for any direct weak function call, better marking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51621
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-20 23:51:13 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Dec 20 23:51:09 2011
New Revision: 182556
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182556
Log:
/cp
2011-12-20
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
