http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46516
--- Comment #4 from Francois-Xavier Coudert
2010-11-17 07:44:00 UTC ---
I suppose it's the --disable-multilib, but I don't know why.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46488
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou 2010-11-17
07:41:44 UTC ---
> And got the same exact results as before with regard to both -O and -O3 in
> combination with -fno-delayed-branch
Sorry for being unclear: starting with the 4.5.2 snapshot, issues r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46455
--- Comment #29 from Zouzou 2010-11-17 07:38:39
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> Created attachment 22427 [details]
> add destructors in
> almost the same as the last patch but the destructor calls:
> _S_destroy<__gthread_recursive_mutex_t>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46516
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2010-11-17
07:25:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Can you do some debugging? The file is searched for in passed "-L" via
> gcc/fortran/gfortranspec.c's find_spec_file which is called by
> lang_specific_drive
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46516
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46516
--- Comment #1 from Joost VandeVondele
2010-11-17 07:03:53 UTC ---
just for reference, this is the configure line
/data/vondele/gcc_bench/gcc_trunk/gcc/configure
--prefix=/data/vondele/gcc_bench/gcc_trunk/build
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46516
Summary: gfortran-trunk: error: libgfortran.spec: No such file
or directory
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46099
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva 2010-11-17
06:43:31 UTC ---
*** Bug 46118 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46118
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46488
--- Comment #7 from Lance Kinley 2010-11-17 06:15:36
UTC ---
I compiled and used the latest SVN snapshot:
gcc (GCC) 4.6.0 20101116 (experimental) [trunk revision 166840]
And got the same exact results as before with regard to both -O and -O3 in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45807
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra 2010-11-17 06:09:58
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Wed Nov 17 06:09:53 2010
New Revision: 166857
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166857
Log:
PR target/45807
Backport r164685,r164825,r165
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44266
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra 2010-11-17 06:01:08
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Wed Nov 17 06:01:03 2010
New Revision: 166856
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166856
Log:
PR target/44266
Backport r159963
* config
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45870
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45939
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46513
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-11-17
03:49:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > The maintainers of GNU libc, the C and C++ committees and the POSIX working
> > group have not seen fit to in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46512
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46513
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-11-17
02:04:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> The maintainers of GNU libc, the C and C++ committees and the POSIX working
> group have not seen fit to include those functions, and they're not available
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46497
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2010-11-17
02:02:25 UTC ---
Jason, I'm sorry, I don't understand what's going on here: apparently nothing
changed for my original testcase: the assert still triggers, and it doesn't for
the non-defaulted variant?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46515
Summary: [4.6 Regression] Many libjava failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46497
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2010-11-17
01:43:13 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Nov 17 01:43:10 2010
New Revision: 166851
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166851
Log:
PR c++/46497
* call.c (build_over_call): Ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46512
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Froyd 2010-11-17
01:41:16 UTC ---
Author: froydnj
Date: Wed Nov 17 01:41:13 2010
New Revision: 166849
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166849
Log:
PR target/46512
* config/pa/pa.c (pa_funct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46514
Summary: 128-bit shifts on x86_64 generate silly code unless
the shift amount is constant
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46512
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-17 01:25:27
UTC ---
ix86_function_arg_boundary has
static unsigned int
ix86_function_arg_boundary (enum machine_mode mode, const_tree type)
{
unsigned int align;
if (type)
{
/* Since the main va
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46513
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey Walton 2010-11-17
01:08:22 UTC ---
Hi Jonathan,
(In reply to comment #1)
> The maintainers of GNU libc, the C and C++ committees and the POSIX working
> group have not seen fit to include those functions, and they're
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46513
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-11-17
00:53:47 UTC ---
The maintainers of GNU libc, the C and C++ committees and the POSIX working
group have not seen fit to include those functions, and they're not available
on my GNU/Linux box.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46513
Summary: Request: Warning for use of unsafe string handling
functions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
missing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition
-version -finhibit-size-directive -fno-inline -fno-exceptions
-fno-zero-initialized-in-bss -fno-toplevel-reorder -fno-tree-vectorize
-fno-stack-protector -o xxx.s
GNU C (GCC) version 4.6.0 20101116 (experimental) [trunk revision 166834]
(hppa-linux)
com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46488
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou 2010-11-17
00:09:42 UTC ---
> I compiled the latest snapshot:
> gcc (GCC) 4.5.2 2010 (prerelease)
>
> and tried -O3 -fno-delayed-branch again on server/core_filters.c and that
> still
> doesn't work.
>
> I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46488
--- Comment #5 from Lance Kinley 2010-11-16 23:52:24
UTC ---
I compiled the latest snapshot:
gcc (GCC) 4.5.2 2010 (prerelease)
and tried -O3 -fno-delayed-branch again on server/core_filters.c and that still
doesn't work.
I retried -O -fno-d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46510
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2010-11-16
23:42:24 UTC ---
A backtrace can be found in pr46511.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46510
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46511
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46455
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22424|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46511
Summary: [4.6 Regression] Bootstrap failure: ICE in
decide_is_variable_needed, at varpool.c:338
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46455
--- Comment #27 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-11-16
23:22:24 UTC ---
I don't think that's right either ... I need to find a better way to test
this
ude -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.
-I../../../gcc-4.6-20101116/libgomp
-I../../../gcc-4.6-20101116/libgomp/config/bsd
-I../../../gcc-4.6-20101116/libgomp/config/posix
-I../../../gcc-4.6-20101116/libgomp -Wall -pthread -Werror -g -O2 -MT
barrier.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/barrier.Tpo -c
../../../gcc-4.6-20101116/libg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46490
--- Comment #12 from John Marino 2010-11-16 23:07:46
UTC ---
That's great news, Eric!
Many thanks, both for spending some long hours resolving this the same day it
was reported, and for the tip on the raise_from_pure test. This results in two
G
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46510
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin10 |*-*-darwin*
Host|x86_64-app
/include -isystem
/sw/lib/gcc4.6/x86_64-apple-darwin10.5.0/sys-include -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.
-I../../../gcc-4.6-20101116/libgomp
-I../../../gcc-4.6-20101116/libgomp/config/bsd
-I../../../gcc-4.6-20101116/libgomp/config/posix
-I../../../gcc-4.6-20101116/libgomp -Wall -pthread -Werror -g -O2 -MT loop.lo
-MD
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46455
--- Comment #26 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-11-16
23:03:08 UTC ---
Oops, that patch was broken - could you change the recursive mutex destructor
so it calls _S_destroy(&_M_mutex, 0) instead of _S_destroy(&_M_mutex)
As I can only test on POSIX syst
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46422
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-16 22:53:49
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Fix is posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg01597.html
It has been approved:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg01610.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46455
--- Comment #25 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-11-16
22:36:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #24)
> apparently the 1st overload doesn't match so it falls back to the 3rd one.
bah! ok, thanks, back to the drawing board...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46470
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46490
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
URL|http://www.dr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46490
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou 2010-11-16
22:30:25 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Nov 16 22:30:19 2010
New Revision: 166830
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166830
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/46490
* combine.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46455
--- Comment #24 from Zouzou 2010-11-16 22:29:35
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> Created attachment 22424 [details]
> add destructors in
> here's another patch, this one uses SFINAE to select an appropriate overload
> based on the type of __g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46470
--- Comment #2 from Richard Henderson 2010-11-16
22:22:19 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Tue Nov 16 22:22:13 2010
New Revision: 166829
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166829
Log:
PR target/46470
* recog.c (peep2_attempt)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46315
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46509
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2010-11-16
22:17:45 UTC ---
>A == 1 || A == 3 && "some reason this property should hold"
To the untrained eye this looks funny really. The parentheses makes the code
look cleaner and better understood as far as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46315
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou 2010-11-16
22:17:22 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Nov 16 22:17:17 2010
New Revision: 166828
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166828
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/46315
* rtl.h (rem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46509
Summary: -Wparentheses shouldn't warn about: A || Y && "foo"
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46315
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou 2010-11-16
22:13:56 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Nov 16 22:13:52 2010
New Revision: 166827
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166827
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/46315
* rtl.h (remo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46422
--- Comment #2 from Quentin Neill 2010-11-16
22:12:08 UTC ---
Fix is posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg01597.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41337
Dima changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmitrij.ledkov at ubuntu
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44762
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46386
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46386
--- Comment #2 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2010-11-16 21:46:37 UTC ---
Author: amylaar
Date: Tue Nov 16 21:46:28 2010
New Revision: 166826
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166826
Log:
2010-11-09 Joern Rennecke
And
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46455
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22413|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32049
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46401
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32049
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus 2010-11-16
21:23:28 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Nov 16 21:23:19 2010
New Revision: 166825
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166825
Log:
/
2010-11-13 Francois-Xavier Coudert
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42670
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46508
Summary: [4.6 regression] "Add ARM VFP ABI support to libffi"
broke build for armv5tel-linux-gnueabi with
binutils-2.20.1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46401
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-11-16
20:50:04 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Nov 16 20:49:57 2010
New Revision: 166823
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166823
Log:
PR c++/46401
* c-common.c (warning_candidat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46395
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46395
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab 2010-11-16
20:17:38 UTC ---
Author: schwab
Date: Tue Nov 16 20:17:31 2010
New Revision: 166820
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166820
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/46395
* gcc/postreload.c (rel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17349
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17349
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz 2010-11-16 19:50:22
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Tue Nov 16 19:50:17 2010
New Revision: 166817
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166817
Log:
2010-11-16 Kai Tietz
PR preprocessor/17349
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46507
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-11-16
19:27:48 UTC ---
Paolo, your example *does* show a significant difference: the missed
optimisation is in std::get() and not tuple itself, as shown by
#include
#include
struct A
{
virtual vo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46483
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46507
--- Comment #2 from miles at gnu dot org 2010-11-16 19:06:02 UTC ---
> Note that when I tried this same test yesterday, on a different machine (but
> the same compiler version), "extern_tuple_test" (but not "arg_tuple_test")
> _did_ result in a dir
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46507
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46366
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42670
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46507
Summary: std::tuple missed optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42670
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-16
17:56:56 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Nov 16 17:56:50 2010
New Revision: 166810
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166810
Log:
Properly demangle a global constructor symbo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11137
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-16
17:56:57 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Nov 16 17:56:50 2010
New Revision: 166810
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166810
Log:
Properly demangle a global constructor symbo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46501
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike 2010-11-16
17:48:32 UTC ---
Configure:
../../../build/gcc/src/configure \
--target=i686-w64-mingw32 \
\
--prefix=/buildbot/mingw-w64/linux-x86_64-x86/build/build/root \
--with-sysroot=/buildbot/min
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46506
Summary: LTO miscompiled 465.tonto in SPEC CPU 2006
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassig..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46505
Summary: LTO miscompiled 416.gamess in SPEC CPU 2006
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassig.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46504
Summary: LTO failed on 483.xalancbmk in SPEC CPU 2006
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46501
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #1 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46086
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou 2010-11-16
17:16:11 UTC ---
> configure:3658: checking for C compiler default output file name
> configure:3680: /usr/ports/lang/gcc45/work/build/./gcc/xgcc
> -B/usr/ports/lang/gcc45/work/build/./gcc
> / -B/usr/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46488
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46490
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|ada |rtl-optimization
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46470
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46488
--- Comment #3 from Lance Kinley 2010-11-16 16:48:11
UTC ---
My apologies, -O -fno-delayed-branch does fix it.
-O3 -fno-delayed-branch does not work, however.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46488
--- Comment #2 from Lance Kinley 2010-11-16 16:37:20
UTC ---
Adding -fno-delayed-branch does not resolve the issue.
I don't know which function is the culprit. I'll try to dig into it more.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46503
Summary: collect2's search for nm makes LTO support fragile
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46502
Summary: collect2 LTO marker detection is fragile wrt. to nm
output format
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42690
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46501
Summary: Relocatable toolchains still search --prefix
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
AssignedTo: un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44762
--- Comment #2 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2010-11-16 16:12:19 UTC ---
Author: amylaar
Date: Tue Nov 16 16:12:14 2010
New Revision: 166807
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166807
Log:
PR target/44762
* config/score/s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46500
Summary: target.h includes tm.h
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46499
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46498
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46499
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka 2010-11-16 15:45:09
UTC ---
Created attachment 22423
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22423
testcase causing RTL check ICE
While reducing the testcase, I got to this, which crashes with RTL che
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46499
Summary: gcc.c-torture/execute/20051021-1.c FAILs with
-fno-tree-dominator-opts -fno-tree-ccp
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46497
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46304
--- Comment #8 from Andras Pataki 2010-11-16
15:11:04 UTC ---
I can confirm that my test case now compiles and runs correctly with the
20101113 snapshot of the 4.6 compiler.
However, I've noticed another strangeness relating to complex numbers.
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
