On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Bin.Cheng amker.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
In tree-complex.c's function expand_complex_comparison, gcc just
expand comparison on complex
operands into comparisons on inner type, like:
D.5375_17 = REALPART_EXPR g2;
D.5376_18 = IMAGPART_EXPR g2;
g2.1_5 =
Thank you sir for your important feedback and suggestion. I'll modify
my proposal and inform you about it very soon.
On 26 March 2012 09:41, Iyer, Balaji V balaji.v.i...@intel.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Subrata Biswas [mailto:subrata.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 25,
Hello,
I am porting my backend to GCC47 and during libgcc configuration I get:
configure:4511: checking whether to use setjmp/longjmp exceptions
configure:: /home/pm18/p4ws/pm18_binutils/bc/main/result/linux/
intermediate/FirmwareGcc47Package/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/pm18/p4ws/
On 2012-03-22 16:29:00 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
For the same reason, if the user chose long double instead of
double, this may be because he wanted more precision than double.
You mean range? IBM long double provides more precision, but not
On 25/03/2012 11:55, Oleg Endo wrote:
Please reply in CC to the GCC mailing list, so others can follow the
discussion.
On Sun, 2012-03-25 at 09:21 +0530, Subrata Biswas wrote:
On 25 March 2012 03:59, Oleg Endooleg.e...@t-online.de wrote:
I might be misunderstanding the idea...
Let's assume
Thank You David for your suggestion and feedback. I'll let you know my
final proposal (after the modification based on your feedback and my
latest study) as early as possible.
I would like to request everyone in this community to kindly enrich me
with more suggestions and guidance to prepare my
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 01:34:55AM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
Hello Everyone,
I am currently trying to take certain functions (marked by certain
attributes) and create vector version along with the scalar versions
of the function. For example, let's say I have a function my_add
that is
On 03/13/2012 12:41 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org writes:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org writes:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
But it also looks like the pattern should use a match_scratch.
It is
On Sun, 2012-03-25 at 22:10 +0200, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:30:31 +0200
Basile Starynkevitch bas...@starynkevitch.net wrote:
How can a plugin know that cc1 was compiled with C++ or just with
plain C? I don't really know (we do have GCCPLUGIN_VERSION, but should a
Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com writes:
Does 4.7 still have the failure at all?
Yes, see PR52573.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
And now for something completely different.
On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 12:26 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2012-03-22 16:29:00 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
For the same reason, if the user chose long double instead of
double, this may be because he wanted more precision than double.
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012, David Malcolm wrote:
Presumably a fix would be for the plugin's configuration phase to have a
test that tries to build a test plugin and run it, first building with a
C compiler, then a C++ compiler, and decides what compiler the real
plugin should be built with
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 03/05/2012 05:24 PM, Peter Bigot wrote:
And is there any reason (other than it doesn't seem to have been done
before) to believe PSImode is the wrong way to support a
general-purpose 20-bit integral type in gcc?
Does 4.7 still have the failure at all? I've checked with the 4.6
branch, and regrename gets confused because there's a REG_DEAD note for
the register, and another REG_UNUSED for the same reg. As far as I
remember, it used to be the case that there should not be a REG_DEAD
note for a register
On 03/26/2012 07:37 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Does 4.7 still have the failure at all? I've checked with the 4.6
branch, and regrename gets confused because there's a REG_DEAD note for
the register, and another REG_UNUSED for the same reg. As far as I
remember, it used to be the case that there
Here, I think the problem is that we have an in-out operand whose chain
is closed prematurely due to a bogus REG_DEAD note which shouldn't be
there for a register set in the instruction.
IIRC I didn't see a REG_DEAD note, but I might be misremembering.
--
Eric Botcazou
Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com writes:
I am porting my backend to GCC47 and during libgcc configuration I get:
configure:4511: checking whether to use setjmp/longjmp exceptions
configure:: /home/pm18/p4ws/pm18_binutils/bc/main/result/linux/
intermediate/FirmwareGcc47Package/./gcc/xgcc
On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 17:07 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012, David Malcolm wrote:
Presumably a fix would be for the plugin's configuration phase to have a
test that tries to build a test plugin and run it, first building with a
C compiler, then a C++ compiler, and
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:13:22 -0400
David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 17:07 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012, David Malcolm wrote:
I suppose now is a bad time to mention that my python plugin *doesn't*
use autoconf for its configure script -
On 03/25/2012 11:31 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
I just stumbled into this video animation showing a graphical
representation of GCC's source tree over the years.
It is a bit long, but it's amusing to recognize big events in GCC
(addition of Java, Ada, tree-ssa, etc) over time.
Hi,
Le 26 mars 2012 à 20:33, Basile Starynkevitch a écrit :
And I still think that GCC 4.7.1 should be able to tell by itself if it was
compiled by C
or by C++.
Actually you can already find it for every GCC version you are interested in
(4.6.x and 4.7.x), with very little logic, as it
Hello,
This patch is one way to address PR44982. I see no good reason to
cgraph_finalize_compilation_unit if there were parse errors. As Richi
already pointed out, GCC traditionally has proceeded after parse
errors to preserve warnings and errors we generate from the middle-end
and during
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 15:12 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I can understand why you are doing this. However, you should be aware
that the compiler internals changed significantly in version 4.0. Time
spent working on detailed optimizations of gcc 3.4 is almost certainly
time wasted. Walking
I have another question along the same lines. Is it possible to tell gcc to
never delete a certain function even if it is never called in the executable?
Any help is greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From: Martin Jambor [mailto:mjam...@suse.cz]
Sent:
On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 22:51 +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
I have another question along the same lines. Is it possible to tell
gcc to never delete a certain function even if it is never called in
the executable?
__attribute__ ((used)) maybe?
Cheers,
Oleg
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:34:22 +0200
Romain Geissler romain.geiss...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
You'll find something like this :
/* Define if building with C++. */
#ifndef USED_FOR_TARGET
#define ENABLE_BUILD_WITH_CXX 1
#endif
So that's it, you already got all you need for all version.
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46076
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51663
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-26
07:05:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
The inconsistency should be solved. The question however is what kind of
behaviour we want at -O0 from LTO.
It seems to me
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52705
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52717
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52715
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52718
Bug #: 52718
Summary: -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant: misleading location
for 0 as default argument
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52708
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52691
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52717
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52687
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-26
08:27:11 UTC ---
Seems to work for me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52719
Bug #: 52719
Summary: C++11 std::regex is broken compiling simple regular
expressions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52719
--- Comment #1 from Roger Leigh rleigh at debian dot org 2012-03-26 08:29:23
UTC ---
Created attachment 26992
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26992
Failing code using std::regex
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52719
--- Comment #2 from Roger Leigh rleigh at debian dot org 2012-03-26 08:31:09
UTC ---
Created attachment 26993
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26993
Preprocessed std::regex source (g++ -E)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52719
--- Comment #3 from Roger Leigh rleigh at debian dot org 2012-03-26 08:31:48
UTC ---
Created attachment 26994
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26994
Machine and compiler specs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52719
--- Comment #4 from Roger Leigh rleigh at debian dot org 2012-03-26 08:37:10
UTC ---
I left the priority as normal, but if this is generally reproducible, and not
a failure on my part, it would mean that std::regex is quite unusable in its
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52629
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-26
08:41:14 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Mar 26 08:41:02 2012
New Revision: 185787
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=185787
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52720
Bug #: 52720
Summary: internal compiler error: in try_move_mult_to_index
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52719
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-26
09:47:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
std::regex is quite unusable in its current form.
And documented as such in
-version-specific-runtime-libs
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120326 (experimental) [trunk revision 185790] (GCC)
[dimhen@dim tst]$ rm -f foo.o libfoo.so g++ -flto -c foo.cpp -o foo.o g++
-shared foo.o -flto -o libfoo.so nm -D -C -u libfoo.so foo.o | grep foo
nm: foo.o: No symbols
libfoo.so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52721
Bug #: 52721
Summary: segfault in vect_init_vector
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51294
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52600
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=50693
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51712
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-26
10:35:24 UTC ---
My answer would be: What does Clang do in this case?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51663
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-03-26 10:44:57
UTC ---
Yes. I think for -O0 -flto we should default to 1:1 partitioning and
_not_ do the renaming of local symbols though ... of course -O0 -flto
does not make too
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52717
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-03-26 10:48:33 UTC
---
That stuff might simply not be set up properly for LTO (it does not seem
to be integrated with the cgraph). Honza? Eric?
Yes, that's very likely the source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52720
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52717
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-26
11:05:19 UTC ---
Hmm, if the sparc_get_pc_thunk is reference to libgcc, how it can end up being
defined in ltrans24? Perhaps renaming interfere here with the references
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52272
Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52721
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52701
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=52701
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52701
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-26
11:44:55 UTC ---
During analysis we have {c_50, +, pretmp.51_172}_4 as access function. This
is analyzed to be unknown:
9: Unknown def-use cycle pattern.
but we still
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52720
--- Comment #2 from treeve at sourcemage dot org 2012-03-26 12:11:13 UTC ---
I added '-v' to compile flags, as requested
# make
gcc -c -I. -I../../../../src/gallium/include
-I../../../../src/gallium/auxiliary -I../../../../src/gallium/drivers
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52720
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52722
Bug #: 52722
Summary: ICE in lto_output_varpool_node
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52715
Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52720
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52722
--- Comment #1 from Malcolm Parsons malcolm.parsons at gmail dot com
2012-03-26 12:27:46 UTC ---
Created attachment 26998
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26998
gzipped preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52721
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|UNCONFIRMED
Ever
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52720
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-26
12:44:33 UTC ---
Reduced testcase:
struct alu_bank_swizzle {
int hw_gpr[3][4];
int hw_cfile_addr[4];
};
static void init_bank_swizzle(struct alu_bank_swizzle *bs)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52723
Bug #: 52723
Summary: No declaration of __cxa_eh_globals
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52722
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52720
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52724
Bug #: 52724
Summary: Internal read with character(kind=4) data
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52645
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-03-26 13:09:20 UTC ---
HAVE_INET6 is undefined in include/config.h and classpath/include/
config.h.
Ok, so at least we don't have another case of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52686
--- Comment #3 from Ulrich Weigand uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-26
13:13:14 UTC ---
Author: uweigand
Date: Mon Mar 26 13:13:07 2012
New Revision: 185795
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=185795
Log:
gcc/
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52686
Ulrich Weigand uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52722
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51765
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52722
Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52721
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-26
14:13:43 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 26 14:13:35 2012
New Revision: 185799
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=185799
Log:
2012-03-26 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52701
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52721
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52701
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-26
14:15:03 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 26 14:14:51 2012
New Revision: 185800
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=185800
Log:
2012-03-26 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52725
Bug #: 52725
Summary: error: capture of non-variable (in regards to a
variable)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52688
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52725
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50052
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-26
15:46:22 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Mar 26 15:46:14 2012
New Revision: 185807
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=185807
Log:
2012-03-26 Martin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52688
--- Comment #6 from Sarfaraz Nawaz sir_nawaz959 at yahoo dot com 2012-03-26
15:54:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #0)
While gcc-4.5.1 compiles fine this code
Are you sure? I get the same error with 4.1.2, 4.4.3,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32199
Antoine Balestrat merkil at savhon dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||merkil at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50052
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45579
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32199
--- Comment #16 from Antoine Balestrat merkil at savhon dot org 2012-03-26
15:55:07 UTC ---
Created attachment 27000
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27000
The source that causes excessive memory usage
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32199
--- Comment #17 from Antoine Balestrat merkil at savhon dot org 2012-03-26
15:56:33 UTC ---
Created attachment 27001
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27001
gcc -O2 -v memfail.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52726
Bug #: 52726
Summary: Composed error message will not get translated
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52724
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52694
--- Comment #5 from gerald at gcc dot gnu.org gerald at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-03-26 16:24:46 UTC ---
Author: gerald
Date: Mon Mar 26 16:24:33 2012
New Revision: 185811
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=185811
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52727
Bug #: 52727
Summary: [4.7] internal compiler error at dwarf2cfi.c2:685
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52727
--- Comment #1 from Florian Fainelli florian at openwrt dot org 2012-03-26
16:51:13 UTC ---
Created attachment 27003
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27003
Assembly file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52727
--- Comment #2 from Florian Fainelli florian at openwrt dot org 2012-03-26
16:51:54 UTC ---
I will try to create a reduced test-case for this build failure. Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52694
Gerald Pfeifer gerald at pfeifer dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52717
--- Comment #5 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-03-26 17:09:55 UTC
---
Attachment was too big. Here's a URL for an archive that includes the ltrans
objects, ltrans asm, and cc temp files:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52727
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
1 - 100 of 188 matches
Mail list logo
