On 06/15/2012 10:12 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
Whether or not this particular incompatibility was intended or not, the
point remains. You cannot say that GCC devs are taking the C++11 binary
incompatibility issue seriously while:
a) there exist serious ABI incompatibilities between the modes.
b)
On 18 June 2012 08:52, Stephan Bergmann sberg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/15/2012 10:12 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
Whether or not this particular incompatibility was intended or not, the
point remains. You cannot say that GCC devs are taking the C++11 binary
incompatibility issue seriously
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
The problems arise when user code that uses the inline-only code is
linked to other user-code that has a different definition of that
inline-only code.
Indeed.
A related question is whether for GCC-4.8 we should
On 06/16/2012 12:46 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
A soname change for a basic system library is a _major_ PITA and should be
avoided even at large costs. In that light: do you have a plan of action
of how to never change the soname again, at least on targets where that is
reasonably possible with
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/16/2012 12:46 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
A soname change for a basic system library is a _major_ PITA and should be
avoided even at large costs. In that light: do you have a plan of action
of how to never change the soname
On 06/18/2012 07:16 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/16/2012 12:46 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
A soname change for a basic system library is a _major_ PITA and should be
avoided even at large costs. In that light: do you have a
ccing the gcc list and Cary Coutant.
The issue comes from gcc pr46770. Cary, have you tried implementing
the --reverse-init-array option? Does it solve the problems you were
seeing?
Can libstdc++ be fixed to work with the iostream static constructors
being in .ctor or .init_array? Would you be
Hi,
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Jeff, please note that the path that Michael took from what was said
ealier (in particular the quote he provided in his message) and the
conclusion of enthusiasm for soname bump is still a mystery.
The quoted part suggested switching
Hi,
On 06/18/2012 06:01 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Jeff, please note that the path that Michael took from what was said
ealier (in particular the quote he provided in his message) and the
conclusion of enthusiasm for soname bump is still a
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Rafael Espíndola
rafael.espind...@gmail.com wrote:
ccing the gcc list and Cary Coutant.
The issue comes from gcc pr46770. Cary, have you tried implementing
the --reverse-init-array option? Does it solve the problems you were
seeing?
Can libstdc++ be fixed to
The GNU linker has support to merge .ctor's into init_array. Does the
gold linker have the same feature? This seems more like the real fix
rather than just hacking around the issue.
Recent version have it. I found the bug when using gold 2.21 which
doesn't. What seems to happen is:
* In an
So this is not as bad as I was expecting (old programs still work),
but it is still a somewhat annoying ABI change to handle. I think we
can add support for this in clang in 3 ways:
1) Require new linkers when using gcc 4.7 libraries.
2) Ship our own versions of crtbeginS.o (and similars).
[Re-sending this to try to got through to the GCC mailing list...
Sorry for the duplication to others... My reply is at the bottom]
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Chandler Carruth chandl...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Rafael Espíndola
rafael.espind...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Cary Coutant ccout...@google.com wrote:
So this is not as bad as I was expecting (old programs still work),
but it is still a somewhat annoying ABI change to handle. I think we
can add support for this in clang in 3 ways:
1) Require new linkers when using gcc
Furthermore, if you're working in chromium, you should be aware that
the new behavior is exactly what the Chrome developers are arguing
for, as it makes the startup faster. It sounds to me like you're
working at cross purposes with the other developers on that project.
Ah, perhaps this goes
This has a long and complicated history. I tried to explain some of that here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2010-12/msg01493.html
I wasn't part of the GCC community at the time, but I think that
.ctors was originally used instead of .init or .init_array precisely
because the order of
But I am still missing something, why is the performance so different?
Code layout putting the constructors' body in the reverse order they
are called?
Yes, as I understand it. Cache and TLB prefetching works better when
code executes from lower to higher addresses than when executing from
On 06/18/12, Paolo Carlinipaolo.carl...@oracle.com wrote:
... I suppose that for 4.8.0 we really want to bump the ABI, for many other
reasons too, and be done with it.
Paolo.
Would this bump include everything? Such as rebasing std::ios_base::failure
from std::exception to
Yes, my topic sounds crazy huh? But you guys made it possible when you
started optimizing out constant function pointers. (Thank you!!) This
didn't mature to full power until 4.6.? (works in 4.6.2, not sure
about earlier 4.6). Now that you can populate a struct with const
pointers to inline
Hi,
Posted this query (attached below) to gcc-help. Did not get response yet
so posting it here. Appreciate your help.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2012-06/msg00156.html (Copy attached below).
Thanks,
Kannan
-Original Message-
From: Mailaripillai, Kannan Jeganathan
Sent: Tuesday,
Hi,
I am investigating the possibilities of using decimal floating point
arithmetic with gcc (on Linux / x86_64 to be explicit).
Are _Decimal32/_Decimal64/_Decimal128 available as builtin types without
further action or do i as a DFP consumer have to issue the correspondent
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53681
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18
07:09:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I don't see how r187965 could cause this, but I do see the problem.
mark_sym_for_renaming (called via the s390 va_arg_expr
Nobody have the answer ?
I'm desperate ... :(
miloutch wrote:
Hi,
I have a small problem. I am making a new pass for my gcc, and some of my
adds are deleted by optimization passes.
here is the code i add :
t = builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_ACC_SETUPARGUMENT);
g =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53706
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18
07:50:33 UTC ---
Created attachment 27648
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27648
gcc48-pr53706.patch
The attached patch fixes the problem for me. Alex, what
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53713
Bug #: 53713
Summary: undefined reference with -brtl
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53681
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-06-18 08:24:51 UTC ---
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53681
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Krebbel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53713
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18
08:31:12 UTC ---
probably related to PR 52887
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53712
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53708
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=53707
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53700
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53696
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53693
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53698
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-06-18 09:32:56 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Mon Jun 18 09:32:51 2012
New Revision: 188725
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188725
Log:
gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53714
Bug #: 53714
Summary: false positive for -Wuninitialized
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53713
--- Comment #2 from joerg.rich...@pdv-fs.de 2012-06-18 09:39:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
probably related to PR 52887
Yes, seems to be the same bug. But I've used --disable-bootstrap.
I am testing the proposed fixes for PR 52887 and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52887
--- Comment #10 from joerg.rich...@pdv-fs.de 2012-06-18 09:44:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 27649
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27649
Fix for undefined references
Patch for 4.7.1 with the two missing instantiations.
Works for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53707
--- Comment #5 from Rafał Mużyło galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2012-06-18 09:46:17
UTC ---
The wrong code here seems to be 'n' treated as a constant - there was a bug
(regarding freeciv, IIRC) of a similar case for an older gcc version.
As for gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53706
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18
09:50:01 UTC ---
It's a bit surprising, but I guess it makes sense. I'd reorder the
initializers too, so that we release stuff in the reverse order of allocation.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53707
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18
09:58:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
The wrong code here seems to be 'n' treated as a constant - there was a bug
(regarding freeciv, IIRC) of a similar case for an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53707
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18
09:58:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
The wrong code here seems to be 'n' treated as a constant - there was a bug
(regarding freeciv,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53672
--- Comment #9 from John Forrest jjhforrest at gmail dot com 2012-06-18
09:59:11 UTC ---
Balaji,
That works and on a few other cases I have altered back.
Hopefully that is that.
Thanks
John
On 18/06/12 03:08, bviyer at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53708
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-06-18
09:59:55 UTC ---
ok if it passes bootstrap regtesting for you.
Clean bootstrapregtesting scheduled for tonight. Meanwhile with a simple
update of revision 188723 and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53673
--- Comment #10 from Niall Douglas s_gccbugzilla at nedprod dot com
2012-06-18 10:01:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
I'm ambivalent.
Ok then. Well, thanks for all your help and very useful input. As we have
something now which is very close
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53712
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-06-18 10:03:11
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
the testcase works as expected. Still with the redundant(?) instruction
though. Thus your source is invalid but the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53707
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18
10:04:36 UTC ---
Btw, when removing the 'string test(n)' line the function gets inlined and
eliminated, so that is not of much help.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53693
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18
10:22:24 UTC ---
Reduced testcase, it seems we are getting conflicts between two patterns.
void
filter_scanlines (void *src_buffer, void *dst_buffer, int dst_pitch, int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53682
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53682
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53707
--- Comment #9 from Rafał Mużyło galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2012-06-18 10:43:50
UTC ---
The code is not mine and it's about as convoluted (if not more) as freeciv was
(that was the *initial* part of bug 39333 - the upstream workaround was
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53693
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18
10:56:23 UTC ---
Fact is we detect
D.2215_20 = (int) gh_18;
D.2216_21 = D.2215_20 5;
D.2217_22 = (signed short) D.2216_21;
but do not see the use
D._27 =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53681
Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53681
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53681
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53707
--- Comment #10 from Rafał Mużyło galtgendo at o2 dot pl 2012-06-18 11:13:20
UTC ---
Now, for an interesting note:
if instead of 'string test(n);' I put 'printf(%d\n, n);', not only the bug
*still* happens, but the result if funny:
first a '0'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52945
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-06-18
11:47:57 UTC ---
Using dg-require-weak does not fix the failures, but the test is skipped with
the following patch:
--- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/lto/pr52634_0.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43759
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53703
--- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18
12:22:40 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Jun 18 12:22:37 2012
New Revision: 188731
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188731
Log:
gcc:
2012-06-18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53703
William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43581
--- Comment #8 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-06-18 12:29:44 UTC ---
I get a segfault if I add -Wl,--icf=all (for gold)
c++ -Wl,-v -g -fno-omit-frame-pointer -pthread -O2 lib.cpp -flto
-ffunction-sections -fPIC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53708
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-06-18
12:42:12 UTC ---
A clean bootstrap of revision 188725 with the patch in comment #2 just finished
without any problem. In addition the patch fixed the following failures
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53698
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Thu Apr 26 13:37:13
EDT 2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
rpm -qa glibc* | grep -e 'glibc-[0-9]' | sort -u
glibc-2.12-1.47.el6_2.12.i686
glibc-2.12-1.47.el6_2.12.x86_64
g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/app2/gcc/4.8.0-20120618-svn188723/i686
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53688
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18
13:50:28 UTC ---
NEW_PAGE seems to be miscompiled - we fail to output JOB_ID_RECORD%VERSION
('SPEC CPU'), the comparison difference is lots of
@@ -146,7 +146,7 @@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53693
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18
14:05:33 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jun 18 14:05:27 2012
New Revision: 188733
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188733
Log:
2012-06-18 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52989
--- Comment #3 from Emmanuel Blot eblot.ml at gmail dot com 2012-06-18
14:06:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
I don't think we support --with-multilib-list yet for arm -
If not, what is the proper way to specify the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53693
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53673
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18
14:22:05 UTC ---
Please don't just use this PR for me too comments about interoperability
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53715
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=53703
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mario-baumann at web
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52908
--- Comment #9 from vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18 15:10:51 UTC ---
Author: vekumar
Date: Mon Jun 18 15:10:45 2012
New Revision: 188736
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188736
Log:
Back port Fix PR 52908 - xop-mul-1:f9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53716
Bug #: 53716
Summary: Intentional or bug? Inconsistencies in error
diagnostics in function redeclaration involving
stdcall attribute
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52887
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18
15:26:03 UTC ---
We know the instantiations that are needed, but I don't want to define them for
all platforms if they're not needed elsewhere. I also have no way of testing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52989
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18
15:47:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
I don't think we support --with-multilib-list yet for arm -
If not, what is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53303
Aurelien Buhrig aurelien.buhrig.gcc at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Reload/RA issue on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52887
--- Comment #12 from Daniel Richard G. skunk at iskunk dot org 2012-06-18
16:56:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
We know the instantiations that are needed, but I don't want to define them
for
all platforms if they're not needed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53675
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-unknown-netbsd5.1|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53712
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53712
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-06-18 17:42:36
UTC ---
BTW: I am testing attached patch with following lex.c patch:
--cut here--
Index: libcpp/lex.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53718
Bug #: 53718
Summary: gfortran generates asm label twice in the same output
file
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53526
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18
18:14:11 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Jun 18 18:14:06 2012
New Revision: 188747
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188747
Log:
2012-06-18 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53526
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18
18:15:56 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Jun 18 18:15:51 2012
New Revision: 188748
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188748
Log:
2012-06-18 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53526
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53692
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18
18:32:05 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Jun 18 18:31:54 2012
New Revision: 188749
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188749
Log:
2012-06-18 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53700
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18
18:34:12 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Mon Jun 18 18:34:01 2012
New Revision: 188750
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188750
Log:
2012-06-18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53692
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53712
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18 18:41:31 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Jun 18 18:41:25 2012
New Revision: 188753
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188753
Log:
PR target/53712
* config/i386/sse.md
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53718
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53718
--- Comment #2 from Adrian Prantl adrian at llnl dot gov 2012-06-18 18:55:11
UTC ---
just as a side note: most of my bugreports come from compiling babel's
regression test suite. Babel is a language interoperability tool that (also)
generates
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53719
Bug #: 53719
Summary: can't display x87 stack information
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8743
Christian Häggström gcc at kalvdans dot no-ip.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53719
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18
19:56:13 UTC ---
I think you might need a newer version of gdb to work correctly with GCC 4.5.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53718
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18 20:04:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
just as a side note: most of my bugreports come from compiling babel's
regression test suite. Babel is a language interoperability tool that (also)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53708
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18 20:11:01
UTC ---
Thanks,
works for me, i686-darwin9 all langs bootstrap check, fixes the ObjC fails.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53675
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=53718
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-06-18
20:35:51 UTC ---
Revision 181425 (2011-11-16) is OK,
revision 181881 (2011-12-01) is not.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53718
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-06-18
20:45:18 UTC ---
Could it be revision 181505?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53678
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.8.0
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53678
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-18
21:44:08 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Jun 18 21:43:58 2012
New Revision: 188755
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188755
Log:
2012-06-18 Jörg
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo
