2011/12/13 Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org:
Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com writes:
How about ...; suggest adding the using keyword?
That sounds like the compiler is suggesting that the user suggests
doing that!
It is similar to suggest parentheses
Good point, that's not correct
Hi,
I am finding slightly confusing the difference between
outgoing_args_size and pretend_args_size.
I think I understand pretend_args_size, at least on the specific case of
my port. The first two words of arguments go into two register the
remaining goes into the stack. However, if the
Hi guys,
While looking at Spec2006/401.bzip2 I found such a loop:
for (i = 1; i = alphaSize; i++) {
j = weight[i] 8;
j = 1 + (j / 2);
weight[i] = j 8;
}
Which is not vectorizeble (using Intel's AVX2) because division by two
is not recognized as rshift:
5: ==
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
Hi guys,
While looking at Spec2006/401.bzip2 I found such a loop:
for (i = 1; i = alphaSize; i++) {
j = weight[i] 8;
j = 1 + (j / 2);
weight[i] = j 8;
}
Which is not vectorizeble (using Intel's AVX2) because division
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 02:07:11PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
Hi guys,
While looking at Spec2006/401.bzip2 I found such a loop:
for (i = 1; i = alphaSize; i++) {
j = weight[i] 8;
j = 1 + (j / 2);
weight[i] = j 8;
}
It would be helpful to have a
The full case attached.
Jakub, you are right, we have to convert signed ints into something a
bit more tricky.
BTW, here is output for that cases from Intel compiler:
vpxor %ymm1, %ymm1, %ymm1 #184.23
vmovdqu .L_2il0floatpacket.12(%rip), %ymm0
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 05:42:16PM +0400, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
The full case attached.
Jakub, you are right, we have to convert signed ints into something a
bit more tricky.
BTW, here is output for that cases from Intel compiler:
Ah, so that matches to do j / 2 in the pattern recognizer as
Great!
Thanks, K
Let me hack up a quick pattern recognizer for this...
Jakub
Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com writes:
I am finding slightly confusing the difference between
outgoing_args_size and pretend_args_size.
I think I understand pretend_args_size, at least on the specific case
of my port. The first two words of arguments go into two register the
remaining
On 13/12/11 14:47, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
outgoing_args_size is the number of bytes required by called functions.
In your question above, the answer is no; x is an incoming argument. If
you write
extern foo(int);
void bar(void) { foo (1); }
then the outgoing_args_size of bar is sizeof(int),
Are there plans to expand the number of targets for go in gcc 4.7?
In particular, PR46986 has had a proposed set of changes...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25196action=diff
which should provide a starting point to identify the changes required
for go support on darwin.
Hi,
From an RTEMS perspective, the head has multiple regressions from the
4.6 branch. avr, bfin, lm32 and m68k have regressions such that they are
incapable of compiling a complete tool chain. This means they fail to
compile gcc, newlib, or RTEMS. These are the PRs for those regressions.
On 12/13/2011 01:35 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Are there plans to expand the number of targets for go in gcc 4.7?
In particular, PR46986 has had a proposed set of changes...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25196action=diff
which should provide a starting point to identify the
Jack Howarth howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu writes:
Are there plans to expand the number of targets for go in gcc 4.7?
I would like to but I am also really swamped. I'm knocking down issues
as fast as I can.
My primary goal for gcc 4.7 is to include complete support for the
upcoming Go 1
On 12/13/2011 2:16 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Jack Howarthhowa...@bromo.med.uc.edu writes:
Are there plans to expand the number of targets for go in gcc 4.7?
I would like to but I am also really swamped. I'm knocking down issues
as fast as I can.
My primary goal for gcc 4.7 is to
Joel Sherrill joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com writes:
Where should that discussion occur?
Here and/or gofrontend-...@googlegroups.com.
Sorry I have not replied to your earlier message, I will do so now.
Ian
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20111213 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20111213/
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
I'm interested in your site. I just added your link http://gcc.gnu.org in my
website: http://hotelfrance24.com/Rome-site-list50/
Please add my link:
Title: Clock widget
URL: http://time-24.org/en/widgets/
html code: a href=http://time-24.org/en/widgets/;Clock widget/a
Best regards.
Hi,
I'll sponsor Oleg Endo as a new write after approval maintainer.
He has written several good patches for SH targets and has filed
good PRs. He is working on the issues which will require larger
patches and being write after approval looks to be helpful.
His paper work with FSF has done. OK?
2011/12/13 Joel Sherrill joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com:
Hi,
From an RTEMS perspective, the head has multiple regressions from the 4.6
branch. avr, bfin, lm32 and m68k have regressions such that they are
incapable of compiling a complete tool chain. This means they fail to
compile gcc, newlib, or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51505
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51498
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=51526
Bug #: 51526
Summary: [C++11][constexpr] constexpr delegating constructor
should be accepted
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51520
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=51475
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=42768
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51476
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=51509
--- Comment #1 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-13 09:07:38 UTC ---
At least part of the problem here is the uninitialised
variable in the vld4 call. GCC tries to create a zero
initialisation of x before the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47456
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51520
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13
09:18:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
valgrind output:
==18442==by 0x52BD26: traverse_ns (symbol.c:)
(In reply to comment #1)
The ICE seems to have been fixed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49084
--- Comment #18 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13 09:18:55
UTC ---
Hmm, other way to solve this might be to add to structure the optional
attribute gcc_struct. At least I used that to fix libquadmath for 32-bit IA
Windows.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51509
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-13 09:20:54 UTC ---
FWIW,
uint8x8x4_t x;
uint8x8x2_t y;
x = vld4_dup_u8(src);
y.val[0] = x.val[1];
y.val[1] = x.val[2];
vst2_lane_u8(dst, y, 0);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23885
rockeet rockeet at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rockeet at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23885
--- Comment #10 from rockeet rockeet at gmail dot com 2011-12-13 09:38:45 UTC
---
Sorry, missed output of g++ 4.6.0:
Begin Output
void f(A)
void f(B)
void f(B)
void f(T) [with T = int]
void f(T) [with T = int*]
End Output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49084
--- Comment #19 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13
10:05:54 UTC ---
Hmm, other way to solve this might be to add to structure the optional
attribute gcc_struct. At least I used that to fix libquadmath for 32-bit IA
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49084
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51254
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2011-12-13 10:27:48 UTC ---
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011, duyuehai at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51254
Yuehai Du duyuehai at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51498
--- Comment #5 from gee jojelino at gmail dot com 2011-12-13 10:48:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
None of the testsuite Makefiles for other libraries do anything similar
(libgomp, libstdc++-v3, ..., so why is libjava so special that it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51505
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bonzini at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51521
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51525
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51523
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||mingw32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51521
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13
11:06:55 UTC ---
The EDGE_FALLTHRU flag is wrong if any of EDGE_TRUE/FALSE_* is added which
is probably what happens. Thus the patch was wrong.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51523
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51521
Dmitry Vyukov dvyukov at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dvyukov at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51519
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51517
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49084
--- Comment #21 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13
11:21:32 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Dec 13 11:21:28 2011
New Revision: 182275
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182275
Log:
PR ada/49084
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51481
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13
11:24:44 UTC ---
The following is a real fix I'm going to test.
@@ -1601,6 +1605,7 @@ replace_uses_by (tree name, tree val)
if (gimple_code (stmt) != GIMPLE_PHI)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49084
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51523
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41951
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13
11:40:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Given that NAG 5.2 compiles it and as assign is only called via
assignment(=), there must be some issue with the assignment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51476
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51527
Bug #: 51527
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault: 'convert_to_integer' enters
infinite recursion
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51527
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13
12:30:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 26069
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26069
Log output, FYI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51527
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51520
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-12-13
12:49:31 UTC ---
At least I hope for some smaller patch than the big constructor patch (Rev.
181425).
Sadly enough, this pr has been fixed by r181425 (r181424 gives
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51519
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13
12:55:00 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Dec 13 12:54:57 2011
New Revision: 182279
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182279
Log:
2011-12-13 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51481
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13
12:56:13 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Dec 13 12:56:09 2011
New Revision: 182280
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182280
Log:
2011-12-13 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51519
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51362
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51117
--- Comment #9 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13 13:59:42
UTC ---
Author: matz
Date: Tue Dec 13 13:59:35 2011
New Revision: 182283
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182283
Log:
PR tree-optimization/51117
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51481
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13
14:01:04 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 13 14:00:58 2011
New Revision: 182284
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182284
Log:
Revert
2011-12-12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51524
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51521
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51117
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51521
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13
14:07:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
Hi Richard,
May you please take a look at this message where I describe why I had done
the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51521
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13
14:12:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
Hi Richard,
May you please take a look at this message where I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51524
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2011-12-13 14:21:37
UTC ---
Index: gcc.target/i386/bmi2-mulx32-1.c
===
--- gcc.target/i386/bmi2-mulx32-1.c (revision
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48354
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48354
--- Comment #19 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13
14:43:50 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Dec 13 14:43:44 2011
New Revision: 182286
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182286
Log:
2011-12-13 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51477
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51491
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13 15:00:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 26070
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26070
update tentative patch
now testing on x86_64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51524
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13 15:00:19 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Dec 13 15:00:09 2011
New Revision: 182287
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182287
Log:
PR testsuite/51524
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51524
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51528
Bug #: 51528
Summary: SRA should not create BOOLEAN_TYPE replacements
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51528
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13
15:26:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 26071
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26071
Testcase
This is the aforementioned test case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51528
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51443
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13
15:38:54 UTC ---
Proposed fix,
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg00995.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51362
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13
15:43:39 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Dec 13 15:43:36 2011
New Revision: 182288
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182288
Log:
2011-12-13 Martin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51503
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13
15:45:45 UTC ---
No, that doesn't seem to cause the C++ frontend to be enabled, instead we
do such magic via config-lang.in fragments - no such thing exists for
target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51476
--- Comment #2 from Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13
15:51:52 UTC ---
A candidate patch was posted to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg00996.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51362
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51439
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13
15:58:17 UTC ---
Indeed it is and I have just verified that it is also fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50628
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13
16:08:19 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Dec 13 16:08:14 2011
New Revision: 182289
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182289
Log:
2011-12-13 Martin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50628
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51499
--- Comment #14 from Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com 2011-12-13 16:27:19 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #13)
However, I don't fully understand Richard Guenther's example. Yes his
example requires -fassociative-math to be vectorized, however,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51529
Bug #: 51529
Summary: gfortran.dg/class_to_type_1.f03 is miscompiled:
Uninitialized variable used
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51530
Bug #: 51530
Summary: internal compiler error: in unify, at cp/pt.c:16854
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51530
--- Comment #1 from Dave Abrahams dave at boostpro dot com 2011-12-13
17:46:22 UTC ---
Created attachment 26072
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26072
reproducer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51443
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51529
--- Comment #1 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13 18:14:49
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
$ gfortran -g gfortran.dg/class_to_type_1.f03
$ MALLOC_PERTURB_= ./a.out
$ MALLOC_PERTURB_=33 ./a.out
A fatal error occurred!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14258
--- Comment #15 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13 18:47:04 UTC ---
Author: fabien
Date: Tue Dec 13 18:46:58 2011
New Revision: 182292
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182292
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2011-12-11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47612
--- Comment #19 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13
19:10:10 UTC ---
Time to close this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51531
Bug #: 51531
Summary: bool conversion to pointer should warn
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51532
Bug #: 51532
Summary: Invalid Code Generated for cpu32.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51533
Bug #: 51533
Summary: initialization with uninitialized member should warn
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51532
Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.1
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51532
--- Comment #2 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-13 19:24:37
UTC ---
Created attachment 26073
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26073
Test case
-libssp
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20111213 (experimental) [trunk revision 182291] (GCC)
$ cat ~/foo.c
#include arm_neon.h
void foo (unsigned * src, unsigned *dst, int width)
{
const int32x4_t vec_alpha_shift = vdupq_n_s32 (0);
const uint32x4_t vec_one = vdupq_n_u32 (1u);
const
1 - 100 of 275 matches
Mail list logo
