http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48301
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bsreram85 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52293
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52126
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52126
--- Comment #7 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-17 07:49:43 UTC ---
Author: fabien
Date: Fri Feb 17 07:49:35 2012
New Revision: 184328
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184328
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2012-02-16 Fab
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52293
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2012-02-17
07:46:16 UTC ---
> conftest.c:1:0: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault: 11
Since this is stage1 dieing. I think the compiler you are using to compile GCC
is miscompiling GCC.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52293
--- Comment #3 from bsreram85 at gmail dot com 2012-02-17 05:52:04 UTC ---
The same is the case for version 4.6.2 also.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52293
--- Comment #2 from bsreram85 at gmail dot com 2012-02-17 05:50:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 26691
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26691
Config.log file generated in $Object_Folder/x86_64-apple-darwin11.0.0/libgcc
folder
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52293
--- Comment #1 from bsreram85 at gmail dot com 2012-02-17 05:48:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 26690
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26690
log file created in the Object directory
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52293
Bug #: 52293
Summary: cannot compute suffix of object files
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52286
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski 2012-02-17
04:52:36 UTC ---
Note VRP has the same issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52286
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2012-02-17
04:50:20 UTC ---
double_int_negative_p is returning true because of that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52286
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43491
--- Comment #8 from amker.cheng 2012-02-17
03:55:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> With tree hoisting we generate
>
> :
> pretmp.5_19 = data_0;
> pretmp.5_20 = data_3;
> i_21 = pretmp.5_19 + pretmp.5_20;
> if (data_3(D) != 0)
> g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52292
--- Comment #1 from Ryan Leckey 2012-02-17
01:00:33 UTC ---
Oops, forgot this.
Here is the output of `gcc -v`
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=l:\Applications\MinGW\bin\gcc.exe
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=l:/applications/mingw/bin/../libexec/gcc/i686-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52292
Bug #: 52292
Summary: [C++11] Variadic template expansion into fixed
template causes constructor to not match
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52291
--- Comment #1 from Hubert Tong 2012-02-17 00:37:12
UTC ---
I mean that the pseudo-code is not consistent with valid C/C++ when the
operands (`*ptr' and `value') are pointer types.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52291
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-17
00:38:15 UTC ---
N.B. those built-ins are deprecated in favour of
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/_005f_005fatomic-Builtins.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52288
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52291
Bug #: 52291
Summary: __sync_fetch_and_add and friends poorly specified for
pointer types
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774
--- Comment #15 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-02-17
00:22:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 26688
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26688
patch
Bootstrapped and regression tested, but without documentation updated or
testcase. Anyw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52288
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-17
00:18:21 UTC ---
I would expect as lambdas get used more people will understand they produce a
unique closure type
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52238
--- Comment #5 from Rafaël Carré 2012-02-17
00:12:49 UTC ---
Second patch tested with VLC.
After rebuilding gcc 4.6.2 package from Debian, mingw-w64-dev package with new
gcc, and VLC including all libraries (qt4, ffmpeg etc), I got DXVA2 decodin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52288
--- Comment #3 from Ivan Godard 2012-02-17
00:00:48 UTC ---
As lambdas get used more you will get this kind of report a lot. I suggest you
head off a lot of nuisance by having any lambda/lambda type comparisons emit a
"Note: each lambda is it own
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52288
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-16
23:53:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> > foo.cc:5:28: error: no match for ternary âoperator?:â in âb ? {argc} :
> > {argc}â
> >
> > which is a poor.
>
> What do you suggest instead?
Sorry, I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-02-16 23:52:21 UTC ---
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Talking about this particular case (folding in build_c_cast), is this actually
> needed here? Couldn't GCC just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52288
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
mpiler version:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/new-gcc/i-4.7/bin/gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/new-gcc/i-4.7/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.7.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../s-4.7/configure --prefix=/new-gcc/i-4.7
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52221
--- Comment #11 from gee 2012-02-16 23:19:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Created attachment 26685 [details]
> proposed patch
>
> with this patch, ExtraClassLoader testcase passed with three `true'
> testing for whole libjava testsuite.
Ru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52289
Bug #: 52289
Summary: translatable string typo: "must not be have"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50349
--- Comment #2 from Pawel Sikora 2012-02-16 23:09:45
UTC ---
Created attachment 26687
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26687
build log.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50349
--- Comment #3 from Pawel Sikora 2012-02-16 23:10:34
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I am unable to reproduce this on F16,
>
> GNU ld version 2.21.53.0.1-6.fc16 20110716
> Copyright 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>
> Can you give me so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52288
Bug #: 52288
Summary: Trouble with operator?: and lambdas
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52285
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-16
22:20:31 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 16 22:20:27 2012
New Revision: 184317
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184317
Log:
PR tree-optimization/52285
* tree-tailcall.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-02-16 20:10:34 UTC ---
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Is this folding actually necessary for anything beyond diagnostics? I thought
> it was agreed that folding in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52221
gee changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26653|0 |1
is obsolete||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52287
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Schmidt 2012-02-16
20:43:03 UTC ---
Not reproducible with a cross compiler.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50349
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52248
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-02-16
20:09:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Is this folding actually necessary for anything beyond diagnostics? I
> > thought
> > it was agreed that folding in the F
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52221
--- Comment #10 from Kai Tietz 2012-02-16 20:37:28
UTC ---
I see here three issues about this patch.
First, you don't treat stack-alignment.
Second, why you emulate here stack-argument cleanup for ret __size-4? Why not
stick to already present
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52248
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-02-16
20:21:07 UTC ---
Another simple testcase:
// { dg-do compile }
// { dg-options "-ftime-report" }
int f()
{
goto cleanup // { dg-error "cleanup" }
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45472
--- Comment #20 from Zdenek Sojka 2012-02-16 20:14:54
UTC ---
I can think of two use-cases from threaded environment:
- using the volatile member as a semaphore for the structure
- when one needs to assure some data will be written in certain ord
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52248
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zgss278 at 163 dot com
--- Comment #1 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52189
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 20:05:27 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-10
> 11:29:09 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #0)
>> * Default to --disable-threads on Solaris 8/9 to avoid breaking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52188
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 19:54:52 UTC ---
> --- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-10
> 11:23:49 UTC ---
> Then simply don't export it? It's a template instantiation after all.
I didn't think abo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49126
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WORKSFORME |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pins
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51368
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49445
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52267
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52188
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 20:01:03 UTC ---
> --- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor 2012-02-16
> 15:55:04 UTC ---
> First and foremost, sorry for the big delay but I could not have a
> look at this PR earlier.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52189
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 20:02:08 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-10
> 11:20:33 UTC ---
> 4) Don't export them (thus, eventually live with undefined symbols?)
Right, that's what my
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52221
--- Comment #8 from gee 2012-02-16 20:12:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 26685
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26685
proposed patch
with this patch, ExtraClassLoader testcase passed with three `true'
testing for whole libjava te
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52188
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 19:58:27 UTC ---
> --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-10
> 12:30:39 UTC ---
> The bug was that the gnu.ver wildcards were too generic and thus matched even
> something tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47145
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52287
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth 2012-02-16 19:52:40 UTC
---
Created attachment 26684
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26684
preprocessed input
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52189
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 20:04:42 UTC ---
> --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-10
> 11:25:35 UTC ---
> This change:
>
> --- baseline_symbols.txt2012-01-23 19:01:03.590486000 +0100
> +++ b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52188
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51415
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48243
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 19:21:17 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-02-14
> 19:44:21 UTC ---
> I think these are all fixed now.
Right. The only failures left are crypto/rand due to the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52287
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Schmidt 2012-02-16
19:47:29 UTC ---
Please attach the reginfo.ii file.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52205
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 19:46:02 UTC ---
> Fine with me (I won't make any of these changes myself though).
I'll probably give it a whirl, but only after 4.7 has branched. For
4.8, there might be conside
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45472
--- Comment #19 from Jason Merrill 2012-02-16
19:41:29 UTC ---
It seems to me that volatile reads/writes should get their own gimple
statements, not be part of a larger block move. So instead of
vv1 = vv2;
we should have
vv1.a ={v} vv2.a;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50654
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 19:29:29 UTC ---
> --- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-02-14
> 00:40:07 UTC ---
> Should be fixed on mainline. Although I only tested it on
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu built
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51874
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-pc-solaris2.1[01], |mips-sgi-irix6.5
|mips-sg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48122
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 19:23:05 UTC ---
> --- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-02-14
> 19:47:16 UTC ---
> I believe this is fixed now. The testsuite compilation now uses
> -fno-toplevel-reorder to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51415
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2012-02-16
19:42:15 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Feb 16 19:42:08 2012
New Revision: 184314
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184314
Log:
PR c++/51415
* error.c (dump_expr): Handle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
--- Comment #29 from Anders F Björklund
2012-02-16 19:21:45 UTC ---
It still needs to generate the extra underscore for Darwin,
and it still needs to fix the bug mentioned in Comment #12.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52282
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
--- Comment #30 from Anders F Björklund
2012-02-16 19:22:25 UTC ---
Created attachment 26682
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26682
gcc-gox_import.diff
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48501
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 19:25:56 UTC ---
> --- Comment #5 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-02-14
> 18:06:55 UTC ---
> Should be fixed now. Let me know if you still see problems.
Not with these three. Only
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
--- Comment #31 from Anders F Björklund
2012-02-16 19:22:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 26683
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26683
gcc-darwin_goc2c.patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
--- Comment #32 from Anders F Björklund
2012-02-16 19:28:22 UTC ---
Then it's more about fixing library issues, like the macros used
for TIOCNOTTY/TIOCSCTTY or st_atime/st_mtime/st_ctime and sysctl.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52286
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52286
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52287
Bug #: 52287
Summary: [4.7 regression] ICE in ready_remove_first, at
haifa-sched.c:1927
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-16
19:00:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Is this folding actually necessary for anything beyond diagnostics? I thought
> it was agreed that folding in the FEs was EVIL and we should stop doing it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52268
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52286
--- Comment #2 from John Regehr 2012-02-16 18:51:50
UTC ---
Sorry, previous one wasn't quite reduced.
int printf ( const char *, ... );
int a, b;
int main (void)
{
b = (~a | 0 >= 0) & 0x98685255F;
printf ("%d\n", b < 0);
return 0;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52285
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-16
18:50:27 UTC ---
Created attachment 26681
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26681
gcc47-pr52285.patch
Patch to ignore clobber stmts in tailc/tailr passes. This turns this testcase
b
++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20120216 (experimental) (GCC)
[regehr@gamow 1]$ cat small.c
int printf ( const char *, ... );
int c,
a,
b;
int
fn1 ( void )
{
return c < 0;
}
int
main ( )
{
b = ( ~a | 0 >= 0 ) & 0x98685255F;
printf ( "%d\n", ( ( b ) < 0 ) );
return 0;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52286
Bug #: 52286
Summary: wrong code bug
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52285
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52285
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-16
18:25:24 UTC ---
While it will slow down this exact testcase even more, I think tailr/tailc
passes should ignore CLOBBER stmts.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-02-16
18:25:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > What is the problem with stripping the nops *before giving the error* and
> > if it
> > sti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52285
Bug #: 52285
Summary: [4.7 Regression] libgcrypt _gcry_burn_stack slowdown
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimiz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51415
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-02-16 17:54:03 UTC ---
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> What is the problem with stripping the nops *before giving the error* and if
> it
> still fails, give an error?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52220
--- Comment #4 from Mike Stump 2012-02-16
17:16:39 UTC ---
Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52268
--- Comment #1 from Mike Stump 2012-02-16
17:15:47 UTC ---
If you could snapshot some codegen, say
void foo() {
static __thread int i = 42;
++i;
}
or somesuch, we could see if they wired it up the same was as gcc is normally
wired.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-02-16 17:09:30 UTC ---
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I hope we'll eventually extend TREE_NO_WARNING to be a bit that thise tree
> should be looked up in some hash ta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52284
Bug #: 52284
Summary: translatable string typo: "compatable"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
--- Comment #28 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-02-16 16:50:13
UTC ---
Using pthreads will be much less efficient than the current code using
getcontext/setcontext. Writing machine-specific replacement code would be a
much better idea than that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
--- Comment #1 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-16 16:49:38 UTC ---
Note that the TREE_NO_WARNING is introduced in convert_to_integer:596 while
because of the unsigned-int type conversion in build_c_cast.
A first attempt to fix is to set TRE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
Bug #: 52283
Summary: "error: case label does not reduce to an integer
constant" for constant folded cast expr
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
--- Comment #27 from Jack Howarth 2012-02-16
16:22:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> I think it would be great if somebody would tell me something I can used
> instead of makecontext/getcontext/setcontext. Unless somebody can come up
> wit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52218
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose 2012-02-16
16:08:18 UTC ---
delaying this until PR52266 can be fixed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52188
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor 2012-02-16
15:55:04 UTC ---
First and foremost, sorry for the big delay but I could not have a
look at this PR earlier. Nevertheless, I doubt that the decision of
the new IPA-CP not to clone the function in ques
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52282
Bug #: 52282
Summary: [C++0x] ICE / confused by earlier errors with
decltype/constexpr
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
1 - 100 of 159 matches
Mail list logo
