On Saturday 06 August 2011 00:52:02 Thomas Koenig wrote:
Hello world,
I just noticed that C++ now appears to be built by default, even when
only the C and fortran are specified.
Yes, but it doesn't make much difference in practice. The only difference I
saw is the debugging symbols including
On 08/06/2011 11:22 AM, Mikael Morin wrote:
WRT to bootstrap time, as usual: it's too long.
Well, that all depends on your (time) frame of reference, of course. In
the summer months leading up to Craig Burley asking for volunteers
testing g77 (the g77-alpha phase), i.e., during the summer
On 08/04/2011 01:10 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
It's the sort of thing that gets done in threaded interpreters,
where you really need to keep a few pointers in registers and
the interpreter itself is a very long function. gcc has always
done a dreadful job of register allocation in such
On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 03:16:43PM +0200, Toon Moene wrote:
On 08/06/2011 11:22 AM, Mikael Morin wrote:
WRT to bootstrap time, as usual: it's too long.
Well, that all depends on your (time) frame of reference, of course. In
the summer months leading up to Craig Burley asking for
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Basile Starynkevitch bas...@starynkevitch.net writes:
And I also believe that the minuscule patch I am proposing in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-06/msg00081.html
should work on your system too. Could you try it please?
That's not the point. The
Ping. AVX2 support depends on this patch.
Thanks.
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 5:49 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 4:44 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
wrote:
On Thu, 4 Aug 2011, H.J. Lu
On 08/06/2011 05:14 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
You left out the crucial hardware spec. How much memory
did you have 19 years ago compared to the system today?
My experience with g++ is that it will consume more memory
than gcc.
That might be true - I have never experienced memory shortage
Hello,
This isn't really a compiler bug, but it's something which the manual
doesn't describe too well so I thought I would point this out.
This page of the manual:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Common-Predefined-Macros.html#Common-Predefined-Macros
says this:
You should use these macros
Snapshot gcc-4.7-20110806 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7-20110806/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.7 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Christopher Huang-Leaver
zeong...@googlemail.com wrote:
Output:
small end first
big end first
gcc -v
gcc version 4.4.5 (Gentoo 4.4.5 p1.2, pie-0.4.5)
I got the same result with g++-4.4 (4.4.6), g++-4.5 (4.5.3) on Debian
testing. But with g++-4.6, I got
On 6 August 2011 22:40, Christopher Huang-Leaver wrote:
Hello,
This isn't really a compiler bug, but it's something which the manual
doesn't describe too well so I thought I would point this out.
This page of the manual:
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 August 2011 22:40, Christopher Huang-Leaver wrote:
Hello,
This isn't really a compiler bug, but it's something which the manual
doesn't describe too well so I thought I would point this out.
This page of the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #21 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-08-06 06:29:18
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-08/msg00052.html
Works ok on native alpha [1].
There are two remaining problems, an assert
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50001
Summary: [alpha]: ICE in reload_combine_note_use, at
postreload.c:1538
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #22 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-08-06 07:21:06
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
There are two remaining problems, an assert in as, as reported in [2]
FAIL: g++.dg/tree-prof/partition2.C compilation, -Os
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
--- Comment #23 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-08-06 07:24:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
This is PR 49972, reportedly fixed in binutils [1].
Er, the ice in gas with invalid .gcc_except_table is fixed in binutis.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49614
Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50002
Summary: class_replaceMethod does not work on class methods
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libobjc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50003
Summary: -[Protocol respondsTo:] does not work with Clang
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libobjc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49669
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50004
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE in c_ptr_tests_16.f90
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50004
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49994
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2011-08-06 09:23:43
UTC ---
Created attachment 24931
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24931
more real-life testcase
$ gcc -O -fno-omit-frame-pointer -fschedule-insns2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49882
--- Comment #1 from Nicola Pero nicola at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-06 09:49:33
UTC ---
Author: nicola
Date: Sat Aug 6 09:49:30 2011
New Revision: 177505
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177505
Log:
In libobjc/:
2011-08-06
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50001
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-08-06 11:10:32
UTC ---
Compilation dies on:
#1 0x0092a84b in reload_combine_note_use (xp=optimized out,
insn=0x71a197e0, ruid=3, containing_mem=optimized out)
at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49990
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-06 11:14:25
UTC ---
I can confirm that suggested patch fixes boolstrap issue.
The testsuite run has also no new regression for alloca related cases.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44080
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2011-08-06
12:06:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 24932
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24932
patch spec
Testing for -Ox x=3 within the specs is ugly (see the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50001
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50004
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-06
12:52:35 UTC ---
I have an (obvious) patch that I plan to commit this evening.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37211
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37211
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
/binary-177503-lto-fortran-checking-yes-rtl-df/
--with-cloog --with-ppl --with-cloog-include=/usr/include/cloog-ppl/
--disable-ppl-version-check
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20110806 (experimental) (GCC)
Tested revisions (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu):
r177503 - crash
r177422 - crash
r173150
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49504
--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-06
14:05:43 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Aug 6 14:05:39 2011
New Revision: 177509
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177509
Log:
Add testcases for PRs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49860
--- Comment #13 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-06
14:05:43 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Aug 6 14:05:39 2011
New Revision: 177509
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177509
Log:
Add testcases for PRs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48084
--- Comment #9 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-06
14:05:43 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Aug 6 14:05:39 2011
New Revision: 177509
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177509
Log:
Add testcases for PRs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50002
--- Comment #1 from Nicola Pero nicola at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-06 14:20:13
UTC ---
Author: nicola
Date: Sat Aug 6 14:20:09 2011
New Revision: 177510
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177510
Log:
In libobjc/:
2011-08-06
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49882
--- Comment #2 from Nicola Pero nicola at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-06 14:20:13
UTC ---
Author: nicola
Date: Sat Aug 6 14:20:09 2011
New Revision: 177510
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177510
Log:
In libobjc/:
2011-08-06
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49882
Nicola Pero nicola at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50002
Nicola Pero nicola at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47715
--- Comment #20 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-06
14:26:02 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Aug 6 14:25:58 2011
New Revision: 177511
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177511
Log:
Add testcases for PRs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47766
--- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-06
14:26:01 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Aug 6 14:25:58 2011
New Revision: 177511
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177511
Log:
Add testcases for PRs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47446
--- Comment #9 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-06
14:36:55 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Aug 6 14:36:52 2011
New Revision: 177512
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177512
Log:
Add testcases for PRs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47449
--- Comment #15 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-06
14:36:55 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Aug 6 14:36:52 2011
New Revision: 177512
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177512
Log:
Add testcases for PRs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47715
--- Comment #21 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-06
14:50:12 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Aug 6 14:50:05 2011
New Revision: 177513
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177513
Log:
Add testcases for PRs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47372
--- Comment #9 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-06
14:50:12 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Aug 6 14:50:05 2011
New Revision: 177513
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177513
Log:
Add testcases for PRs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47727
--- Comment #12 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-06
14:50:12 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Aug 6 14:50:05 2011
New Revision: 177513
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177513
Log:
Add testcases for PRs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47381
--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-06
14:57:55 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Aug 6 14:57:52 2011
New Revision: 177514
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177514
Log:
Add testcases for PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50005
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ipa-inline-analysis.c:1876:41: error:
comparison between signed an d unsigned integer
expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50006
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE in in connect_traces, at
dwarf2cfi.c:2677
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50004
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-06
15:19:48 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Aug 6 15:19:45 2011
New Revision: 177527
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177527
Log:
2011-08-06 Thomas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50004
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44938
Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49911
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-06
15:58:47 UTC ---
So, Eric - are you still objecting to make VRP and the middle-end aligned
by ignoring TYPE_MIN/MAX_VALUE in VRP?
Just to give a bit of context to the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49911
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-06
16:08:16 UTC ---
So the issue here is that enum types with non-canonical TYPE_MIN/MAX_VALUE
leak from storage representation (union StateRemat) via SRA as register
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49992
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-08-06
16:29:58 UTC ---
On x86_64-apple-darwin10 I get the same bootstrap failure:
...
mv -f Tlto-wrapper lto-wrapper
gcc -g -fkeep-inline-functions -DIN_GCC -W -Wall
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49994
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50001
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-06 18:39:23 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat Aug 6 18:39:19 2011
New Revision: 177531
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177531
Log:
PR target/50001
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50001
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-06 18:41:16 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat Aug 6 18:41:14 2011
New Revision: 177532
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177532
Log:
PR target/50001
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49735
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50001
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-06 18:49:50 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat Aug 6 18:49:46 2011
New Revision: 177534
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177534
Log:
PR target/50001
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50001
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-06 18:54:04 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat Aug 6 18:54:01 2011
New Revision: 177535
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177535
Log:
PR target/50001
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50001
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49688
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44949
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2011-08-06
20:49:40 UTC ---
Created attachment 24935
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24935
hack
It is an easy enough hack to call the Wparentheses code for =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49509
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50007
Summary: org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.batch.GCCMain not
found
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48727
--- Comment #9 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-06 21:37:25 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat Aug 6 21:37:22 2011
New Revision: 177537
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177537
Log:
PR testsuite/48727
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49921
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48993
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49988
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50008
Summary: [4.7 Regression] type mismatch in array reference,
verify_gimple failed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48259
Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50009
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Segmentation fault in
tree_nop_conversion
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
On Friday 05 August 2011 21:48:34 Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 20:18, Mikael Morin mikael.mo...@sfr.fr wrote:
I suppose it is this patch that breaks bootstrap
The culprit is indeed r177447.
Adding a -I flag? I suppose that makes sense even if crtstuff is
moved soon to
So I finally got back to this and updated the patch according to the
comments below.
Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com writes:
On 07/27/2011 01:54 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
+ /* Set of typedefs that are used in this function. */
+ struct pointer_set_t * GTY((skip)) used_local_typedefs;
Is
On 08/05/2011 09:10 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Paolo asked for GCC to allow deduction of auto from a variable-length
array. Since auto doesn't have the issues involved with normal
template deduction from VLAs (namely, the type not being link-time
constant), this seems reasonable to me.
Thanks!
Hello!
No functional changes.
2011-08-06 Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_compute_frame_layout): Simplify
frame-save_regs_using_mov calculation.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu {,-m32}, committed to mainline SVN.
Uros.
Index: i386.c
Hello,
this adjusts some testcases for LLP64 target x86_64 mingw.
ChangeLog
2011-08-06 Kai Tietz kti...@redhat.com
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr23455.c: Adjust testcases for LLP64 for
x86_64 mingw target.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-1.c: Likewise.
*
Hi,
I checked in this patch to add testcases for PRs 48084/49504/49860.
H.J.
Index: gcc.target/i386/pr49504.c
===
--- gcc.target/i386/pr49504.c (revision 0)
+++ gcc.target/i386/pr49504.c (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+/* PR
This patch fixes PR libobjc/50002. The problem was that replacing an existing
class method wouldn't work
because the messaging tables weren't being refreshed for class methods when a
method was replaced.
This patch also includes three other related changes:
* a new couple of comprehensive
Hi,
I checked in this patch to add testcases for PRs 47766/47715.
H.J.
---
Index: gcc.dg/pr47766.c
===
--- gcc.dg/pr47766.c(revision 0)
+++ gcc.dg/pr47766.c(revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* {
On 08/06/2011 12:43 PM, Mikael Morin wrote:
On Friday 05 August 2011 21:48:34 Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 20:18, Mikael Morinmikael.mo...@sfr.fr wrote:
I suppose it is this patch that breaks bootstrap
The culprit is indeed r177447.
Adding a -I flag? I suppose that makes
Hi,
I checked in this patch to add testcases for PRs 47449/47446.
H.J.
Index: gcc.target/i386/pr47449.c
===
--- gcc.target/i386/pr47449.c (revision 0)
+++ gcc.target/i386/pr47449.c (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+/* { dg-do
PING.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:06 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:00 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:03 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul
On 08/05/2011 02:31 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
This extends VRP to handle BIT_NOT_EXPR by composing ~X as
-X - 1 (which should give us anti-range handling for free).
Just a small detail, but why not -1 - X which saves the NEGATE_EXPR? :)
Paolo
Hi,
I checkd in this patch to add testcases for PRs 47727/47372/47715.
H.J.
--
Index: gcc.dg/pr47372-2.c
===
--- gcc.dg/pr47372-2.c (revision 0)
+++ gcc.dg/pr47372-2.c (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* {
Hi,
I checked in this patch to add testcases for PR 47381.
H.J.
---
Index: gcc.target/i386/pr47381.c
===
--- gcc.target/i386/pr47381.c (revision 0)
+++ gcc.target/i386/pr47381.c (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+/* { dg-do compile
On Saturday 06 August 2011 16:31:48 Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Can you try this instead?
It works. Thanks
Mikael
On 08/06/2011 05:07 PM, Mikael Morin wrote:
On Saturday 06 August 2011 16:31:48 Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Can you try this instead?
It works. Thanks
Committed, thanks.
Paolo
Hello world,
I have committed the attached patch as obvious after regression-testing.
The problem was that gfc_typenode_for_spec was clobbering the typespec
for the ISO C types by converting them to integer.
Don't know why I hadn't seen this before.
Regards
Thomas
2011-08-06
Hi Janus,
2011/8/5 Mikael Morinmikael.mo...@sfr.fr:
On Friday 05 August 2011 23:02:33 Thomas Koenig wrote:
The extra
argument controls whether we check variable symbols for equality or
just their names. For the overriding checks it is sufficient to check
for names, because the arguments of
On Saturday 06 August 2011 17:39:06 Thomas Koenig wrote:
As Thomas mentions, certain cases are still not handled correctly
(e.g. A+B+C vs C+B+A, and other mathematical transformations), but I
hope they are sufficiently exotic (so that we can wait for bug reports
to roll in). In addition I
It is wrong to assume that expressions are unequal because we cannot
prove they are equal, with all the limitations that we currently
have. This will introduce rejects-valid bugs.
In the PR at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49638#c8
I quote the standard:
4.5.7.3 (type-bound
Hi Thomas,
The string length expressions of overridden procedures have to be
identical, but with exchanged dummy arguments. Since the dummy
arguments of overridden procedures must have the same name as in the
base procedure, it is sufficient the check for equal names. Checking
for equal
On Saturday 06 August 2011 18:06:58 Janus Weil wrote:
It is wrong to assume that expressions are unequal because we cannot
prove they are equal, with all the limitations that we currently
have. This will introduce rejects-valid bugs.
In the PR at
without any regressions. Can anybody think of a case where the names can
be
identical, but the variables different? (I can't).
Well, I'd say this can only happen if both variables reside in
different namespaces (i.e. different modules or procedures).
gfc_are_identical variables is
Hello!
2011-08-06 Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com
* gcc.target/i386/sse-22.c (dg-options): Add -march=k8.
(pragma GCC target): Add avx, fma4, lzcnt and bmi options.
* gcc.target/i386/sse-23.c (pragma GCC target): Add avx, fma4,
lzcnt and bmi options.
Tested on
Here is a variant of the original test case from the PR, which will be
accepted if we only check for names (but it should actually be
rejected):
module world
implicit none
type :: world_1
contains
procedure, nopass :: string = w1_string
end type
type, extends(world_1) ::
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
This kinda-sorta corresponds to Bernd's 007-dw2cfi patch. Certainly
the same concepts of splitting the instruction stream into extended
basic blocks is the same. This patch does a bit better job with the
documentation.
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Uros Bizjak ubiz...@gmail.com wrote:
My system warns during compilation of libiberty test-expandargv.c test:
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -g -O2 -I..
-I../../../gcc-svn/trunk/libiberty/testsuite/../../include
-DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.. -o test-expandargv \
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
