http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46931
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46920
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Bonzini bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-12-14 08:21:33
UTC ---
To generate the proposed code, we should assign r12 to p63. IRA marks p63
conflicting with r12 because DF-infrastructure reports r12 having intersected
live
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45084
--- Comment #14 from norak.van at gmail dot com 2010-12-14 08:27:39 UTC ---
OK
Anyway, could you please help me with this installation problem?
I check that there isn´t these directories:
/cygwin/usr/local/powerpc-ibm-eabi/include or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45084
--- Comment #15 from norak.van at gmail dot com 2010-12-14 08:32:25 UTC ---
Created attachment 22750
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22750
building a GNU toolset
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46849
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14
08:36:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
@@ -2717,7 +2717,7 @@ gfc_get_sym_tree (const char *name, gfc_namespace
if (ns == NULL)
-ns = gfc_current_ns;
+ns =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-12-14 08:54:08 UTC ---
I have regstrapped the patch in comment #7 on top of revision 167770. The
failures corresponding to this PR are gone. However I see the following for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 09:09:07
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
I have regstrapped the patch in comment #7 on top of revision 167770. The
failures corresponding to this PR are gone. However I see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46693
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46934
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45701
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46693
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14
10:09:53 UTC ---
Also it is clear who starts the infinite recursion? I find it odd, that
disabling the function partitioning lead to need to explicitely declare
unlikely
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46820
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14
10:27:03 UTC ---
__asm__(.weak\tfoo\n\t.set\tfoo,bar);
sets FOO as equivalent of BAR. I guess this breaks when asm ends up in
different partition than BAR and also leads to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 10:39:10
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
Also it is clear who starts the infinite recursion? I find it odd, that
disabling the function partitioning lead to need to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46820
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14
10:46:48 UTC ---
... I meat weakref attribute.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46935
Summary: We should recognize expanded switch statement and
convert 2 way switch statements into shift mask test
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46935
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse
well the pre-existing implementation of :
static section *
darwin_text_section (int reloc, int weak)
{
if (reloc)
return (weak
? darwin_sections[text_unlikely_coal_section]
: unlikely_text_section ()); +
else
return (weak
?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-12-14 10:58:40
UTC ---
well the pre-existing implementation of :
static section *
darwin_text_section (int reloc, int weak)
{
if (reloc)
return (weak
?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46935
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46646
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com
2010-12-14 11:13:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 22751
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22751
testcase .ii
I will try to make a shorter one soon.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46902
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 11:55:39
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
(gdb) print plugindir_string
$1 = 0x Address 0x out of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46714
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45940
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46693
--- Comment #13 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-14 12:07:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Maybe dup of PR46909?
I can verify that the fix for PR46909 fixes the issue on trunk.
I'm looking into 4.5 branch right
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46693
--- Comment #14 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-14 12:13:00 UTC ---
It doesn't seem to fail for me with the RC for GCC 4.5.2
with -march=armv5te -mthumb
-march=armv5te
-march=armv7-a
-march=armv7-a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46849
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 12:13:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
@@ -2717,7 +2717,7 @@ gfc_get_sym_tree (const char *name, gfc_namespace
if (ns == NULL)
-ns = gfc_current_ns;
+ns =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #18 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 12:17:00
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
well the pre-existing implementation of :
static section *
darwin_text_section (int reloc, int weak)
{
if (reloc)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46875
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14
12:43:50 UTC ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Tue Dec 14 12:43:47 2010
New Revision: 167794
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167794
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46875
Alexander Monakov amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46936
Summary: turn __attribute__ ((nonnull (x))) into assert in
debug mode
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46874
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14
12:56:38 UTC ---
Patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg01081.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46902
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 12:58:20
UTC ---
the stage3 compiler is the same.
it appears that plugin.c thinks there are [5] more options than there are...
at the moment, dunno if this is a code-gen or a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46667
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14
13:07:08 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Dec 14 13:07:05 2010
New Revision: 167795
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167795
Log:
PR middle-end/46667
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46667
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46714
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #59 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2010-12-14
13:17:13 UTC ---
Sure, if you want to play with that I have no principled objections. I only add
here that we probably have another related PR filed by Ian (is already
Hi,
does the following patch fix the problem?
darwin_text_section no longer needs to care about hot/cold code since this is
already done in darwin_function_section.
In fact you might additionally consider putting
return (DECL_WEAK (decl)
? darwin_sections[text_coal_section]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-12-14 13:18:30
UTC ---
Hi,
does the following patch fix the problem?
darwin_text_section no longer needs to care about hot/cold code since this is
already done in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46937
Summary: [4.6 Regression] gfortran.dg/pointer_intent_1.f90
FAILs with -fno-inline
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #60 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-12-14 13:25:32
UTC ---
Sure, if you want to play with that I have no principled objections. I only
add
here that we probably have another related PR filed by Ian (is already in CC?)
=hppa64-hp-hpux11.11
--enable-threads=posix --disable-nls --with-gmp=/opt/gnu64/gcc/gcc-4.6.0
--with-libelf=/opt/gnu64 --enable-languages=c,c++,objc,obj-c++,fortran,lto
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20101214 (experimental) [trunk revision 167781] (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-B' '/test/gnu/gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46649
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14
13:28:06 UTC ---
Even though it is possible to unbreak
purge_empty_blocks/maybe_tidy_empty_bb/sel_merge_blocks for this case, I think
it's not worth it given that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #61 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2010-12-14
13:33:32 UTC ---
Agreed. If you can check that on GNU systems the trick actually works, I can
help with the boring autoconf bits (it would be easier if somebody could
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46902
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 13:41:02
UTC ---
OK, seems to be related to _Bool vs. unsigned char.
e.g.:
unsigned char x_exit_after_options;
#define exit_after_options global_options.x_exit_after_options
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45852
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46874
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14
13:56:35 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 14 13:56:25 2010
New Revision: 167798
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167798
Log:
PR fortran/46874
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46874
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14
13:59:25 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 14 13:59:20 2010
New Revision: 167799
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167799
Log:
PR fortran/46874
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #20 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-12-14 14:02:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
I think this is a different problem - those messages are characteristic of
dsymutil missing an input file. This might be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #21 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 14:04:58
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
Hi,
does the following patch fix the problem?
darwin_text_section no longer needs to care about hot/cold code since this is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46909
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14
14:10:09 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 14 14:09:59 2010
New Revision: 167800
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167800
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46885
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14
14:11:25 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 14 14:11:16 2010
New Revision: 167801
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167801
Log:
PR debug/46885
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46883
Chung-Lin Tang cltang at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cltang at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46935
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #22 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-12-14 14:17:53 UTC ---
I have found the reason of the unexpected pass when testing tree-prof.exp
alone: -g is not passed to the tests. If I force it I get
=== g++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46646
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #23 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 14:23:42
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
I have found the reason of the unexpected pass when testing tree-prof.exp
alone: -g is not passed to the tests. If I force it I get
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #24 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-14
14:30:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
(In reply to comment #22)
I have found the reason of the unexpected pass when testing tree-prof.exp
alone: -g is not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46939
Summary: http://blog.regehr.org/archives/320 example 6
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
URL: http://blog.regehr.org/archives/320
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46909
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46902
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 14:34:59
UTC ---
this is a fix (but, clearly, there's something fragile here).
#include dlfcn.h
includes stdbool.h
I'm not sure why that should cause a problem since the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46937
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #25 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-14
14:35:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
like this?
(fixes the specific problem - but not reg-tested):
This is in addition to the patch from Comment 7, right?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #26 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-14
14:37:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
(In reply to comment #21)
like this?
(fixes the specific problem - but not reg-tested):
This is in addition
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46649
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14
14:38:38 UTC ---
After a discussion with Andrey and refreshing my memory on that code I think
it's actually better to unbreak purge_empty_blocks in this case. It used
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46885
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45852
Alexander Monakov amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #62 from Mark Mitchell mark at codesourcery dot com 2010-12-14
15:17:25 UTC ---
Having everyone with knowledge of static construction alerted, can't we use
the
GNU constructor priorities to solve PR44952?
The two constraints are:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46923
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46940
Summary: asm aliases with linker plugin segfaults
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||46940
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941
Summary: [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe
Product: gcc
Version: trans-mem
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46920
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at redhat dot com 2010-12-14
16:02:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
To generate the proposed code, we should assign r12 to p63. IRA marks p63
conflicting with r12 because DF-infrastructure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46940
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44463
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45721
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #27 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 16:39:29
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
(In reply to comment #22)
Running /opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-prof/tree-prof.exp ...
FAIL:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #28 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 16:41:02
UTC ---
more of a problem is:
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/system-1.C -g assembly comparison
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/system-1.C -O2 -g assembly comparison
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/system-1.C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46654
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #29 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-12-14 16:44:09 UTC ---
Partial tests (x86_64-apple-darwin10.5.0) with the patch in comment #21 (with
the one in comment #7 reverted) show that the pr is fixed, but it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #30 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 16:46:19
UTC ---
PASS: g++.dg/pch/system-1.C -O2 -g -I. (test for excess errors)
line #35
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46920
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Bonzini bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-12-14 16:48:20
UTC ---
Yes, I agree that excessive peppering of the code with register asm causes
worse performance. The interpreter is only placing the very hot ip and sp
registers
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942
Summary: x86_64 parameter passing unnecessary sign/zero extends
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46937
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14
17:09:50 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Dec 14 17:09:33 2010
New Revision: 167806
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167806
Log:
2010-12-14 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #31 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-14
17:09:47 UTC ---
With the patch from comment 21 applied on x86_64-apple-darwin10, I am seeing...
FAIL: gcc.dg/darwin-weakimport-3.c scan-assembler-not coalesced
FAIL:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45544
Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14
17:13:19 UTC ---
__attribute__((noinline, noclone))
unsigned long f1 (unsigned int a, int b, unsigned short c, short d, unsigned
char e, signed char f)
{
return (unsigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46937
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #32 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 17:16:39
UTC ---
minor update (this removes a test for reorder partition + exceptions that is
carried out too early)
Tests for reorder + exceptions and reorder + unwind are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45552
Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45552
--- Comment #3 from Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 17:24:39
UTC ---
I can see a different error than what reported:
glcells.c:846:12: internal compiler error: in chrec_component_in_loop_num, at
tree-chrec.c:758
I'm reducing the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2010-12-14 17:26:11 UTC ---
If the conclusion is that the callee can rely on the caller having done
the extension then you need to watch out for security issues in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #33 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-12-14 17:32:16
UTC ---
minor update (this removes a test for reorder partition + exceptions that is
carried out too early)
This seem sane to me. I've also posted more fixed to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46943
Summary: Unnecessary ZERO_EXTEND
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45791
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46849
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14 18:30:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I agree that this is better, though it still causes some regressions. I will
now test the following variant:
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44952
Cary Coutant ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ccoutant at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #34 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2010-12-14 19:00:43 UTC ---
If I did not make any mistake, the updated patch in comment #32 does not fix
the failures in comments #29 and #31.
1 - 100 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
