http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46723
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
--- Comment #8 from Ir
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46757
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46685
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-02
08:40:08 UTC ---
I'd actually prefer to go with the sparc.c change (probably including
flag_reorder_blocks_and_partition), then hppa could just write its own
function_section hook as a wrapper around
> Yeh, precisely. The ironly file is a placeholder into which we put the
> symbols found in the lto symtab so that they can take part in the link and
> their resolutions be determined. We have no way of conveying any symbol type
The error comes out after the lto1 invocation, so why the ironly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-02 08:47:28
UTC ---
> Yeh, precisely. The ironly file is a placeholder into which we put the
> symbols found in the lto symtab so that they can take part in the link and
> their resolutions be determine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #14 from Dave Korn 2010-12-02 08:52:20
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> > Yeh, precisely. The ironly file is a placeholder into which we put the
> > symbols found in the lto symtab so that they can take part in the link and
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46749
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de
2010-12-02 08:52:14 UTC ---
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46749
>
> --- Comment #18 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-01
> 22:06:23 UTC -
Hi,
at one point I tried profiledbootstrap and problem is that we can not merge
multiple LTO files
that has been profiled different amount of times. This happens during our
build because lto1
and cc1 share libbackend. We probably need to add code rescaling corresponding
events...
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46760
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-02 09:00:51 UTC
---
Hi,
at one point I tried profiledbootstrap and problem is that we can not merge
multiple LTO files
that has been profiled different amount of times. This happens during our
build becaus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46723
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de
2010-12-02 09:03:35 UTC ---
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, irar at il dot ibm.com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46723
>
> Ira Rosen changed:
>
>What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46679
Jay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.5.1 |4.6.0
--- Comment #1 from Jay 2010-12-02 09:08:49
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46760
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||42690
AssignedTo|davek at gcc dot gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46749
--- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-02 09:09:49
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > yeah - it's on my TODO (pr43751).
> > FWIW, some time ago, I did enquire about the difficulty of add
Hi,
you can still test bootstrap with simply commenting out that sorry. It should
give, sort-of, sane results.
I will implement counter rescaling once I get some time for it - it is not too
hard.
Also not too many setups actually train library built into multiple binaries,
so it is not that cri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46760
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-02 09:22:38 UTC
---
Hi,
you can still test bootstrap with simply commenting out that sorry. It should
give, sort-of, sane results.
I will implement counter rescaling once I get some time for it - it is not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46762
Summary: gcc crosscompiled for arm optimises away volatile
struct member access when -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther 2010-12-02
09:41:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> I am just trying to get Mozilla building with GNU ld instead of gold. First
> problem is that Mozilla links some of libraries as:
>
> /abuild/jh/trunk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35258
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46758
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46752
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46749
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de
2010-12-02 09:50:48 UTC ---
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46749
>
> --- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-02
> 09:09:49 UTC -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46724
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel 2010-12-02
09:51:17 UTC ---
Marked as 4.6 regression. The behavior of 4.5.2 isn't helpful either but it
doesn't return a wrong value as with 4.6.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46763
Summary: gcc 4.5: missed optimization: copy global to local,
prefetch
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46749
--- Comment #22 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-02 10:10:06
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46749
> >
> > --- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe 2010-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46749
--- Comment #23 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-02 10:14:22
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> At install-time dsymutil is run and the relevant xxx.dSYM is installed along
> with the objects, where required.
s/objects/exes/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46753
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46720
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Ko
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46720
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Sever
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46763
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46685
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou 2010-12-02
11:30:54 UTC ---
> Alternatively, we could do something like:
> --- gcc/config/sparc/sparc.c.jj2010-11-26 18:39:04.0 +0100
> +++ gcc/config/sparc/sparc.c2010-11-29 15:35:00.727219374 +
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46663
--- Comment #1 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02 11:47:15 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Thu Dec 2 11:47:12 2010
New Revision: 167366
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167366
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46663
* tree-v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43751
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe 2010-12-02 11:49:41
UTC ---
proposed work-around for 4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg00145.html
Note the following web-page describes the intended usage/behavior of dsymutil
http://wiki.dwarfst
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46724
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44871
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther 2010-12-02
12:24:50 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Dec 2 12:24:46 2010
New Revision: 167367
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167367
Log:
2010-12-02 Richard Guenther
PR lto/44
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44871
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46678
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus 2010-12-02
12:44:57 UTC ---
I think we can close this PR - can't we?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46268
Laurynas Biveinis changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|SUSPENDED
--- Comment #2 from Lauryna
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46764
Summary: std=c++0x causes compilation failure on SFINAE test
for methods
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43738
--- Comment #15 from Kai Tietz 2010-12-02 13:15:18
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Thu Dec 2 13:15:10 2010
New Revision: 167369
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167369
Log:
2010-12-02 Kai Tietz
PR libstdc++/43738
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43738
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46763
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46678
--- Comment #13 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com 2010-12-02 13:33:38 UTC ---
Semms to me that Jerry should do the honours :-)
Paul
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:45 PM, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46765
Summary: Superfluous 'const' declaration does not generate
error or warning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46765
--- Comment #1 from Fredrik Hederstierna
2010-12-02 13:34:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 22602
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22602
example file for const.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46764
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-12-02
13:43:27 UTC ---
changing typeof to decltype or __typeof__ causes it to work
looks as though 'typeof' simply isn't recognised in C++0x mode
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46764
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46766
Summary: Type 'void' is treated differently if used as return
value or as parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46766
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45240
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-02
14:30:41 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 2 14:30:37 2010
New Revision: 167370
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167370
Log:
PR libgomp/45240
* parallel.c (GOMP_paralle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43706
--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-02
14:31:31 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 2 14:31:27 2010
New Revision: 167371
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167371
Log:
PR libgomp/43706
* env.c (initialize_env):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46753
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-02
14:37:25 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 2 14:37:20 2010
New Revision: 167372
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167372
Log:
PR fortran/46753
* trans-openmp.c (gfc_tran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46766
--- Comment #2 from Fredrik Hederstierna
2010-12-02 14:42:35 UTC ---
Ok, but also f1() declares that it does not return any parameters, still it can
return (void)0;
I'm not saying either is wrong, I just though it should be consistent.
If its o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46766
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-12-02
15:14:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
>
> void f1(void)
> {
> return (void)0; //OK
This is valid in C++ but allowing it in C is a GCC extension.
> void f2(void)
> {
> return f1(); //OK
T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46542
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22447|0 |1
is obsolete|
> It's valid I think and we try to work out fPIC ourselves in the funny
> LTO option handling code (but the options are not re-applied at ltrans
> stage I think, so it doesn't work at all with WHOPR).
Hmm, the link command above is LTO, not WHOPR. I wonder why we don't work out
-fPIC
ourselves t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-02 15:34:48
UTC ---
> It's valid I think and we try to work out fPIC ourselves in the funny
> LTO option handling code (but the options are not re-applied at ltrans
> stage I think, so it doesn't work at a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46766
--- Comment #4 from Fredrik Hederstierna
2010-12-02 15:55:05 UTC ---
Yes, I agree its EURGH.
I guess its not preferred to make C++ template-alike code in C.
I think its worth avoid stuff like:
#ifdef BLAH_BLAH_BLAH
#define RETURN_TYPE_C_TEMPLA
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46760
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-02
15:57:00 UTC ---
Created attachment 22604
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22604
Patch I am testing to allow profile merging
This patch should allow merging of LTO units with differen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46723
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2010-12-02
16:23:26 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Dec 2 16:23:20 2010
New Revision: 167377
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167377
Log:
2010-12-02 Richard Guenther
PR tree-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46723
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43814
--- Comment #7 from Maxim Kuvyrkov 2010-12-02
16:42:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
...
< , as an example look at the types the C frontend
> generates for struct X __attribute__((packed)) { int x; };
> void foo (struct X *p, int *q) { memcpy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45199
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Pop 2010-12-02 16:53:21
UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Thu Dec 2 16:53:16 2010
New Revision: 167380
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167380
Log:
Fix PR45199: do not aggregate memory accesses to the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45199
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46765
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43651
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fredrik.hederstie...@securi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43814
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de
2010-12-02 17:01:08 UTC ---
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43814
>
> --- Comment #7 from Maxim Kuvyrkov 2010-12-02
> 16:42:40
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46766
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab 2010-12-02 17:10:15
UTC ---
If you want the standard to be changed then this is the wrong place.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42690
--- Comment #32 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-02 17:15:52
UTC ---
Another testcase:
[...@gnu-6 pr12245-6]$ cat y.c
#include
#include
#include
int
main (int argc, char **argv)
{
int d = atoi (argv[1]);
printf ("%f\n", sin (d));
return 0;
}
[...@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46752
--- Comment #3 from Bill Long 2010-12-02 17:22:48 UTC
---
Conflicting commentary from the OpenMP testers and James Beyer of the OpenMP
committee:
This test case is derived from OpenMP test omp3f/F03_2_9_3_4_5c.f90 .
The case involves an allocata
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46767
Summary: r167374 introduce gcc.target/i386 regressions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46667
--- Comment #7 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2010-12-02
17:52:38 UTC ---
Here's the backtrace I see for arm-eabi.
#0 error (gmsgid=0xf323c8 "%+D causes a section type conflict") at
../../combined/gcc/diagnostic.c:747
#1 0x00affd0d in get_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46667
--- Comment #8 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2010-12-02
17:54:22 UTC ---
Created attachment 22605
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22605
Testcase for ARM
Backtrace shown in previous comment from the following debugging arguments.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46752
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2010-12-02
17:55:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> This usage is not specifically prohibited in the API.
Sound like a paraphrase for "implementation defined"/"processor dependent" to
me.
> James Beyer says
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45062
--- Comment #7 from Nathan Froyd 2010-12-02
18:00:26 UTC ---
Author: froydnj
Date: Thu Dec 2 18:00:21 2010
New Revision: 167381
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167381
Log:
PR c/45062
* c-decl.c (grokparms): Set arg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45062
Nathan Froyd changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46768
Summary: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr37434-[24].c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45948
--- Comment #4 from Sebastian Pop 2010-12-02 18:39:23
UTC ---
For this case, we end up generating two memset (0) for the first loop,
and we completely remove that loop:
void
foo (int i, int n)
{
int a[30];
int b[30];
for (; i < n; i++)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46752
--- Comment #5 from Bill Long 2010-12-02 18:42:53 UTC
---
Reply from James:
Version 3.1 of the OpenMP specification removes the offending bullet: " A
variable that appears in a firstprivate clause must be definable." When the
new spec is releas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46645
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46769
Summary: LTO failed to build gold
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46768
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-02 19:11:26
UTC ---
On Intel64, I got
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr34256.c scan-assembler-times mov 2
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr37434-2.c scan-assembler pinsrw
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr37434-2.c scan-assembler pinsrw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45948
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Pop 2010-12-02 19:19:46
UTC ---
First patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg00216.html
However, I am not fully happy with this fix that tweaks scev const prop to work
around this bug...
The other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
Summary: Replace .ctors/.dtors with .init_array/.fini_array on
targets supporting them
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #1 from Mike Hommey 2010-12-02
19:24:44 UTC ---
Using .init_array/.fini_array instead of .ctors/.dtors removes the need for the
associated (relative) relocations, and avoids the backwards disk seeks on
startup (since while .ctors are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46752
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46759
--- Comment #3 from rwgk at yahoo dot com 2010-12-02 19:47:29 UTC ---
Created attachment 22606
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22606
reproducer with additional tests
I changed the original reproducer to return 0 through 4 inste
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45297
--- Comment #13 from Sebastian Pop 2010-12-02
20:13:16 UTC ---
Author: spop
Date: Thu Dec 2 20:13:11 2010
New Revision: 167390
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167390
Log:
Fix PR45297: handle ADDR_EXPR in interpret_rhs_expr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45297
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46771
Summary: [4.6 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure (length) with
-O -ftree-vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46772
Summary: libquadmath: Build failure - strtod: static
declaration of 'strtod' follows non-static
declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka 2010-12-02
22:22:17 UTC ---
Hmm, is it possible to do the change without breaking ABI (i.e. preserving the
proper relative order for binary built with init_arra/fini_array linked with
ctors/dtors library and vice v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43751
m...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46685
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou 2010-12-02
22:33:24 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Dec 2 22:33:16 2010
New Revision: 167395
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167395
Log:
PR target/46685
* config/sparc/sparc.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46768
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-02
22:50:49 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Dec 2 22:50:44 2010
New Revision: 167398
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167398
Log:
Turn on X86_TUNE_INTER_UNIT_MOVES for Core 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46768
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46767
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46771
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2010-12-02 23:01:14
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Hmm, is it possible to do the change without breaking ABI (i.e. preserving the
> proper relative order for binary built with init_arra/fini_array linked with
> cto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45888
--- Comment #19 from Cesar Strauss 2010-12-02
23:38:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> (In reply to comment #17)
> > * anhvofrcaus at gmail dot com wrote on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 01:25:49AM CET:
> > > It is interesting that this fix worked for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46749
m...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #24
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo