http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46952
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46952
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15
08:37:42 UTC ---
Reduced test case. Crucial seems to be that inter and bar call foo and
that foo and bar are defined via the interface inter.
Similarly to gfortran and ifort
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46938
Dave Korn davek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46951
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46938
--- Comment #2 from Dave Korn davek at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15 09:51:30
UTC ---
Author: davek
Date: Wed Dec 15 09:51:26 2010
New Revision: 167848
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167848
Log:
PR testsuite/46938
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46938
Dave Korn davek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46893
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46955
Summary: Missing DW_AT_const_value from
DW_TAG_template_value_parameter
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46956
Summary: [4.6 Regression] g++ PCH fails
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46955
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41736
--- Comment #5 from Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15
10:21:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
The ordinary cases work fine with svn trunk gcc.
However, member pointers still don't have all the info emitted.
Consider this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #54 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15 10:22:27
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #49)
As Dominique surmised, this is a different problem:
as per Comment #28/30:
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/system-1.C -g assembly comparison
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46869
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 |hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46671
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46945
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=46945
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45388
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46956
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-12-15 11:55:41 UTC
---
__GLOBAL__sub_I__GCC_gcc_4_6_reghunt_gcc_testsuite_g__.dg_pch_system_1.C_867072EB_51FA32F0:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46945
--- Comment #3 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15 11:57:28
UTC ---
The offending patch is most likely
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg02499.html
Wrt. the recent changes in the definition of size_t, there is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46869
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46939
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 #55 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15 12:36:00
UTC ---
this solves
FAIL: g++.dg/other/pr22003.C (test for excess errors)
but we have total failure with -O3 -g for gcc.
[all fails are warning: no debug symbols in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46939
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46838
--- Comment #3 from Salvatore Filippone sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
2010-12-15 13:08:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
The default initializer is obtained via expr.c's gfc_default_initializer.
The original code gives
Overall matrix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46956
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=46649
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15
13:08:47 UTC ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Wed Dec 15 13:08:41 2010
New Revision: 167854
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167854
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46649
Alexander Monakov amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #56 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15
13:10:15 UTC ---
Hi,
thanks for testing. I wonder why we need to add those +DEF_SECTION fields?
I think the infinite recursion problem should be fixed by dropping the whole
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46053
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15
13:19:50 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Dec 15 13:19:46 2010
New Revision: 167855
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167855
Log:
2010-12-15 Martin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46287
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15
13:19:51 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Dec 15 13:19:46 2010
New Revision: 167855
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167855
Log:
2010-12-15 Martin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46242
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15
13:19:51 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Dec 15 13:19:46 2010
New Revision: 167855
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167855
Log:
2010-12-15 Martin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #57 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15 13:25:07
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #56)
I wonder why we need to add those +DEF_SECTION fields?
I think the infinite recursion problem should be fixed by dropping the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46939
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15
13:28:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 22763
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22763
patch I am testing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #58 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-12-15 13:33:15
UTC ---
[ the key change is that there need to be coalesced sections for the DECL_WEAK
() -- I am not strongly saying the sections need to be pre-declared - if you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46956
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15 13:35:16
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Ought to be cured by http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-12/msg00364.html
yes, with your patch pch.exp=* clean for c/c++/ObjC*.
[full
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46868
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||froydnj at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46868
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at abeckmann
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46855
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22758|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #60 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-12-15 13:49:51
UTC ---
Hi,
yes please try with the darwin bits alone and the hunk in opts.c enabling
function reordering when partitioning is on.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #61 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15 13:56:07
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #59)
Created attachment 22764 [details]
Honza+Darwin mods
If you think I should test with just the darwin bits, OK I can do that.
with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #62 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15 14:00:40
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #61)
(In reply to comment #59)
Created attachment 22764 [details] [details]
Honza+Darwin mods
If you think I should test with just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #63 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-12-15 14:07:16
UTC ---
OK,
if the darwin changes + opts.c change solves the problem, lets submit the patch
and I will try to re-review the bb-reorder patch and we can deal with the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46242
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46287
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46053
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #64 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-15
14:34:03 UTC ---
Iain,
My old radar bug report numbered 7289379, linker warnings when no unwind
labels are emitted while targeting 10.6, my be have some useful
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46957
Summary: http://blog.regehr.org/archives/320 Example 1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46232
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15
15:05:40 UTC ---
Well, SRA currently propagates sub-accesses across assignments only
from the RHS to the LHS. I will have a look at how intrusive it would
be to add the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #65 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2010-12-15
15:15:42 UTC ---
Iain,
Can you try labeling the unlikely sections with the function names as Apple
suggested and see if that helps with the problems with -g using
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #66 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15 15:17:29
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #64)
Thanks Jack, I'll take a look at this info, if necessary.
a couple of points;
this below has subsequently been replaced with an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46958
Summary: Go ARM Does Not Compile
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
AssignedTo: i...@airs.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46959
Summary: M68K Not Supported by Go
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
AssignedTo: i...@airs.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46960
Summary: MIPS Not Supported by Go
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
AssignedTo: i...@airs.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46961
Summary: PowerPC Not Supported By Go
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
AssignedTo: i...@airs.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46962
Summary: SPARC Not Supported By Go
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
AssignedTo: i...@airs.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40947
Hin-Tak Leung htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46963
Summary: SPARC64 Not Supported by Go
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
AssignedTo: i...@airs.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39976
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=43548
--- Comment #4 from Alan Hourihane alanh at fairlite dot co.uk 2010-12-15
16:20:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 22766
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22766
preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43548
Alan Hourihane alanh at fairlite dot co.uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22766|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46964
Summary: ARM Not Supported by Go
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
AssignedTo: i...@airs.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43548
--- Comment #7 from Alan Hourihane alanh at fairlite dot co.uk 2010-12-15
16:30:29 UTC ---
If I disable -O2 it works.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46959
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15 16:03:49
UTC ---
How does this look for m68k? I recall d0/d1/a0/a1 are clobbered by the caller.
a6 is a frame pointer, a7 is the stack pointer. So is this the set that needs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46965
Summary: SH Go Does not Compile (__builtin_return_address)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45791
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15
16:07:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
OK, main() code seems to optimize out that is an imrovement. Is it optimized
away with your patch pre-IPA too?
Yes. Just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46221
Dave Korn davek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-linux, i?86-linux, |powerpc-linux,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46959
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org 2010-12-15 16:40:08
UTC ---
You cannot put reserved registers in the clobber list.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46674
--- Comment #11 from Dave Korn davek at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15 16:17:54
UTC ---
Created attachment 22765
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22765
Lower all C identifiers to actual assembler symbols for comparison.
This should
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43548
Alan Hourihane alanh at fairlite dot co.uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alanh at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43548
--- Comment #6 from Alan Hourihane alanh at fairlite dot co.uk 2010-12-15
16:24:57 UTC ---
Ignore comment 3, wrong output. Here's the correct one.
m68k-atari-mint-g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -O2 -pipe -D_GNU_SOURCE -MT
pcrecpp_unittest.o -MD -MP
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46964
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2010-12-15 16:57:07 UTC ---
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, joel at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
does not define SAVE_REGS in gcc-go.c for ARM. Is this correct for ARM?
#elif
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46869
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-12-15 17:08:00 UTC ---
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2010-12-15 12:20:12 UTC ---
Rainer, if in order to reduce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46232
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15
17:07:44 UTC ---
Nevertheless, this has been the case in 4.5 as well, how come the
testcase does not fail there?
The generated code is identical on mainline and 4.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46916
--- Comment #67 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15 17:11:28
UTC ---
Created attachment 22768
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22768
darwin-function-section-patch
OK - sorted out a couple of minor glitches...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28105
--- Comment #11 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15
17:15:31 UTC ---
Author: jb
Date: Wed Dec 15 17:15:25 2010
New Revision: 167860
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167860
Log:
PR 28105 Remove size0 checks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42083
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-15 17:35:09 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Dec 15 17:35:04 2010
New Revision: 167862
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167862
Log:
/cp
2010-12-15
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46404
Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45310
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2010-12-15 17:39:39
UTC ---
Created attachment 22769
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22769
another testcase
$ gcc -O -fnon-call-exceptions pr45310-2.C
pr45310-2.C: In
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46232
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15
17:40:00 UTC ---
I see. I think this is not a P1 stuff then and should definitely not
block a release. I'd rather not promise anything, but I'll add this
to my TODO list
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42083
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46404
--- Comment #4 from Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15 17:55:26
UTC ---
Ok, I will have a look at that one as well.
Thanks for pointing out that this error was not fixed, but probably hidden.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46815
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15
17:50:40 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 15 17:50:34 2010
New Revision: 167865
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167865
Log:
PR debug/46815
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46232
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15
17:58:51 UTC ---
I see. I think this is not a P1 stuff then and should definitely not
block a release. I'd rather not promise anything, but I'll add this
to my TODO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46404
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2010-12-15 17:52:09
UTC ---
I can't reproduce it neither with the reduced testcase, but the original one
still fails (I am sorry for not mentioning it was reduced from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15
18:13:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg02722.html
Does this mean it also fails on i586 or is this a hppa thing?
Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15
18:21:38 UTC ---
Does this mean it also fails on i586 or is this a hppa thing?
It fails everywhere.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46966
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: in execute_cse_reciprocals, at
tree-ssa-math-opts.c:474 with -floop-interchange
-fno-tree-copy-prop -fno-tree-loop-im
Product: gcc
Version:
: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --prefix=/home/jey/bins
--program-suffix=-trunk --with-cpu=native --with-arch=native
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.6.0 20101215 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-v' '-save-temps' '-std=c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46968
--- Comment #1 from Jey Kottalam gcc at jey dot kottalam.net 2010-12-15
19:20:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 22771
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22771
testcase
This is from Intel TBB 3.0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46968
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46670
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at jey dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40947
--- Comment #5 from Ralf Wildenhues rwild at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15
19:23:05 UTC ---
Can you attach alphaev68-dec-osf5.1a/libjava/config.log for this failure
please?
Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46969
Summary: -O -ftree-vectorize -ftree-parallelize-loops=2
-fcompare-debug
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46969
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2010-12-15 19:29:53
UTC ---
Created attachment 22773
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22773
dumps - pr46969.*gkd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46967
Summary: lots of testsuite failures with libgomp on
hppa-hp-hpux11.31
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46970
Summary: [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] wrong code with -Os
-ftree-loop-linear
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46969
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46966
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46945
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-15
20:20:19 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 15 20:20:10 2010
New Revision: 167871
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167871
Log:
PR fortran/46945
*
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
