If the optimization options provided in a different way,
the same source codes would be compiled into different executables.
In the different executables,
the register allocation or instruction orders might be easily changed,
but I think that's not that big change.
What I'd like to do is to make
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
bas...@starynkevitch.net wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
(stop reading now, what follows is pure cynicism - I have to do it, because
the following can't be let un-responded, rather than un-answered)
Actually, I
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
bas...@starynkevitch.net wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
Ah, you mean like doing the tuples conversion as plugin? Or to
build the cgraph infrastructure and IPA optimization infrastructure
as plugin? I guess what you say is - stop
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
bas...@starynkevitch.net wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
Ah, you mean like doing the tuples conversion as plugin? Or to
build the cgraph infrastructure and IPA optimization infrastructure
as plugin? I guess what you
Hi Basile et al,
My suggestion to ICI friends is : just propose quickly your needed plugin
events, and make
your ICI a GPLv3 plugin.
When you can show that your ICI plugin to an *unmodified* gcc-4.5 brings some
value, GCC
people will perhaps start to
listen and look inside.
Just to
If the optimization options provided in a different way,
the same source codes would be compiled into different executables.
In the different executables,
the register allocation or instruction orders might be easily changed,
but I think that's not that big change.
What I'd like to do is to make
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Grigori Fursin grigori.fur...@inria.fr wrote:
Hi Basile et al,
My suggestion to ICI friends is : just propose quickly your needed plugin
events, and make
your ICI a GPLv3 plugin.
When you can show that your ICI plugin to an *unmodified* gcc-4.5 brings
some
That's very reasonable and it's our eventual goal too so we will start
discussions
about that in detail whenever ICI is clean.
By the way, just to mention that I am working with a student (Yuri) to
provide/understand/describe/characterize
performance dependencies and interaction between
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Grigori Fursin grigori.fur...@inria.fr wrote:
Hi Basile et al,
My suggestion to ICI friends is : just propose quickly your needed plugin
events, and make
your ICI a GPLv3 plugin.
When you can show that your ICI plugin to an *unmodified*
Basile,
I understand your constraints and concerns.
I personally would also be happy to see ICI and pass manager in GCC soon,
BUT it was delay on our side that prevented submission/checking of the patch,
so I am just taking a pragmatic approach of preparing an ICI patch first
(well, actually
I was looking through the gcc-4.5 primary and secondary platform list
to ensure we have coverage for MPC testing. It occurs to me that some
of the OS versions are outdated.
I've included the list from the page
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/criteria.html
Should we update:
1. solaris2.10 - 2.11
2.
I was looking through the gcc-4.5 primary and secondary platform list
to ensure we have coverage for MPC testing. It occurs to me that some
of the OS versions are outdated.
I've included the list from the page
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/criteria.html
Should we update:
1. solaris2.10 -
Kaveh R. GHAZI gh...@caip.rutgers.edu writes:
Please test this version and report back in this thread (not to me
privately) the results of make check. Also include your target
triplet,
and the versions of your compiler, gmp and mpfr.
Wow we've gotten a lot of results, thanks everyone! But
Byoungyoung Lee lifeasag...@gmail.com writes:
If the optimization options provided in a different way,
the same source codes would be compiled into different executables.
In the different executables,
the register allocation or instruction orders might be easily changed,
but I think that's
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
The platforms still needed for mpc-0.8 release testing are:
i386-unknown-freebsd (have results for mpc-0.8dev)
Watch gcc-testresults, my first submission of building GCC trunk with
mpc-0.8 (release) should appear there in a third of a day.
Also,
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
2. i386-unknown-freebsd and i686-apple-darwin are generic, but
config.guess will supply specific version numbers. What version
should MPC be shown to work on? Any one of them would do?
For FreeBSD, I'd specify versions 6.x and above. Older versions
Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
Kaveh R. GHAZI gh...@caip.rutgers.edu writes:
Please test this version and report back in this thread (not to me
privately) the results of make check. Also include your target
triplet, and the versions of your compiler, gmp and mpfr.
i686-pc-cygwin
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Kaveh R. GHAZI gh...@caip.rutgers.edu wrote:
A prerelease tarball of the upcoming mpc-0.8 is available here:
http://www.multiprecision.org/mpc/download/mpc-0.8-dev.tar.gz
This release is feature complete with respect to C99 and GCC's needs.
So I expect to
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
i386-unknown-freebsd (have results for mpc-0.8dev)
Watch gcc-testresults, my first submission of building GCC trunk with
mpc-0.8 (release) should appear there in a third of a day.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-11/msg00664.html
Gerald
-Original Message-
From: Kaveh R. Ghazi [mailto:gh...@caip.rutgers.edu]
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 10:40 AM
To: Gerald Pfeifer; dave.korn.cyg...@googlemail.com;
d...@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca; David Edelsohn; Weddington, Eric
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: MPC version 0.8
From: David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com
MPC-0.8 build fails on AIX due to libtool. The changes to libtool
between MPC-0.7 and MPC-0.8 rely on Bash-specific features. Manually
editing libtool to use Bash allowed the build to succeed.
Hi David,
Can you please be more specific about this
--- Comment #8 from astrange at ithinksw dot com 2009-11-07 09:03 ---
Closing.
--
astrange at ithinksw dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #5 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-11-07 09:21 ---
bt with a memory object and a register index will _not_ truncate the argument:
static int btm(int *a, int b) {
asm (btl %2, %1; movl $0, %0; setc %b0 : =r (b) : m (*a), 0 (b));
return b;
}
static int btr(int a, int b)
--- Comment #5 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-11-07 09:35 ---
Confirmed, the code for -O2 -funroll-loops includes things such as
movzwl 2(%eax), %esi
movl$1, -44(%ebp)
subl%ecx, -44(%ebp)
movl-44(%ebp), %edi
movzbl (%edx,%edi),
--- Comment #41 from ludovic at ludovic-brenta dot org 2009-11-07 09:45
---
As I understand it, there is still a patch pending for i386?
Does anyone plan to backport this patch into gcc-4_4-branch?
I am considering applying this patch (up to r153918) in Debian's
gnat-4.4. Before I
--- Comment #7 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2009-11-07 10:00 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Ok, I take this.
Thanks. I did a bit more digging and I think there are a
few more for file builtins.c - would you like these new ones
now as well as the two I've already mentioned, or would
--- Comment #42 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 10:05
---
As I understand it, there is still a patch pending for i386?
Yes, the current stack checking method is not bullet-proof and can fail to
detect stack overflows; a warning should be issued in that case though.
--- Comment #3 from rainer at emrich-ebersheim dot de 2009-11-07 11:04
---
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
That is because the way you configured GCC with
--with-sysroot=/mingw/test/sysroot
Since that is true, it adds the sysroot to
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-11-07 11:07
---
About testing, the idea is comparing the results before and after the patch (at
any given moment in the development process you may see an handful of
pre-existing regressions, which will be fixed in time for
--- Comment #9 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2009-11-07 11:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=18987)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18987action=view)
patch file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41974
--- Comment #10 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2009-11-07 11:45 ---
I've added an improved patch file. There are more fixes
in builtins.c and I've added some changes for calls.c
I count eight variables removed and the patch seemed to build ok.
I haven't regression tested it, however.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|paolo dot carlini at oracle |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|dot com
--- Comment #11 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2009-11-07 12:22 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
I've added an improved patch file. There are more fixes
in builtins.c and I've added some changes for calls.c
I've posted something to gcc-patches. I'll wait see what
happens with that
--- Comment #20 from pierre42d at 9online dot fr 2009-11-07 12:24 ---
I have the same problem with 4.4.2
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21206
[...]
make[2]: Entering directory `/tmp/gcc-build/libiberty'
make[3]: Entering directory `/tmp/gcc-build/libiberty/testsuite'
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -s -O3 -march=i686 -I..
-I../../../gcc-4.4.2/libiberty/testsuite/../../include -o test-demangle \
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 14:35 ---
On the tree level we see (after FRE):
D.1996_50 = pix_1 + 1;
D.1997_51 = 1 - stride_11(D);
D.1998_52 = (unsigned int) D.1997_51;
D.1999_53 = pix_1 + D.1998_52;
D.2000_54 = *D.1999_53;
D.2003_57 =
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 14:44 ---
Oh, there's no loop. Then it's the not implemented strength-reduction on
scalar code that is the issue. In theory strength-reduction can be
integrated into our global value-numbering / PRE code, but nobody has
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 17:40 ---
Subject: Bug 41643
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Nov 7 17:39:48 2009
New Revision: 153996
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=153996
Log:
PR tree-optimization/41643
Backport from mainline
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 17:41 ---
Subject: Bug 41643
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Nov 7 17:41:07 2009
New Revision: 153997
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=153997
Log:
PR tree-optimization/41643
* gcc.dg/pr41643.c: New
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 17:41 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from nmm1 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-11-07 17:44 ---
Created an attachment (id=18988)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18988action=view)
The source of the failing program
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41977
--- Comment #2 from nmm1 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-11-07 17:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=18989)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18989action=view)
The first half of the data generation code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41977
--- Comment #3 from nmm1 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-11-07 17:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=18990)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18990action=view)
The second half of the generation code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41977
--- Comment #4 from nmm1 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-11-07 17:48 ---
Sorry - there's no need to send you the data file - I can send the programs
I use to generate it, which are very short. I have done so. To run these,
compile them into binaries of the same name with almost any options,
The following code ICEs:
MODULE m
IMPLICIT NONE
TYPE t
PROCEDURE(myproc), POINTER, PASS :: myproc
END TYPE t
CONTAINS
INTEGER FUNCTION myproc (me)
CLASS(t), INTENT(IN) :: me
myproc = 42
END FUNCTION myproc
END MODULE m
PROGRAM main
USE m
IMPLICIT NONE
TYPE(t) ::
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 18:24 ---
Nick,
Have you also reported this issue to the ACML forum?
AFAICT, acml is a closed source library (at least I
couldn't find the source code), and the problem may
in fact be within acml.
--
--- Comment #6 from nmm1 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-11-07 18:29 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran -fopenp and ACML_MP seem incompatible
No, but I will try to find it. It is definitely a closed source library,
and was written by NAG for AMD under contract. I quite agree that the bug
could be
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 18:40 ---
I suspect acml_mp is built using a different GCC version and they link
libgomp statically. Can you check what the acml_mp library links against?
Just use ldd for this. Then check that this is consistent with what
--- Comment #8 from nmm1 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-11-07 18:56 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran -fopenp and ACML_MP seem incompatible
On Nov 7 2009, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 18:40
--- I suspect acml_mp is
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 19:00 ---
Even without acml, there appears to be an issue.
gfortran44 -o one -O2 -pipe -march=native one.f90 -L/usr/local/lib \
-llapack -lblas -fopenmp
./one fred_f_1000
LAPACK Cholesky time = .27 seconds, CPU =
--- Comment #10 from nmm1 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-11-07 19:15 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran -fopenp and ACML_MP seem incompatible
On Nov 7 2009, kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
OpenMP clearly helps the 'Coded Cholesky time', but it
causes a factor of 10 degradation in the 'Coded
--- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 19:45 ---
See here for some discussion about this issue:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/8cef6676b6fa3750#
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41177
--- Comment #14 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 19:46 ---
Subject: Bug 9381
Author: jason
Date: Sat Nov 7 19:45:56 2009
New Revision: 153998
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=153998
Log:
PR c++/9381
* decl2.c (build_memfn_type): Preserve
--- Comment #15 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 20:24 ---
Fixed for 4.4.3. The patch for 4.4 applied fine to 4.3, but didn't fix the bug
there for some reason.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-11-07 20:53
---
Fixed in r154001.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
GCC version: gcc version 4.5.0 20091105 (experimental) (GCC)
System type: i386-pc-mingw32
Options given when GCC was configured/built:
../gcc-4.5-20091105-mingw/configure --host=i386-pc-mingw32
--build=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu --target=i386-pc-mingw32
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 22:19 ---
Which version of ACML are you using? I get a bit confused with all those
4-dot-something version numbers as both GCC and ACML have them.
Do you use ACML 4.3.0?
strings /opt/acml4.3.0/gfortran64/lib/libacml.a
g++ -v -B. -r -nostdlib graphite-identity-bug.ii -Wall -fno-exceptions -O
-fprofile-arcs -fgraphite-identity
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.5.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with:
g++ -v -B. -r -nostdlib graphite-identity-bug.ii -Wall -fno-exceptions -O
-fprofile-arcs -fgraphite-identity
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.5.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with:
g++ -v -B. -r -nostdlib graphite-identity-bug.ii -Wall -fno-exceptions -O
-fprofile-arcs -fgraphite-identity
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.5.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with:
g++ -v -B. -r -nostdlib graphite-identity-bug.ii -Wall -fno-exceptions -O
-fprofile-arcs -fgraphite-identity
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.5.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with:
g++ -v -B. -r -nostdlib graphite-identity-bug.ii -Wall -fno-exceptions -O
-fprofile-arcs -fgraphite-identity
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.5.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with:
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 22:29 ---
Please attach preprocessed source. I suspect this is yet another dup of
PR41891.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from b3timmons at speedymail dot org 2009-11-07 22:31
---
Created an attachment (id=18991)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18991action=view)
bzip2ed preprocessed source triggering failure
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41984
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 22:36 ---
Confirmed with -O1 -fbounds-check.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from b3timmons at speedymail dot org 2009-11-07 22:52
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 41984 ***
--
b3timmons at speedymail dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from b3timmons at speedymail dot org 2009-11-07 22:52
---
*** Bug 41980 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41984
--- Comment #3 from b3timmons at speedymail dot org 2009-11-07 22:53
---
*** Bug 41981 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41984
--- Comment #1 from b3timmons at speedymail dot org 2009-11-07 22:53
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 41984 ***
--
b3timmons at speedymail dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 22:54 ---
PR41928 has the smallest testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41891
--- Comment #1 from b3timmons at speedymail dot org 2009-11-07 22:54
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 41984 ***
--
b3timmons at speedymail dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from b3timmons at speedymail dot org 2009-11-07 22:54
---
*** Bug 41982 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41984
--- Comment #5 from b3timmons at speedymail dot org 2009-11-07 22:54
---
*** Bug 41983 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41984
--- Comment #1 from b3timmons at speedymail dot org 2009-11-07 22:54
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 41984 ***
--
b3timmons at speedymail dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 23:15 ---
I have a patch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 23:27 ---
*** Bug 41891 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 23:27 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 41928 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 23:27 ---
*** Bug 41903 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 23:27 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 41928 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 23:28 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 41928 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 23:28 ---
*** Bug 41944 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from nmm1 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-11-07 23:33 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran -fopenp and ACML_MP seem incompatible
On Nov 7 2009, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 22:19
--- Which version of ACML
--- Comment #2 from brunorex at gmail dot com 2009-11-07 23:37 ---
Mind explaining how can I do that?
(In reply to comment #1)
Please attach preprocessed source. I suspect this is yet another dup of
PR41891.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41979
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-11-08 00:10
---
From http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ : the preprocessed file (*.i*) that triggers the
bug, generated by adding -save-temps to the complete compilation command
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41979
--- Comment #5 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-08 03:10 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 15946 ***
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-08 03:10 ---
*** Bug 35228 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-08 03:47 ---
Subject: Bug 18451
Author: jason
Date: Sun Nov 8 03:47:36 2009
New Revision: 154006
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154006
Log:
PR c++/18451
PR c++/40738
* cp-tree.h
--- Comment #3 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-08 03:47 ---
Subject: Bug 40738
Author: jason
Date: Sun Nov 8 03:47:36 2009
New Revision: 154006
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154006
Log:
PR c++/18451
PR c++/40738
* cp-tree.h
--- Comment #16 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-08 04:02 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 15946 ***
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-08 04:02 ---
*** Bug 15179 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15946
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #8 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-08 04:03 ---
Fixed for 4.5.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #24 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-08 04:07 ---
*** Bug 21783 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-08 04:07 ---
The testcase is well-formed under DR 224/409.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 9634 ***
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #8 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-08 04:18 ---
Fixed in 4.4.0, not going to fix in 4.3 branch.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #5 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-08 04:37 ---
I think this is a bug; we shouldn't be dropping the const at template parsing
time.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40315
--
aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
99 matches
Mail list logo
