Mikael Pettersson writes:
I'm seeing what appears to be a recent massive performance regression
with trunk's gengtype, as compiled and run in stage 2, on ARM V5TE.
Right now 4.7-20110827's stage2 gengtype has been running for almost
10 hours on my ARM build machine, but the process is
On 08/25/2011 02:26 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Throwing an exception through a segfault handler doesn't always work
on ARM: the attached example fails on current gcc trunk.
panda-9:~ $ g++ segv.cc -fnon-call-exceptions -g
panda-9:~ $ ./a.out
terminate called after throwing an instance of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/28/11 22:02, Jon Masters wrote:
On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 17:11 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
UPDATE: we've not had many people confirm interest in this event
yet, which is a shame. If you would like to join us for this
session, please reply
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Ken Werner ken.wer...@linaro.org wrote:
On 08/25/2011 02:26 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Throwing an exception through a segfault handler doesn't always work
on ARM: the attached example fails on current gcc trunk.
panda-9:~ $ g++ segv.cc -fnon-call-exceptions -g
Inside a C++ .exp file, I want to know the compiler command that
would be executed for a given dg-test command. That is, given
set dg-do-what-default compile
dg-test -keep-output $source $options -I.
what is a command that I can execute to compile the source file
without dejagnu trying
Lawrence Crowl cr...@google.com writes:
Inside a C++ .exp file, I want to know the compiler command that
would be executed for a given dg-test command. That is, given
set dg-do-what-default compile
dg-test -keep-output $source $options -I.
what is a command that I can execute to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45170
--- Comment #26 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29
06:47:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #24)
Your code in comment #14 is (I believe) invalid, and gfortran
is issuing the correct error message.
I get:
Error: Variable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50164
Ilya Enkovich enkovich.gnu at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50219
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50204
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29
07:29:57 UTC ---
The loop over PHI args is a little hard to follow, but yeah, that's
how it should work.
Eventually we can put this in with a new --param telling the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50221
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=50164
Ilya Enkovich enkovich.gnu at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50204
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29
07:57:29 UTC ---
On a 2nd thought the work should be still linear, even for N PHI args the
way the merging is constructed (one arg has to dominate the other - the
only
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50116
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29
08:03:45 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Aug 29 08:03:34 2011
New Revision: 178155
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178155
Log:
2011-08-29 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50116
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50222
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50222
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29
08:39:42 UTC ---
Reduced testcase (only ICEs 4.6.1 and trunk):
typedef struct AVProgram {
void *priv_data;
unsigned int nb_streams;
} AVFormatContext;
typedef
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50215
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29
08:55:07 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Aug 29 08:55:02 2011
New Revision: 178167
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178167
Log:
PR debug/50215
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49987
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50215
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50192
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29
09:05:18 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Aug 29 09:05:11 2011
New Revision: 178173
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178173
Log:
2011-08-29 Thomas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50203
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50207
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50207
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29
10:05:34 UTC ---
Oops, sorry, that was for PR50208.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50208
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50203
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29
10:12:00 UTC ---
Shouldn't we limit the max of the param then?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50208
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29
10:44:42 UTC ---
The problem is that def_stmt is a gimple stmt from before the loop and
new_loop_vec_info only initializes gimple_uid of stmts in the loop being
processed.
So
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50203
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29
10:48:39 UTC ---
But what would be a good limit for the parameter? On some targets some people
have managed to trigger it even with the parameter 20 which has been the
default
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50203
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29
11:05:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
But what would be a good limit for the parameter? On some targets some people
have managed to trigger it even with the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50207
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50176
--- Comment #5 from Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com 2011-08-29
11:48:12 UTC ---
Yes, looks like this revision is the reason
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48722
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29
11:52:26 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Aug 29 11:52:22 2011
New Revision: 178208
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178208
Log:
PR middle-end/48722
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50224
Bug #: 50224
Summary: [c++0x]g++ complains unused parameter but it is
referenced in lambda
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48722
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50224
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49251
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29
12:39:36 UTC ---
*** Bug 50224 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50207
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29
12:48:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 25125
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25125
gcc47-pr50207.patch
Untested patch which adds that limitation.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50220
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
)
and the tip of the 4.6 branch:
gcc version 4.6.2 20110829 (prerelease) [gcc-4_6-branch revision 178215] (GCC)
and there's no warning or error, so I don't know what the ArchLinux package is
based on. It looks like the 20110819 snapshot with a misleading BASE-VER, but
that shouldn't warn.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50224
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50118
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-08-29 13:40:39 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Aug 29 13:40:33 2011
New Revision: 178230
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178230
Log:
2011-08-29 Paolo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50176
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50118
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50225
Bug #: 50225
Summary: The allocation status for polymorphic allocatable
variables is not set properly
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50212
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50191
--- Comment #5 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29
13:45:36 UTC ---
Jakub, I don't see -fprofile-generate in your list of options. What Peter gave
you was the link command that exposed the problem, but the error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50225
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-08-29
13:49:48 UTC ---
On x86_64-apple-darwin10 I don't need the option -fcheck=all to get the
run-timr error. However the error goes away with any optimization above -O1 (at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50176
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50225
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50192
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29
14:12:01 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Aug 29 14:11:54 2011
New Revision: 178238
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178238
Log:
2011-08-29 Thomas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50191
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29
14:26:57 UTC ---
I still can't reproduce it (with the x86_64-linux - powerpc64-linux cross
compiler, even when using the auto-host.h provided here):
./gfortran --version -B ./;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49606
--- Comment #4 from Martin Decky martin at decky dot cz 2011-08-29 14:33:07
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
As well as making longs 64 bits wide, -mlong64 makes
pointers 64 bits wide. But you're still using a
32-bit file format. If you want
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50137
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50207
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50224
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50226
Bug #: 50226
Summary: Wrong code with -O -fno-implicit-templates
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
Bug #: 50227
Summary: ICE on valid with allocatable class component
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Benson abenson at caltech dot edu 2011-08-29
16:08:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 25129
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25129
Further reduced test case from Janus Weil
This is a further reduced test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Benson abenson at caltech dot edu 2011-08-29
16:11:25 UTC ---
Original report on gfortran mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-08/msg00233.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49972
--- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29 16:15:02 UTC
---
*** Bug 50127 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50127
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50124
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45170
--- Comment #27 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2011-08-29 16:22:16 UTC ---
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 06:47:41AM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45170
--- Comment #26
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29 16:26:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(r171654?).
Rather not. This one only concerns type-bound procedures (of which Andrew's
test case has none):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50225
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45170
--- Comment #28 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29
16:34:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #27)
R421 length-selector is ( [ LEN = ] type-param-value ) [or ...]
From F2003:
C402 (R402) The type-param-value for a kind
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-08-29
17:34:02 UTC ---
Why setting this pr as unconfirmed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-08-29
17:39:01 UTC ---
Oops. Did I do this? Sorry, it was not intentional ...
Apparently this happens while changing the summary(?).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50228
Bug #: 50228
Summary: Incorrect line execution count.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Hi,
I am seeing this issue when using the 2.95.3 compiler for EE processor.
When compiling the following code:
unsigned int a,b;
a = ((unsigned int)4294967295 * b);
the 2.95.3 compiler generates the following assembly:
8fc30014 lw $v1,20($s8)
0060102d move
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50191
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29
18:05:17 UTC ---
Hm, mysterious. That's the correct auto-host.h and the correct options. I
will get on one of the farm machines and see if I can reproduce with a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-08-29
18:17:50 UTC ---
(r171654?).
Rather not. This one only concerns type-bound procedures (of which Andrew's
test case has none):
Sorry to be such a nuisance, but it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50229
Bug #: 50229
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Can't cross compile for
i686-apple-darwin10 from x86_64-redhat_linux
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50229
Ruben Van Boxem vanboxem.ruben at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25130|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50229
--- Comment #2 from Ruben Van Boxem vanboxem.ruben at gmail dot com
2011-08-29 18:23:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 25132
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25132
gcc/config.log
Attached gcc/config.log
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50229
--- Comment #3 from Ruben Van Boxem vanboxem.ruben at gmail dot com
2011-08-29 18:26:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 25133
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25133
Compressed build log detailing failure
Attached build log. (make
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29 18:29:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(r171654?).
Rather not. This one only concerns type-bound procedures (of which Andrew's
test case has none):
Sorry to be such a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50229
--- Comment #4 from Ruben Van Boxem vanboxem.ruben at gmail dot com
2011-08-29 18:30:29 UTC ---
For those wondering how on Earth I am cross-compiling for Mac, see
http://build1.openftd.org/fedora-cross-darwinx/
This is a cross toolchain for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29 19:28:42 UTC ---
Well, the obvious patch (based on Tobias' debugging) would be:
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-types.c
===
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50231
Bug #: 50231
Summary: Fatal Error: Wrong module version '5' (expected '4')
for file 'sizes.mod'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50231
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50231
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50231
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=50231
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50225
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29 21:55:16 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon Aug 29 21:55:10 2011
New Revision: 178262
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178262
Log:
2011-08-29 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50225
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2316
--- Comment #20 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2011-08-30
00:20:07 UTC ---
Created attachment 25134
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25134
remember linkage of a function type
This is an extremely basic patch,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49987
Pat Haugen pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50194
--- Comment #3 from Carrot carrot at google dot com 2011-08-30 01:16:34 UTC
---
Yes, it's a problem of the linker in my testing environment. I've tried to
manually link it with a different linker, it can run successfully. And the
correct stub is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50232
Bug #: 50232
Summary: [4.7 Regression] reorg.c:3971: undefined reference to
`make_return_insns'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50233
Bug #: 50233
Summary: Internal compiler error: in build_value_init_noctor,
at cp/init.c:336
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50209
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-30
04:30:38 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Aug 30 04:30:27 2011
New Revision: 178275
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178275
Log:
PR c++/50209
Core DR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50207
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-30
04:30:56 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Aug 30 04:30:42 2011
New Revision: 178276
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178276
Log:
PR c++/50207
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50224
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-30
04:31:03 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Aug 30 04:30:58 2011
New Revision: 178277
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=178277
Log:
PR c++/50224
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50234
Bug #: 50234
Summary: internal compiler error: in
cxx_eval_component_reference, at cp/semantics.c:6527
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
1 - 100 of 234 matches
Mail list logo
