On 11/05/2012 05:55 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Mischa Baars mjbaars1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/04/2012 02:45 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
There is no original. The 32-bit and 64-bit ABIs are different.
The 64-bit ABI has always passed arguments in registers.
On 05/11/2012 11:33, Mischa Baars wrote:
On 11/05/2012 05:55 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Mischa Baars mjbaars1...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 11/04/2012 02:45 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
There is no original. The 32-bit and 64-bit ABIs are different.
The 64-bit ABI
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 18:56 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Status
==
I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
on Monday, November 5th. If you have still patches for new features you'd
like to see in GCC 4.8, please post them for review soon. Patches
posted before the
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 06:41:47AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 18:56 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
on Monday, November 5th. If you have still patches for new features you'd
like to see in GCC 4.8, please post
I sent this to the wrong list originally, apologies to those who get it
twice.
There is a request to be able to turn off interpretation of several
suffixes for gcc extension numeric literals to make way for C++-1Y or
various std libraries to claim several suffixes currently used for gnu
I think this thread belongs on the gcc-help list, not here.
On 11/05/2012 02:09 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
I sent this to the wrong list originally, apologies to those who get
it twice.
Actually, you originally sent it to the *right* list.
Paolo.
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 09:32:48PM -0800, Handong Ye wrote:
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz wrote:
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:01:53AM +, Yangyueming wrote:
Hi, all
...
But when I do the test for a case with a little change, it is failed to
On 11/04/2012 11:54 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Richard Sandiford
rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck zad...@naturalbridge.com writes:
I would like you to respond to at least point 1 of this email. In it
there is code from the rtl level that was
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 13:53 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 06:41:47AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
I'd like to post later today (hopefully this morning) a very minimal
configure patch that adds the -mcpu=power8 and -mtune=power8 compiler
options to gcc. Currently,
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 08:40:00AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
Well we also patch config.in and configure.ac/configure. If those are
acceptable to be patched later too, then great. If not, the patch
That is the same thing as config.gcc bits.
isn't really very large. We did do this for
Hello,
I am experience a problem in GCC4.7 scheduler whereby the scheduler is issuing
two instructions that write with a cond_exec to the same register. It ends up
looking like this:
Cond_exec p1 != 0 : r2 - r2 and 0xf8
Cond_exec p0 != 0: r2 - 0x10
This cannot happen, but I am unsure about
Quoting Paulo Matos pma...@broadcom.com:
Hello,
I am experience a problem in GCC4.7 scheduler whereby the scheduler
is issuing two instructions that write with a cond_exec to the same
register. It ends up looking like this:
Cond_exec p1 != 0 : r2 - r2 and 0xf8
Cond_exec p0 != 0: r2 -
On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 11:13 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
Status
==
I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
on Monday, November 5th. If you have still patches for new features you'd
like to
On 11/05/2012 03:51 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
Hello,
I am experience a problem in GCC4.7 scheduler whereby the scheduler is
issuing two instructions that write with a cond_exec to the same register. It
ends up looking like this:
Cond_exec p1 != 0 : r2 - r2 and 0xf8
Cond_exec p0 != 0: r2 -
Jakub and Richi,
At this point I have decided to that i am not going to get the rest of
the wide-int patches into a stable enough form for this round. The
combination of still living without power at my house and some issues
that i hit with the front ends has made it impossible to get this
-Original Message-
From: Joern Rennecke [mailto:joern.renne...@embecosm.com]
Sent: 05 November 2012 16:32
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint
This cannot happen, but I am unsure about which hook can be used to
tell the
-Original Message-
From: Bernd Schmidt [mailto:ber...@codesourcery.com]
Sent: 05 November 2012 16:52
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint
Depends on why it schedules them in the same cycle. Either there's an
output dependency,
On 11/05/2012 06:11 PM, Paulo Matos wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Bernd Schmidt [mailto:ber...@codesourcery.com]
Sent: 05 November 2012 16:52
To: Paulo Matos
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint
Depends on why it schedules them in the same
I am getting a bunch of failed GCC tests with precompiled headers and was
wondering if anyone can help me figure out where to look for the problem.
If I run a test by hand by creating common-1.h.gch from common-1.h, then
remove common-1.h and compile common-1.c (which includes common-1.h), it
i have been trying to change the representation of INT_CSTs so that they
do not carry around the limitation that they can only represent numbers
as large as 2 host_wide_ints (HWI). I have chosen a variable length
implementation that uses an array of HWIs that is just large enough to
hold the
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Kenneth Zadeck
zad...@naturalbridge.com wrote:
The question is why is having a case label of 256 on a unsigned char switch
legal?
Are you asking why it is valid in the C language? Or are you asking
why it is valid in GIMPLE? I guess the first question is
On 11/05/2012 01:08 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Kenneth Zadeck
zad...@naturalbridge.com wrote:
The question is why is having a case label of 256 on a unsigned char switch
legal?
Are you asking why it is valid in the C language? Or are you asking
why it is
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 09:32:48PM -0800, Handong Ye wrote:
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz wrote:
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:01:53AM +, Yangyueming wrote:
Hi, all
...
But
On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
This switch to doing math within the precision causes many test cases to
behave differently. However, I want to know if differently means
incorrectly or I have fixed problems that we have just decided to live
with.
As far as I know, the
On 11/05/2012 03:37 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
This switch to doing math within the precision causes many test cases to
behave differently. However, I want to know if differently means
incorrectly or I have fixed problems that we have just decided to
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 04:34:15 +, Dave Korn wrote:
Say, why don't we reserve GCC 5.0 for the first version that gets rid of
reload? Then let's see if we can get there while the X in 4.X is still in
single digits!
(see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-03/msg01103.html)
I suppose
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 04:34:15 +, Dave Korn wrote:
Say, why don't we reserve GCC 5.0 for the first version that gets rid of
reload? Then let's see if we can get there while the X in 4.X is still in
single
On 2012-11-05 16:17 , Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 04:34:15 +, Dave Korn wrote:
Say, why don't we reserve GCC 5.0 for the first version that gets rid of
reload? Then let's see if we can get
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
Also the fact that GCC is now written in C++ seems to me to be
deserving of a bump to 5.0.
I see no reason why an internal design change that has no user visible
effects should have any impact on the version number.
Typically a major version bump is
I'd like to get a small patch to tree reassociation (
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01761.html ) in.
Thanks,
Easwaran
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
Status
==
I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
on Monday,
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 15:47 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 08:40:00AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
Well we also patch config.in and configure.ac/configure. If those are
acceptable to be patched later too, then great. If not, the patch
That is the same thing as
On 11/05/2012 07:43 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
Also the fact that GCC is now written in C++ seems to me to be
deserving of a bump to 5.0.
I see no reason why an internal design change that has no user visible
effects should have any impact on the version
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
--- Comment #14 from Vincent Lefèvre vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net 2012-11-05
08:12:08 UTC ---
Otherwise, how about taking code from the glibc implementation of
strtof/strtod/strtold? Code in strtod was recently fixed. I don't know about
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55211
Bug #: 55211
Summary: [4.8 regression] sparc64-linux bootstrap fails with
SIGILL while compiling __mulvti3
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
Bug #: 55212
Summary: [SH] Switch from IRA to LRA
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52466
--- Comment #4 from Jon Beniston jon at beniston dot com 2012-11-05 08:53:50
UTC ---
I always used to configure with --enable-sjlj-exceptions.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54986
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05 09:07:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Therefore it has the same testsuite failures as the patch in
comment 1 (possibly more?).
Indeed it has a few more ...
FAIL:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41993
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05
09:13:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
In -O0 case, we broke discovery loop too early, so we can't find all return
regs. I would argue, that we should ignore
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41993
--- Comment #6 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-11-05 09:16:52
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
In -O0 case, we broke discovery loop too early, so we can't find all return
regs. I would argue, that we should ignore
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55204
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-11-05 09:21:57
UTC ---
Does the patch at [1] fix also this failure?
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg00353.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05 09:37:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Most of them seem to be scan-tree-dump failures, except for:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/storage_size_3.f08 -O0 execution test
which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41993
--- Comment #7 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05
10:19:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Will you submit the patch to gcc-patches, please?
OK, I'll send it to the list when the tests on i686-linux and sh
are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55188
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55211
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davem at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51128
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05 10:59:55 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Nov 5 10:59:49 2012
New Revision: 193156
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193156
Log:
PR testsuite/51128
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55194
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05
11:11:32 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 5 11:11:28 2012
New Revision: 193158
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193158
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55194
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54747
Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55175
--- Comment #9 from Ralf Corsepius corsepiu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05
11:44:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
H have backported similar change to 4.7 branch.
Thanks for the backport.
Please reopen the PR if there are still
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55213
Bug #: 55213
Summary: vectorizer ignores __restrict__
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55213
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55175
--- Comment #10 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-11-05 12:11:53
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
H have backported similar change to 4.7 branch.
Thanks for the backport.
Please reopen the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55175
--- Comment #11 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-11-05 12:28:53
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
H have backported similar change to 4.7 branch.
Thanks for the backport.
Please reopen the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55175
--- Comment #12 from Ralf Corsepius corsepiu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05
12:41:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
You should use t-softfp instead of 386/t-softfp for i[34567]86-*-rtems* in
libgcc/config.host.
In fact, there
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55211
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-11-05
13:14:22 UTC ---
I'm now trying a bootstrap with r192871, r192824, and r192757 reverted, as
those were the only recent SPARC-specific changes I could find.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55213
--- Comment #2 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-11-05 13:28:51 UTC ---
reading PR49279 it seems to me that gcc should NOT emit runtime alias checks,
Instead I see
15: create runtime check for data references
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55214
Bug #: 55214
Summary: Program fail to evaluate where clause
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55214
--- Comment #1 from pmarguinaud at hotmail dot com 2012-11-05 14:03:32 UTC ---
$ gfortran -g -O0 -ffpe-trap=invalid -static where.F90
$ ./a.out
Program received signal SIGFPE: Floating-point exception - erroneous arithmetic
operation.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55211
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-11-05
14:12:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
= 0x00575f94 _ZL27emit_note_insn_var_locationPPvS_+1604: ldd [ %i0 +
%g1 ], %o1
The destination register field is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55175
--- Comment #13 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-11-05 14:15:16
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
You should use t-softfp instead of 386/t-softfp for i[34567]86-*-rtems* in
libgcc/config.host.
In fact, there
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55175
--- Comment #14 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-11-05 14:24:43
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Then the problem is either in newlib or generic libgcc configury.
Please note that t-fdpbit is not enabled by default for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54776
Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #10 from Adi adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-05 14:34:25 UTC
---
I found the real problem !
Now it can be reproducible even with a small test case.
I can summarize it like this: If you have a global object/function
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54970
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05
14:36:52 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 5 14:36:47 2012
New Revision: 193162
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193162
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54971
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05
14:36:52 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 5 14:36:47 2012
New Revision: 193162
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193162
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55175
--- Comment #15 from Ralf Corsepius corsepiu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05
14:38:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
(In reply to comment #13)
Then the problem is either in newlib or generic libgcc configury.
I meanwhile came to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52466
--- Comment #5 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05 14:44:34
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I always used to configure with --enable-sjlj-exceptions.
Thanks for the pointer.
I see in gcc/configure.ac, the command
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52466
--- Comment #6 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05 14:47:31
UTC ---
Created attachment 28618
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28618
For sjlj exceptions on for lm32*-*-*
Is this the correct way to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55214
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54877
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05
15:05:48 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 5 15:05:42 2012
New Revision: 193164
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193164
Log:
Backported
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54988
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05
15:07:22 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 5 15:07:14 2012
New Revision: 193165
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193165
Log:
Backported
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54828
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05
15:09:34 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 5 15:09:28 2012
New Revision: 193166
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193166
Log:
Backported
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52466
--- Comment #7 from Ralf Corsepius corsepiu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05
15:17:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Created attachment 28618 [details]
For sjlj exceptions on for lm32*-*-*
Is this the correct way to force it on?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52466
--- Comment #8 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05 15:30:46
UTC ---
I was careful to say this issue :) \
That is the next issue to face on the lm32 and was reported before this cropped
up.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55210
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55215
Bug #: 55215
Summary: Constructor seeding is broken for Mersenne twister
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55215
--- Comment #1 from wgh at beyondunreal dot com 2012-11-05 16:15:06 UTC ---
Created attachment 28619
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28619
reproduction
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55195
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54776
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05
16:24:07 UTC ---
Yeah + there is quite nice code size savings. I must say it took quite a while
to chase out all bugs that was affecting tramp3d's performance.
One
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55187
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55211
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55201
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55188
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55151
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05
16:38:34 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Mon Nov 5 16:38:27 2012
New Revision: 193170
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193170
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55215
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05 17:45:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 28620
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28620
patch
Here is an extended patch, based on comment 3, which fixes the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53264
rbmj at verizon dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55211
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24025
Jonathan Larmour jifl-bugzilla at jifvik dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55211
--- Comment #5 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05 18:22:17 UTC ---
I'm really surprised to see the integer ldd/std patterns matching in a 64-bit
build.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55211
--- Comment #6 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05 18:24:11 UTC ---
Oh I see, you're forcing v8 in the configure line.
It's so much easier to sparc32 bash before running configure so that the
build/host/target ends up being correct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55216
Bug #: 55216
Summary: Infinite loop generated on non-infinite code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55204
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-05 18:51:40 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Mon Nov 5 18:51:33 2012
New Revision: 193178
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193178
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #11 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-05
18:54:47 UTC ---
I believe that the G++ front end tries to create a unique name from the first
symbol it sees. I do not now if this is related to the constructor name
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55204
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-05 18:55:38 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Mon Nov 5 18:55:35 2012
New Revision: 193179
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193179
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55216
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55204
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
1 - 100 of 278 matches
Mail list logo
