On 01/02/2011 02:33, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Hi,
There are ~100 failures on each *-rtems* target
in the latest test runs when various lto related
flags are on. The symbols in questions are in the
RTEMS libraries which are picked up via the
-B... argument. Other symbols from the same
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, NightStrike wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Dongsheng Song
dongsheng.s...@gmail.com wrote:
It's
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/02/2011 02:33, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Hi,
There are ~100 failures on each *-rtems* target
in the latest test runs when various lto related
flags are on. The symbols in questions are in the
RTEMS libraries
Could someone with the powers please modify my permissions to the above?
I will do that if a gcc maintainer vouches for you.
For the record, this situation has now been resolved and I can edit
the bugs as requested.
Many thanks,
Tony
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, NightStrike wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On
On Jan 26, 2011, at 3:27 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Black Bit black...@live.com writes:
Could someone tell me if the work described in this paper
http://www.linuxsymposium.org/archives/GCC/Reprints-2006/namolaru-reprint.pdf
was completed and is part of gcc?Thanks
On 02/01/2011 04:54 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 01/02/2011 02:33, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Hi,
There are ~100 failures on each *-rtems* target
in the latest test runs when various lto related
flags are on. The symbols in questions are in the
RTEMS libraries which are picked up via the
-B... argument.
this task.
If we really want to do that, I can update the current post-commit
hook script [1].
*) Get DATESTAMP for the current branch in the repository, e.g.
$ svn cat svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk/gcc/DATESTAMP
20110201
$ svn cat svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-4_5-branch/gcc
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Dongsheng Song wrote:
The DATESTAMP change could also be in a post-commit hook (doing
nothing if the date didn't change, of course). No idea whether
this is technically possible of course.
Yes, the post-commit hook can do this task.
If we really want to do that, I can
On 01/02/2011 14:30, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On 02/01/2011 04:54 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 01/02/2011 02:33, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Should LTO work with a target not using gold?
Yes, it should, but some work is needed at the binutils end. I am
testing
the attached two patches at the moment;
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 2:54 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/02/2011 02:33, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Hi,
There are ~100 failures on each *-rtems* target
in the latest test runs when various lto related
flags are on. The symbols in questions are in the
RTEMS libraries which
Hi,
I'm trying (again) to work out how to build a GNAT cross compiler with
no runtime, but with the tools.
Firstly, I'd just like to ask, is this supposed to be possible?
If it is possible, why is it so hard/impossible and why will nobody from
AdaCore answer my questions regarding it?
I'm
On 01/02/2011 17:15, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 2:54 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/02/2011 02:33, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Hi,
There are ~100 failures on each *-rtems* target
in the latest test runs when various lto related
flags are on. The symbols in
I'm trying (again) to work out how to build a GNAT cross compiler with
no runtime, but with the tools.
As explained in the documentation, you need to first build a native GNAT
compiler with the same sources before building a GNAT cross compiler.
Arno
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/02/2011 17:15, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 2:54 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/02/2011 02:33, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Hi,
There are ~100 failures on each *-rtems* target
in the
On 01/02/2011 18:01, H.J. Lu wrote:
FWIW, your recan linker patch doesn't fix LTO 8, which is:
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12277
It wasn't supposed to, we've been through this before. It needs both the
link-order fix *and* the rescan-libs fix. The combined pair of
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/02/2011 18:01, H.J. Lu wrote:
FWIW, your recan linker patch doesn't fix LTO 8, which is:
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12277
It wasn't supposed to, we've been through this before. It needs
On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 18:57 +0100, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
I'm trying (again) to work out how to build a GNAT cross compiler with
no runtime, but with the tools.
As explained in the documentation, you need to first build a native GNAT
compiler with the same sources before building a GNAT
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20110201 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20110201/
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
On Jan 28, 2011, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
Technically, Rietveld solves the ENOPATCH problem because the patch is
*always* available at the URL produced in the patch message.
Hi, Diego,
I just got your e-mail with the patch. It didn't look that big, but it
will give me
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 23:32, Gerald Pfeifer ger...@pfeifer.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Dongsheng Song wrote:
The DATESTAMP change could also be in a post-commit hook (doing
nothing if the date didn't change, of course). No idea whether
this is technically possible of course.
Yes, the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47564
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=47565
Summary: [4.6 Regression][OOP] Segfault with TBP
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47455
--- Comment #13 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01
08:50:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
valgrind ./a.out shows:
That seems to be a valgrind bug; even a simple Fortran program consisting of
end causes the problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01 09:08:53
UTC ---
Jack,
The linkage of libs (with trunk darwin.h) is like this:
libgcc_ext.dylib --- exports our additional symbols (ONLY)**
libSystem contains the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46990
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01
09:26:52 UTC ---
A variant is
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/dad37643dd8cd0c6
where the defined assignment has:
elemental subroutine
cp2k.sopt.ltrans1.s -v
GNU GIMPLE (GCC) version 4.6.0 20110201 (experimental) [trunk revision 169466]
(x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
compiled by GNU C version 4.6.0 20110201 (experimental) [trunk revision
169466], GMP version 4.3.2, MPFR version 2.4.2, MPC version 0.8.2
GGC heuristics: --param ggc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47456
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-02-01
09:40:18 UTC ---
Your test case requires using binaries without sources on Win32.
You can:
1. Try a newer gcc, preferably 4.5.2. Your pre-4.3.0 development snapshot is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47566
--- Comment #1 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch
2011-02-01 09:42:12 UTC ---
gzipped testcase (2.7Mb) downloadable from
http://www.pci.uzh.ch/vandevondele/tmp/cp2k.sopt.ltrans1.o.gz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567
Summary: Wrong output for small absolute values with F editing
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47541
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01
09:47:26 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 1 09:47:21 2011
New Revision: 169468
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169468
Log:
2011-02-01 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47568
Summary: Name lookup: different behavior 4.1.2 / 4.5.0
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47082
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47540
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-02-01
10:11:52 UTC ---
The bug started to occur at r140501:
Author: pinskia
Date: Fri Sep 19 22:24:06 2008
New Revision: 140501
URL:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47540
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rearnsha at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47569
Summary: gfortran does not detect that the parameters for
passing a partial string to a subroutine are
incorrect.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47560
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45122
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=47569
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47541
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.4.4, 4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47557
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01
11:17:53 UTC ---
I think the current behavior is correct.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47570
Summary: one() = 0 isn't constexpr for unsigned int, yet ==
and is.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567
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=47541
--- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01
11:27:07 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 1 11:27:04 2011
New Revision: 169472
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169472
Log:
2011-02-01 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45122
--- Comment #16 from Zdenek Dvorak rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01
11:27:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
Ah, the reason why pr19210-* fail is that those loops have non-const/pure call
in it. So, while single_exit (loop) == exit,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47541
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47555
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47569
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01
11:33:33 UTC ---
A bit unrelated to the reported problem, but I wonder whether the
coarray/coindexed part is already correctly checked for:
If the actual argument is a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40979
--- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01
11:35:08 UTC ---
It's unfortunate that graphite inserts arrays of size 1 instead of scalar
(memory) vars. Otherwise update-address-taken would just re-write those
into
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40979
--- Comment #14 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01
11:45:44 UTC ---
Noting that pass_graphite_transforms lacks any verifier calls, the following
would enable the cleanup (in case scalar vars would have been used).
Index:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47564
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01
11:50:39 UTC ---
Sounds similar to other reports that build on i?86 without -msse and
a target attribute that enables some more SSE features.
Try with -msse, if that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46692
--- Comment #3 from Sebastien Bourdeauducq lekernel at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-01 11:52:15 UTC ---
Author: lekernel
Date: Tue Feb 1 11:52:12 2011
New Revision: 169473
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169473
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47566
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01
11:53:09 UTC ---
I think we need source code (LTO bytecode isn't really portable).
It looks like that vuse is somehow bogus - mind posting the output of
(gdb) call
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46692
Sebastien Bourdeauducq sebastien.bourdeauducq at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47559
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47566
--- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch
2011-02-01 12:04:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I think we need source code (LTO bytecode isn't really portable).
oops... that's building CP2K. Let me see if I can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47566
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47566
--- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch
2011-02-01 12:23:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
That's indeed invalid - it should be an SSA name. This means some
earlier pass messed up (or PRE itself). The bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47566
--- Comment #6 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch
2011-02-01 12:29:36 UTC ---
to reproduce from sources
wget http://www.pci.uzh.ch/vandevondele/tmp/cp2k.tgz
tar -xzvf cp2k.tgz
cd cp2k/makefiles
make -j
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47564
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|internal compiler error in |[4.6 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47555
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01
12:53:41 UTC ---
Program received signal SIGINT, Interrupt.
tree_code_size (code=POLYNOMIAL_CHREC)
at /space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/tree.c:737
737 }
(gdb) up
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47565
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47456
--- Comment #11 from steve.reinke at iws dot fraunhofer.de 2011-02-01 13:14:23
UTC ---
Hi,
I din't found a gcj version 4.5 build for windows.
That's why I tried to use this version.
Do you know where I can get anywhere such a windows build?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01 13:25:31
UTC ---
two more minor points.
1/ the trunk lib specs do the same as gcc-4.2.1(apple local)
2/ there are no exported symbols for 10.6 in /usr/lib/libgcc_s.10.5.dylib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47565
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47555
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01
13:41:25 UTC ---
With --param scev-max-expr-size=20 (the 4.5 default) trunk uses 300MB ram,
with 21 it uses 580MB with 22 1.2GB, with 23 2.2GB, ... so it indeed
grows
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35926
Tony Poppleton tony.poppleton at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2008-12-28 06:57:47
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
--- Comment #11 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2011-02-01
13:51:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 23195
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23195
build log for xplor-nih 2.2.7 under gcc trunk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
--- Comment #12 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2011-02-01
13:53:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 23196
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23196
otool -L output for xplor-nih binaries
=/usr/X11R6/include --x-libraries=/usr/X11R6/lib
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --enable-cloog-backend=legacy
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20110201 (experimental) (GCC)
[frodo:~/xplor-nih-2.27] howarth% g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/Users/howarth/dist
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47456
--- Comment #12 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-02-01
14:12:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Hi,
I din't found a gcj version 4.5 build for windows.
That's why I tried to use this version.
Do you know where I can get
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47564
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
/intrinsics/time_1.h:211: undefined reference
to `clock_gettime'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
This bug is specific to the following build:
http://gfortran.org/download/i686/gfortran-4.6-20110201-linux-i686.tar.gz
Is it due to Patch 81226?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47456
--- Comment #13 from steve.reinke at iws dot fraunhofer.de 2011-02-01 14:28:43
UTC ---
Created attachment 23197
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23197
the src file for the jar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47572
Summary: [OOP] Invalid: Allocatable polymorphic with init
expression.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47555
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01
14:36:04 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 1 14:36:00 2011
New Revision: 169478
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169478
Log:
2011-02-01 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47555
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01 14:37:39
UTC ---
the difference caused by including a reference to /usr/libgcc_s.xxx is to
allow a libgcc_s appearing in a DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH (or a fallback path in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47564
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01
14:40:50 UTC ---
Created attachment 23198
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23198
gcc46-pr47564.patch
Ugh, this is ugly.
The problem is that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47573
Summary: [trans-mem] ICE in invoke_set_current_function_hook
Product: gcc
Version: trans-mem
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47547
--- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01
14:42:16 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Feb 1 14:42:08 2011
New Revision: 169479
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169479
Log:
Check HOST_BIT_BUCKET
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47547
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.6.0 |4.5.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47555
--- Comment #6 from Tony Poppleton tony.poppleton at gmail dot com 2011-02-01
14:45:28 UTC ---
Out of interest, could this parameter of 20 be automatically tuned based on the
available RAM?
For systems with a lot of RAM, it might make sense to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47566
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01
14:46:56 UTC ---
Hm, you are using -O0 for the compile and -O3 ... for the link step? Should
work in theory, but of course isn't tested thoroughly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47555
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-02-01 14:48:15 UTC ---
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, tony.poppleton at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47555
--- Comment #6 from Tony Poppleton
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47566
--- Comment #8 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch
2011-02-01 14:53:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Hm, you are using -O0 for the compile and -O3 ... for the link step? Should
work in theory, but of course isn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47569
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01
14:54:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Draft patch:
+ || gfc_expr_attr (actual).pointer
That check won't work as foo(1) is never a pointer while foo might
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47565
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01 14:59:45 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Feb 1 14:59:40 2011
New Revision: 169480
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169480
Log:
2011-02-01 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47565
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47568
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
--- Comment #2 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01 15:08:13
UTC ---
On Linux/Glibc libgfortran is built with _GNU_SOURCE, which according to the
glibc manual is a superset of all kinds of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
--- Comment #15 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2011-02-01
15:11:51 UTC ---
DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH is unset when xplor is started. Also remember that your test
case in comment 9 is insufficient to reproduce the behavior of xplor-nih.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47568
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.4.5
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
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=47569
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47568
--- Comment #3 from Matwey V. Kornilov matwey.kornilov at gmail dot com
2011-02-01 15:24:30 UTC ---
Thanks. What is its bugid? I didn't find something similar and then I filled
this ticket. Probably I looked through not careful enough.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47558
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01 15:26:15
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
Perhaps r163267 is fragile to certain combination of linker flags (like
-flat_namespace)?
fragile LOL...
man ld:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
--- Comment #4 from Michael Richmond michael.a.richmond at nasa dot gov
2011-02-01 15:27:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
OP, what does ldd /path/to/libgfortran.so.3 say?
linux-gate.so.1 = (0xe000)
libm.so.6 = /lib/libm.so.6
1 - 100 of 229 matches
Mail list logo
