http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54283
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-11-16 09:11:36 UTC ---
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16
01:06:20 UTC ---
Does this still happen?
It
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55330
David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55350
Bug #: 55350
Summary: verify_gimple failed with invalid (pointer) operands
to plus/minus
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52855
Steinar Midtskogen stemidts at cisco dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55260
Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55341
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54717
--- Comment #18 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16
10:37:30 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Nov 16 10:37:25 2012
New Revision: 193553
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193553
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55341
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55341
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #5 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-11-16 10:56:11 UTC ---
is the problem similar to what described in PR55213?
or here
float mem[3*1024];
void sum() {
float * a=mem;
const float *
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55350
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54073
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16
11:40:42 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 16 11:40:39 2012
New Revision: 193554
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193554
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55297
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55351
Bug #: 55351
Summary: can't build libgcc for -m5-compact variant in SH64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55333
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16
12:02:33 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Nov 16 12:02:29 2012
New Revision: 193557
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193557
Log:
Define/use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55333
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41951
--- Comment #16 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16 12:04:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
(In reply to comment #14)
Comment 12 is fixed with r189022, but comment 11 is still accepted without
error.
One way to reject the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41951
--- Comment #17 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16 12:33:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
One way to reject the abstract case in comment 11, would be to just do the
checking, but not add the procedure to the operator list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54875
--- Comment #3 from dodji at seketeli dot org dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-11-16 12:57:37 UTC ---
I candidate patchlet has been submitted for this at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg01375.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16
13:19:51 UTC ---
The C testcase is simiar - in the mgrid case we are probably able to derrive
useful loop bounds now and the dependency analysis could use them (but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54497
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16
13:29:05 UTC ---
Ah, on the #c5 testcase the problem seems to be const float * vs. float *,
/* If the references do not access the same object, we do not know
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55352
Bug #: 55352
Summary: Erroneous gfortran warning of unused module variable
when variable is only used in namelist
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55352
--- Comment #1 from AstroFloyd AstroFloyd at gmail dot com 2012-11-16
13:43:25 UTC ---
Created attachment 28710
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28710
Verbose output from compilation of example source file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #10 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-11-16 13:46:13 UTC ---
actually looking into the generated code I do not see any trace of runtime
check
even in presence of const
c++ -O3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16
13:55:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
actually looking into the generated code I do not see any trace of runtime
check
even in presence of const
The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #12 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-11-16 13:58:33 UTC ---
so a better c case is
float * mem;
void sumN(int n) {
float * a=mem;
/*const*/ float * b=mem+n;
/*const*/ float * c=mem+2*n;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55313
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55338
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-16
14:15:34 UTC ---
See:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-11/msg00241.html
Daniel, do you agree?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16
14:17:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
so a better c case is
float * mem;
void sumN(int n) {
float * a=mem;
/*const*/ float * b=mem+n;
/*const*/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55337
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16
14:33:48 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 16 14:33:44 2012
New Revision: 193558
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193558
Log:
PR c++/55337
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55337
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48636
--- Comment #42 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2012-11-16 14:42:33 UTC ---
Fatigue now gets all inlining with -O3 -fwhole-program, with -O3 it gets only
half of inlining because jump functions are not able to track
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54073
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regression]|[4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55338
--- Comment #2 from Piotr Wyderski piotr.wyderski at gmail dot com 2012-11-16
15:06:45 UTC ---
IMO this case is not covered by the linked paragraph,
so please wait and let me create a thread on
compl.lang.c++.moderated and then proceed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54875
--- Comment #4 from Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16
15:20:11 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Fri Nov 16 15:20:03 2012
New Revision: 193562
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193562
Log:
PR c++/54875 -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54875
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55313
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55313
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-11-16 15:38:42
UTC ---
BTW, it works for me with
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-bootstrap --prefix=/usr/gcc-4.8.0
--with-local-prefix=/usr/local
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55345
--- Comment #2 from Juno Krahn juno.krahn at nih dot gov 2012-11-16 15:56:24
UTC ---
Abstract interfaces and rename aliasing are both seldom used, plus there is a
work-around, so I agree that there is no need for back porting.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53024
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55260
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55352
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55330
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16
16:32:08 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Nov 16 16:32:02 2012
New Revision: 193567
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193567
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55330
Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55353
Bug #: 55353
Summary: [asan] the flag for asan should match the one used in
clang
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55297
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16 17:02:07 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Nov 16 17:02:02 2012
New Revision: 193568
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193568
Log:
2012-11-16 Janus Weil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55354
Bug #: 55354
Summary: [asan] by default, the asan run-time should be linked
statically, not dynamically
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55354
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
Bug #: 55355
Summary: internal compiler error: in tree_low_cst, at
tree.c:6415
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55354
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry Vyukov dvyukov at google dot com 2012-11-16
17:20:43 UTC ---
Not much better performance.
Sole -fPIE vs -fPIC gives us 20% speedup on real programs. Indirect call will
add another 10%.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55354
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
--- Comment #1 from Richard Perrin rcp at sentientmeat dot ca 2012-11-16
17:23:11 UTC ---
Oops:
s/3.4.6/4.6.3/ on all above.
All references to gcc 3.4.6 should actually be gcc 4.6.3. I'm apparently
dyslexic or something today.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55338
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16
17:27:50 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-11/msg00259.html
Covers why this still invalid code.
See also 13935.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-16
17:30:55 UTC ---
I can't reproduce this on x86_64-linux, neither -m64 nor -m32. Tried 4.6.3,
current 4_6-branch, 4_7-branch and mainline.
Somebody can?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55078
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16
17:32:50 UTC ---
Martin, any news here?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55338
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #27 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16
17:42:26 UTC ---
/* Now merge each file. */
for (gi_ptr = gcov_list; gi_ptr; gi_ptr = gi_ptr-next)
{
// Open existing gcda file for gi_ptr
//
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55339
--- Comment #4 from anton.katilin at gmail dot com 2012-11-16 17:44:16 UTC ---
Why did you do that?
We copied the configuration of gcc 4.1.2 available on the system (Yellow Dog
Linux) out of the box. It had been configured with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
--- Comment #3 from Richard Perrin rcp at sentientmeat dot ca 2012-11-16
17:50:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I can't reproduce this on x86_64-linux, neither -m64 nor -m32. Tried 4.6.3,
current 4_6-branch, 4_7-branch and mainline.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785
--- Comment #33 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16
18:00:54 UTC ---
And at -O3 the testcase does not look really good indeed
bb 7:
# cstore_51 = PHI 0(5), 2147483647(6)
# prephitmp_82 = PHI 1073741823(5),
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #28 from Teresa Johnson tejohnson at google dot com 2012-11-16
18:03:08 UTC ---
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:42 AM, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55041
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16
18:14:02 UTC ---
Tom, do you have any idea what's going on in comment 6 and comment 8 of this
bug?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55356
Bug #: 55356
Summary: ICE with TRANSFER of C_NULL_PTR
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55357
Bug #: 55357
Summary: -Wshadow warns about lambda function parameters
matching variables in outer scope
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55297
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53024
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16
18:18:16 UTC ---
I don't think we can ever support vector size of non power 2 size.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55286
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16
18:28:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 28712
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28712
assign.c
Assignment extracted into a self-contained testcase, does
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55358
Bug #: 55358
Summary: Valgrind errors
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #29 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-11-16 18:57:41
UTC ---
I'm confused - that is essentially what it is doing today (although
comparing against the first merged file instead of the last merged
file). It isn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55359
Bug #: 55359
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE in simplify_subreg accessing an
unaligned subvector
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54795
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-11-16 19:36:26 UTC ---
I'm not sure if it's related, but with gcc built with clang's
-fsanitize=address I get:
markus@x4 ~ %
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53024
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16 20:03:05
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
I don't think we can ever support vector size of non power 2 size.
I don't think we *will* ever support them (too much work,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55354
--- Comment #4 from Konstantin Serebryany konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot
com 2012-11-16 20:28:34 UTC ---
You have been warned (especially about tsan performance. tsan run-time heavily
depends on TLS, and TLS is much slower with -fPIC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55041
--- Comment #12 from Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16 20:46:33
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Tom, do you have any idea what's going on in comment 6 and comment 8 of this
bug?
Not offhand.
If you send me the failing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55354
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16
20:46:35 UTC ---
For TLS, you can just use -ftls-model=initial-exec or __attribute__((tls_model
(initial-exec))). libasan from what I can see doesn't use TLS at all, and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55360
Bug #: 55360
Summary: [TileGX] Passing structure by value on stack
needlessly writes to and reads from memory
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55354
--- Comment #6 from Konstantin Serebryany konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot
com 2012-11-16 20:54:40 UTC ---
Answering my own question: we can get static linking with
-Wl,-Bstatic -lasan -Wl,-Bdynamic -ldl -lpthread
For TLS, you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55352
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16 21:43:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I guess we should either set attr.referenced in gfc_match_namelist (match.c),
or check for attr.in_namelist in generate_local_decl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55329
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16
22:05:36 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 16 22:05:32 2012
New Revision: 193577
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193577
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55361
Bug #: 55361
Summary: Access control in templates only happens when
instantiating a method
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55361
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16
22:32:03 UTC ---
The Comeau C/C++ online tester does not error out on this testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55361
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16
22:38:47 UTC ---
I don't think this is a gcc bug as access control is always done only at
template-instantiation time.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54342
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53101
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16 23:03:47
UTC ---
Created attachment 28713
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28713
Tweak on the patch of PR48037
This is a slight extension of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55361
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-16
23:06:09 UTC ---
Likewise EDG as used by Intel. clang errors out. From the user point of view,
to make debugging easier, the earlier errors are produced the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55360
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-11-16 23:46:25
UTC ---
Is this related to PR 28831?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55361
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-17
00:19:18 UTC ---
unless this is recategorised as a diagnostic enhancement request this is
clearly invalid, the compiler is not required to give an error for this code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55041
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at
94 matches
Mail list logo