On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
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
07/05/2012 17:53, Aurelien Buhrig :
I have another issue in DCE pass after changing word_mode from SImode to
HImode.
(insn 98 97 99 2 (set (subreg:HI (reg:SI 106) 0) (reg:HI 104))
(insn 99 98 100 2 (set (subreg:HI (reg:SI 106) 2) (reg:HI 105 [+2 ]))
(insn 100 99 47 2 (set (reg:SI 8 a1)
On Wed, 9 May 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
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
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
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
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
On Wed, 9 May 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 5:14 PM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote:
I assume this is a
On Wed, 9 May 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
necessary because of platforms where size_t is unsigned short (I didn't know
those existed...)
Well, I suspect AVR might be such platform but I do not seem to have an
ABI
I have another issue in DCE pass after changing word_mode from SImode to
HImode.
Indeed, in subreg1 pass, SI moves such as
...
(insn 42 41 43 (set (reg:SI 85) (reg/f:SI 83))
(insn 46 45 47 (set (reg:SI 8 a1) (reg:SI 85))
are split into HImode word moves:
...
(insn 98 97 99 2 (set
On 08/05/12 21:57, Jan Hubicka wrote:
In expanded form it is
(set (reg5) (const 10))
(parallel [(set (reg2) (const 0))
(set (reg0) (plus (reg3) (reg5)))
(set (reg1) (plus (reg4) (reg5)))
(set (mem (reg3)) (mem (reg4)))])
(set (reg0) (plus (reg0)
On May 9, 2012, at 5:34 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
On 08/05/12 21:57, Jan Hubicka wrote:
In expanded form it is
(set (reg5) (const 10))
(parallel [(set (reg2) (const 0))
(set (reg0) (plus (reg3) (reg5)))
(set (reg1) (plus (reg4) (reg5)))
(set (mem
On 09/05/12 11:53, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
He was showing the RTL expansion of the example he gave:
Ah, right. I interpreted it as if it was what the movmem expanded to.
--
PMatos
Steven Bosscher wrote:
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
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Ulrich Weigand uweig...@de.ibm.com wrote:
Hmm, SPU also supports only SJLJ exceptions ...
IIRC the main reason is because SJLJ exceptions produced smaller
binary size. Though I wonder if this should not be looked at again to
see if
Hi,
While debugging an issue related to my movmem rule, I noticed that
fwprop seems to be doing some really strange.
The problem occurs when setting the argument to the block copy
instruction. The full C code is:
int **
t25 (int *d, int **s)
{
memcpy (d, *s, 16);
return s;
}
Before
09/05/2012 11:16, Eric Botcazou:
I have another issue in DCE pass after changing word_mode from SImode to
HImode.
Indeed, in subreg1 pass, SI moves such as
...
(insn 42 41 43 (set (reg:SI 85) (reg/f:SI 83))
(insn 46 45 47 (set (reg:SI 8 a1) (reg:SI 85))
are split into HImode word moves:
Daniel Marschall daniel-marsch...@viathinksoft.de writes:
As I was optimizing my program, I found a few things which looked odd
to me in the assembler code.
Thanks. It's often best to report missed optimizations at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ . They will tend to be forgotten on the
mailing
Forget about this question. Doesn't make sense at all.
I wonder if the thing I drank during lunch was really water...
On 09/05/12 14:40, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
Hi,
While debugging an issue related to my movmem rule, I noticed that
fwprop seems to be doing some really strange.
The problem
Hello and thanks for your quick reply!
Am 09.05.2012 15:59, schrieb Ian Lance Taylor:
Note that the current GCC release is 4.7.0.
The problem with Debian Squeeze is always that I have to use medieval
software... ;-) Maybe I should develop the server software on a local
box using unstable
Daniel Marschall daniel-marsch...@viathinksoft.de writes:
I did understand that the compiler used signed multiplication
instead of an unsigned one because char*char needs to be extended.
Maybe I am wrong, but couldn't the compiler know that the result
will be at least unsigned because
Hello,
Look for the Intel Optimization Manual on intel.com. The appendixes
have latency and throughput information for the instruction set on
various Intel processors.
Uh-oh, that's hard. I tried to find the information, but I did only
found a part of the informations I was looking for.
On Wed, 9 May 2012, Daniel Marschall wrote:
1. I do not know my DisplayName/DisplayFamily (0f_2h or 0f_3h?).
Ask your processor (cpuid). Or your kernel (/proc/cpuinfo on linux).
3. Should I compare Latency or Throughput if I want to produce fast code? Or
doesn't it matter which value I
Am 09.05.2012 21:48, schrieb Marc Glisse:
On Wed, 9 May 2012, Daniel Marschall wrote:
1. I do not know my DisplayName/DisplayFamily (0f_2h or 0f_3h?).
Ask your processor (cpuid). Or your kernel (/proc/cpuinfo on linux).
/proc/cpuinfo says:
processor : 0
vendor_id :
Greetings,
I've been debugging a Fedora 17 build problem on ppc64-redhat-linux, and
ran into an issue with bitsizetype. I have a patch that fixes the
problem, but I'm not yet convinced it's the right fix. I'm hoping
someone here can help me sort it out.
The problem occurs when compiling some
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:36 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Greetings,
I've been debugging a Fedora 17 build problem on ppc64-redhat-linux, and
ran into an issue with bitsizetype. I have a patch that fixes the
problem, but I'm not yet convinced it's the right fix.
On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 13:47 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:36 PM, William J. Schmidt
wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Greetings,
I've been debugging a Fedora 17 build problem on ppc64-redhat-linux, and
ran into an issue with bitsizetype. I have a patch that fixes
Am 09.05.2012 20:30, schrieb Ian Lance Taylor:
Daniel Marschall daniel-marsch...@viathinksoft.de writes:
I did understand that the compiler used signed multiplication
instead of an unsigned one because char*char needs to be extended.
Maybe I am wrong, but couldn't the compiler know that the
On Wed, 9 May 2012, Daniel Marschall wrote:
I could sucessfully do a benchmark of my code. I found out that the
no-typecast-version (imull+movslq) needed 47 secs for 12 working packages,
while the typecast-version (imulq) needed only 38 secs per 12 working
packages. That is incredible!
A TPF stack frame has up to two return addresses in it. The second
one is used when the call crosses a shared object domain, where a stub
is between the two functions. The stub does not change the stack, but
it does eventually chain to the correct return address.
In the TPF unwinder, a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53176
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53282
--- Comment #4 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-05-09 06:29:40 UTC ---
Hi Honza,
I forgot to say that I tried both
-flto-partition=1to1
and
-flto-partition=none
with the same result
the point is that the symbols in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53290
Bug #: 53290
Summary: ICE compiling aermod with Ofast
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: tree-ssa
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53291
Bug #: 53291
Summary: Code generated for xtest is wrong
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53290
Venkataramanan venkataramanan.kumar at amd dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53292
Bug #: 53292
Summary: multi-threaded (OpenMP) is slower than single-threaded
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53271
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-09 08:17:24
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Wed May 9 08:17:09 2012
New Revision: 187316
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187316
Log:
PR target/53271
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53271
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53271
--- Comment #4 from hainque at adacore dot com hainque at adacore dot com
2012-05-09 08:52:01 UTC ---
On May 9, 2012, at 10:18 , amodra at gmail dot com wrote:
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com 2012-05-09 08:18:09
UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53282
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-09
09:10:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Hi Honza,
I forgot to say that I tried both
-flto-partition=1to1
and
-flto-partition=none
with the same result
the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53290
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53217
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53292
--- Comment #1 from FH fh_p at hotmail dot com 2012-05-09 09:17:29 UTC ---
I am not sure to know if this problem is related rather to gcc or rather to
Ubuntu. I started with the assumption that is should rather to related to
gcc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53249
--- Comment #11 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-09 09:23:03 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Wed May 9 09:22:57 2012
New Revision: 187320
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187320
Log:
gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53249
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53282
--- Comment #6 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-05-09 09:39:54 UTC ---
On 9 May, 2012, at 11:10 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
All hidden symbols are postfixed with something like .local.77.4195, making
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53293
Bug #: 53293
Summary: Internal Compiler Error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53293
--- Comment #1 from vikram vikram2rhyme at gmail dot com 2012-05-09 09:46:11
UTC ---
Created attachment 27353
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27353
Preprocessed file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53293
--- Comment #2 from vikram vikram2rhyme at gmail dot com 2012-05-09 09:48:00
UTC ---
ICE:SEGFAULT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53282
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=53282
--- Comment #8 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-05-09 10:03:33 UTC ---
On 9 May, 2012, at 11:58 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Ok, so the question would be - why does GCC think this symbol is not
possibly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53282
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-09
10:15:21 UTC ---
Btw, the testcase does not reproduce for me. What binutils version and which
linker do you use? Do you actually end up using -fuse-linker-plugin?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53292
--- Comment #2 from FH fh_p at hotmail dot com 2012-05-09 10:16:52 UTC ---
I have just tested on another computer (CPU : Xeon5650 12 cores + OS :
Scientific Linux) = I reproduce the unexpected behavior (OpenMP slower than
single-threaded).
So, I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53294
Bug #: 53294
Summary: Optimize out some exception code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53282
--- Comment #10 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-05-09 10:40:08 UTC ---
On 9 May, 2012, at 12:15 PM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53282
--- Comment #9 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53289
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53282
--- Comment #11 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-05-09 10:47:02 UTC ---
if I add -fuse-linker-plugin I get
c++: error: -fuse-linker-plugin is not supported in this configuration
my understanding was that since 4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53277
--- Comment #2 from José Luis García Pallero jgpallero at gmail dot com
2012-05-09 10:50:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 27354
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27354
Original C code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53277
--- Comment #3 from José Luis García Pallero jgpallero at gmail dot com
2012-05-09 10:51:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 27355
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27355
Preprocessed with -O0 optimization flag
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53277
--- Comment #4 from José Luis García Pallero jgpallero at gmail dot com
2012-05-09 10:51:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 27356
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27356
Preprocessed with -O1 optimization flag
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53287
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53277
--- Comment #5 from José Luis García Pallero jgpallero at gmail dot com
2012-05-09 10:52:50 UTC ---
Created attachment 27357
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27357
Preprocessed with -O2 optimization flag
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53277
--- Comment #6 from José Luis García Pallero jgpallero at gmail dot com
2012-05-09 10:53:19 UTC ---
Created attachment 27358
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27358
Preprocessed with -O3 optimization flag
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53277
--- Comment #7 from José Luis García Pallero jgpallero at gmail dot com
2012-05-09 10:54:33 UTC ---
Hello:
I attach the preprocessed files with optimization flags -O0, -O1, -O2 and -O3
Thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53277
--- Comment #8 from José Luis García Pallero jgpallero at gmail dot com
2012-05-09 10:56:34 UTC ---
I have used gcc 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50476
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50359
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53284
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-05-09 11:45:10 UTC ---
--- Comment #1 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-08
22:39:35 UTC ---
Can you investigate why configure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50476
--- Comment #3 from Rui Maciel rui.maciel at gmail dot com 2012-05-09
11:47:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I think it is only undefined behaviour to access the pointer after the
life-time of y has finished, however, the following probably
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53277
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53293
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-09 12:06:37
UTC ---
typedef struct {
unsigned Ebits_to_go ;
int C
} * EncodingEnvironmentPtr ;
arienco_done_encoding ( EncodingEnvironmentPtr eep ) {
if ( ( eep -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53295
Bug #: 53295
Summary: Vectorizer support for non-constant strided loads
depends on gather support overwriting the data-ref
with bogus data
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53295
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-09
12:15:43 UTC ---
The testcase probably only fails on SPU (the only target besides x86 that
has target support for vect_double according to the testsuite harness ...)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53292
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53226
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-09
12:19:41 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed May 9 12:19:34 2012
New Revision: 187328
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187328
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53282
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-05-09 12:21:38
UTC ---
if I add -fuse-linker-plugin I get
c++: error: -fuse-linker-plugin is not supported in this configuration
my understanding was that since 4.6 linker-plugin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53226
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53290
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-05-09
12:33:16 UTC ---
As a temporary work around for aermod.f90, you can compile it with
'-fprotect-parens -Ofast' (it does not work for the code in pr53217).
Also a patch
-multilib --enable-linker-plugin
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120509 (experimental) [trunk revision 187326] (GCC)
and I get
c++ -fuse-linker-plugin -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -O2 -flto -shared -fPIC -o
bha.so d1.cc d2.cc d3.cc
c++: error: -fuse-linker-plugin is not supported
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53277
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53292
--- Comment #4 from FH fh_p at hotmail dot com 2012-05-09 12:53:46 UTC ---
I don't understand your answer.
Timing just times the for loop. Checking array content is single threaded :
this is added to make sure the for loop has done the job
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53292
FH fh_p at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18437
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-09
12:59:49 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 9 12:59:46 2012
New Revision: 187330
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187330
Log:
2012-05-09 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53277
--- Comment #11 from José Luis García Pallero jgpallero at gmail dot com
2012-05-09 13:06:56 UTC ---
Report to glibc sent
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53277
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-09
13:11:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
This is PR51294.
Looks different. Here the compiler complains about casting 0 to size_t.
And there is PR52617.
That one is not a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52617
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48423
--- Comment #11 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-05-09 13:16:30 UTC ---
I found the reference in the binutil bugzilla
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12629
was fixed by Ian in gold on 2011-06-30.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53292
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53249
--- Comment #13 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-09
13:32:22 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed May 9 13:32:13 2012
New Revision: 187331
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=187331
Log:
Add a test for PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53277
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53282
--- Comment #14 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-09
13:45:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
if I add -fuse-linker-plugin I get
c++: error: -fuse-linker-plugin is not supported in this configuration
my understanding
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53294
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=53292
--- Comment #7 from FH fh_p at hotmail dot com 2012-05-09 14:36:00 UTC ---
Well...
Still don't really get why it is not possible to improve performance for such
basic things. I tried with allocations up to 7 Gb or more (RAM full + SWAP
full) : I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53282
--- Comment #15 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-05-09 14:48:20 UTC ---
I'm indeed using a ld that is not the one of the system.
googling around I found this:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.help/41304
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53292
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-09
15:01:24 UTC ---
Just try equivalent pthread program and you'll note the same behavior.
#include pthread.h
#include stdlib.h
double *p;
int c;
void *tf (void *x)
{
int i,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53277
--- Comment #14 from José Luis García Pallero jgpallero at gmail dot com
2012-05-09 15:01:30 UTC ---
Fixed in glibc:
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14083
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53291
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=45424
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-09
15:36:40 UTC ---
Created attachment 27359
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27359
Draft patch: is_contiguous.diff
Attached is a mostly ready patch for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53296
Bug #: 53296
Summary: Segfault on non-constant character array constructor
containing kind spec
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53277
--- Comment #15 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-09
15:52:48 UTC ---
A simpler testcase:
int main() {
char i = 1;
char x = ((void) i, 0);
x = i ? x : ((void) i, 0);
return 0;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53287
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-09
15:56:15 UTC ---
I'm pretty sure this is a dup - it's at least discussed in another bug I've
commented on, w.r.t self-init of a std::string
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53281
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53275
birender.singh at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #2
1 - 100 of 242 matches
Mail list logo
