On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz wrote:
The idea here was originally to prevent LOOP instruction to get out of bounds.
ASM statement even if they are single line may be arbitrary long and thus can
run out of the limits.
Arbitrary long, but interrupted by semi-colons?
On 05/07/2012 07:33 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
I think it's reasonable to assume that most users of HP-UX10 on
machines with PA-RISC 2.0 support will have upgraded to HP-UX 11.11 or
later.
While this may be true indeed, ...
4. 32-bits HP-PA uses the SOM binary object format, i.e. it is a
Steven Bosscher wrote:
2. HP-UX 10 is also the last target that only supports SJLJ exceptions.
Hmm, SPU also supports only SJLJ exceptions ...
Bye,
Ulrich
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE
ulrich.weig...@de.ibm.com
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz wrote:
The idea here was originally to prevent LOOP instruction to get out of
bounds.
ASM statement even if they are single line may be arbitrary long and thus
can
run out of the limits.
Arbitrary long, but interrupted by
On 04/05/12 19:48, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
The i386 rep_movqi insn is an example:
(define_insn *rep_movqi
[(set (match_operand:P 2 register_operand =c) (const_int 0))
(set (match_operand:P 0 register_operand =D)
(plus:P (match_operand:P 3 register_operand 0)
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Ulrich Weigand uweig...@de.ibm.com wrote:
Steven Bosscher wrote:
2. HP-UX 10 is also the last target that only supports SJLJ exceptions.
Hmm, SPU also supports only SJLJ exceptions ...
IIRC the main reason is because SJLJ exceptions produced smaller
binary
Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com writes:
On 04/05/12 19:48, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
The i386 rep_movqi insn is an example:
(define_insn *rep_movqi
[(set (match_operand:P 2 register_operand =c) (const_int 0))
(set (match_operand:P 0 register_operand =D)
(plus:P
Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com writes:
On 04/05/12 19:48, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
The i386 rep_movqi insn is an example:
(define_insn *rep_movqi
[(set (match_operand:P 2 register_operand =c) (const_int 0))
(set (match_operand:P 0 register_operand =D)
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Ulrich Weigand uweig...@de.ibm.com wrote:
Steven Bosscher wrote:
2. HP-UX 10 is also the last target that only supports SJLJ exceptions.
Hmm, SPU also supports only SJLJ exceptions ...
Then why is force_sjlj_exceptions not set for it?
Ciao!
Steven
Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz writes:
Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com writes:
On 04/05/12 19:48, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
The i386 rep_movqi insn is an example:
(define_insn *rep_movqi
[(set (match_operand:P 2 register_operand =c) (const_int 0))
(set (match_operand:P 0
I can accept the issue as a matter of documentation, but I don't
understand the rest. Remember that all the patterns are executed in
parallel. I don't see how adding a USE in parallel could affect
anything about how the operand is used.
(define_insn *rep_movqi
[(set
Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz writes:
I can accept the issue as a matter of documentation, but I don't
understand the rest. Remember that all the patterns are executed in
parallel. I don't see how adding a USE in parallel could affect
anything about how the operand is used.
(define_insn
Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz writes:
I can accept the issue as a matter of documentation, but I don't
understand the rest. Remember that all the patterns are executed in
parallel. I don't see how adding a USE in parallel could affect
anything about how the operand is used.
Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz writes:
Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz writes:
I can accept the issue as a matter of documentation, but I don't
understand the rest. Remember that all the patterns are executed in
parallel. I don't see how adding a USE in parallel could affect
anything about
I assume this is a size_t vs int type problem, but the diagnostic
points to the function declaration, not to an actual binary
expression, and I can't figure out what it's complaining about:
/greed/dj/m32c/gcc/h8300-elf/./gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc
-B/greed/dj/m32c/gcc/h8300-elf/./gcc -nostdinc++
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 5:14 PM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote:
I assume this is a size_t vs int type problem, but the diagnostic
points to the function declaration, not to an actual binary
expression, and I can't figure out what it's complaining about:
My mailer uses proportional fonts so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
jimis jimis at gmx dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27335|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
--- Comment #6 from jimis jimis at gmx dot net 2012-05-08 06:38:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 27339
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27339
preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
--- Comment #7 from jimis jimis at gmx dot net 2012-05-08 06:38:45 UTC ---
Parallel compilation confused me, the error is for guard.cc, see the attached
log plus the preprocessed source.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53271
--- Comment #1 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com 2012-05-08 06:43:15
UTC ---
Created attachment 27340
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27340
proposed patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53226
--- Comment #5 from Mario Baumann mario-baumann at web dot de 2012-05-08
06:48:38 UTC ---
I've finished the bi-section - revision 187053 caused the problem.
I'm trying to produce a testcase ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53274
Bug #: 53274
Summary: /*struct*/ S (__cdecl * f)(); fails to compile
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53275
Bug #: 53275
Summary: GCC-4.4.4 gives error: ld: fatal: Symbol referencing
errors. No output written to sparc_SunOS
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53226
--- Comment #6 from Mario Baumann mario-baumann at web dot de 2012-05-08
07:54:22 UTC ---
Created attachment 27341
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27341
c++ source
Added testcase (needs include files from boost -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #8 from Pawel Sikora pluto at agmk dot net 2012-05-08 07:54:18
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Good, good, thanks Francois, anybody willing to benchmark the more limited
change?
changing __glibcxx_check_heap_*pred* reduces timings
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53276
Bug #: 53276
Summary: DWARF-2 line information truncated for MIPS16 thunks
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53277
Bug #: 53277
Summary: Warning using -Wconversion and -Ox in gcc 4.5, 4.6 and
4.7 but not in previous releases
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53278
Bug #: 53278
Summary: [4.8 regression] internal compiler error: in
df_uses_record, at df-scan.c:3179 when compiling
libgcc2.c __mulvdi3 on armv5tel-linux
Classification:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53275
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
-vectorize -fPIC'
CXXFLAGS='-O2 -fPIC -ftree-vectorize -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -march=native'
-enable-libitm -disable-multilib CC=gcc CXX=g++
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,lto --no-create --no-recursion
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120508 (experimental) [trunk revision 187276] (GCC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53278
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53279
Bug #: 53279
Summary: [4.8 regression] error: 'convert_tree_comp_to_rtx'
defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function] breaks
m68k-linux bootstrap
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo.carlini at oracle dot |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53279
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-05-08
09:56:01 UTC ---
I believe the get_def_for_expr_class and convert_tree_comp_to_rtx functions
should be #ifdef HAVE_conditional_move.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53278
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=53279
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53226
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48724
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53268
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=53262
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44141
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|target
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53280
Bug #: 53280
Summary: s390 bootstrap failure since r186977
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53280
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44141
--- Comment #18 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-05-08 10:32:33
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
Which makes this a target bug then. Uros?
Following the explanation in comment #16, I'd say so.
Please note that we already
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53180
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-08
10:35:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 27344
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27344
Candidate patch
I think I have a theory of what's going wrong. Can you test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53226
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53226
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=53226
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-08
12:09:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Ugh, remove_prop_source_from_use can remove stmts while prev iterator points
to
them. This has been buggy before, but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53226
--- Comment #11 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-08 12:12:20
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
I guess instead of using prev/prev_initialized, the loop could gimple_set_uid
(stmt, 0) the stmts it is about to process and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53226
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-08
12:12:42 UTC ---
One way would be to have a queue of propagation sources to be removed and
delay the removal until after we have processed the function (the basic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53226
--- Comment #13 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-08 13:19:42
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
The other way is to try to get away without immediately removing propagated
source stmts - the obvious downside is that transforms
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53281
Bug #: 53281
Summary: poor error message for calling a non-const method from
a const object
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53281
--- Comment #1 from Rui Maciel rui.maciel at gmail dot com 2012-05-08
13:27:24 UTC ---
The same suggestion applies to the cases where a non-const method is called
from a const method, such as in the example below:
code
class Foo {
void
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50359
--- Comment #2 from Rui Maciel rui.maciel at gmail dot com 2012-05-08
13:33:57 UTC ---
This issue is still present in g++ 4.6.3.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50476
--- Comment #1 from Rui Maciel rui.maciel at gmail dot com 2012-05-08
13:35:33 UTC ---
This issue is still present in gcc 4.6.3.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53282
Bug #: 53282
Summary: lto and visibility-inlines-hidden makes wrongly
hidden symbols and in a way that depends on the order
of the input compilation units
Classification:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53282
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-08
13:51:34 UTC ---
This has nothing to do with -fvisbility-inlines-hidden (well, that might
be necessary to trigger it). LTO brings symbols local to ship them to
multiple
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53283
Bug #: 53283
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Many failures on
x86_64-apple-darwin10 after revision 186789
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53282
--- Comment #2 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-05-08 14:01:27 UTC ---
understood why it is related to the order of the input files.
Still that particular symbol shall not be hidden.
I've a library with 307 of those
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53283
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=53278
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #18 from Hin-Tak Leung htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net
2012-05-08 14:05:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 27346
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27346
one set of those checksum files. tar.gz'ed
I think this one is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #19 from Hin-Tak Leung htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net
2012-05-08 14:07:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 27347
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27347
another set of those checksum files. tar.gz'ed
I think this one
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #20 from Hin-Tak Leung htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net
2012-05-08 14:08:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 27348
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27348
3rd set of those checksum files. tar.gz'ed
This one is from 4.6.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #21 from Hin-Tak Leung htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net
2012-05-08 14:15:52 UTC ---
There are two curious things:
1. why does the 2nd stage drops to only about 600 byte. (I assume 20-30k is
normal).
2. I did have a success with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53209
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53280
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53278
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-08
14:56:18 UTC ---
The patch below appears to trigger the issue but there's a fundamental question
as to why lower-subreg generates concatns when the documentation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51874
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-05-08 15:08:13 UTC ---
--- Comment #16 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com 2012-04-24
16:33:13 UTC ---
At some point, can you update this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51874
--- Comment #18 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-08 15:09:32
UTC ---
Created attachment 27349
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27349
Hack to avoid IRIX 6.5 libgo_cv_lib_setcontext_clobbers_tls failure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53272
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-08
15:20:56 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Tue May 8 15:20:52 2012
New Revision: 187283
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187283
Log:
PR target/53272
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53272
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-08
15:21:55 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Tue May 8 15:21:50 2012
New Revision: 187284
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187284
Log:
PR target/53272
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53272
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-08
15:27:08 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Tue May 8 15:27:03 2012
New Revision: 187285
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187285
Log:
PR target/53272
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53261
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-05-08 15:26:51 UTC ---
On 5/7/2012 12:25 PM, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Could you test on hppa?
The patch fixes the compilation error.
Actually, I am not sure whether if (!tem ||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53272
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-08
15:28:02 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Tue May 8 15:27:58 2012
New Revision: 187286
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187286
Log:
PR target/53272
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53272
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.2
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #22 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-05-08 15:36:03 UTC ---
--- Comment #21 from Hin-Tak Leung htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net
2012-05-08 14:15:52 UTC ---
I think there was a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53272
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53278
Kenneth Zadeck zadeck at naturalbridge dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zadeck at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49797
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-05-08 15:54:15 UTC ---
--- Comment #3 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-04-23 22:19:35
UTC ---
Can you please back port this to 4.6 as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53250
--- Comment #7 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-08 16:01:59 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue May 8 16:01:54 2012
New Revision: 187289
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187289
Log:
PR target/53250
* config/i386/i386.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53185
--- Comment #5 from Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com 2012-05-08 16:01:50
UTC ---
Ping. Is there an ETA for a fix for this bug? It is preventing us from being
able to merge from the GCC trunk. Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53277
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53250
--- Comment #8 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-05-08 16:05:40
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Author: uros
Date: Tue May 8 16:01:54 2012
New Revision: 187289
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187289
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53176
--- Comment #23 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-05-08 16:10:07
UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue May 8 16:01:54 2012
New Revision: 187289
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187289
Log:
PR target/53176
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53279
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53284
Bug #: 53284
Summary: Several libatomic tests fail on 32-bit Solaris/x86
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53226
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53282
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
-ftree-vectorize -fvisibility-inlines-hidden
-march=native'
-enable-libitm -disable-multilib CC=gcc CXX=g++
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,lto --no-create --no-recursion
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120508 (experimental) [trunk revision 187276] (GCC)
configured as above
ad got
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53283
Sriraman Tallam tmsriram at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tmsriram at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53238
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Richard G. skunk at iskunk dot org 2012-05-08
18:18:04 UTC ---
I did a non-bootstrap build to speed things up a bit. (The system already has
GCC 4.5.2.)
First: Your patch needs a couple of ;; sprinkled in there :-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53278
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49700
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53180
Pat Haugen pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.0 |---
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
--- Comment #10 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-08
19:03:01 UTC ---
From gcc61:
$ /lib/libc-2.7.so
GNU C Library stable release version 2.7, by Roland McGrath et al.
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
--- Comment #11 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-05-08 19:23:48 UTC ---
On 5/8/2012 3:03 PM, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Is that old a glibc still supported?
The following still works except for libitm:
dave@selway:/lib /lib/libc.so.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #10 from François Dumont fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-08
19:31:49 UTC ---
Ok, I will submit a patch tomorrow generalizing usage of __gnu_debug::__base in
debug macros.
1 - 100 of 201 matches
Mail list logo
