http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2011-03-02
09:59:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
1- Please make sure the code is minimally documented (are the comments in
longlong.h enough?)
Ok, I wasn't sure it was worth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47946
--- Comment #4 from hariharans at picochip dot com 2011-03-02 10:11:19 UTC ---
Hello Jakub,
I tested the patch and it fixes the problem. Thanks for looking into this.
Cheers
Hari
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47283
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-02
10:12:10 UTC ---
Created attachment 23511
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23511
gcc46-pr47283.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43038
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-02
10:16:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
The original LTO proposal included assembler changes to allow multiple
local symbols with the same name in the output.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47948
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47949
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47947
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.6.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47948
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=36299
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-02
10:51:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
I think the intention is to warn, at least for a == (void *)0, since the
address of a cannot be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47949
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=47913
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-03-02
10:59:06 UTC ---
Hi,
1- Please make sure the code is minimally documented (are the comments in
longlong.h enough?)
Ok, I wasn't sure it was worth it if the code
statement inside a
template -- and only then if the standard initializer syntax is used with the
rhs being a constructor or function call.
This was done using 4.6.0 20110302 built this morning. Failures only occur in
C++0x mode.
This is a recent regression -- a build from a few days ago did
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47951
Summary: [4.6 Regression] web.c:union_match_dups segmentation
fault for bfin
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47948
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2011-03-02 11:42:47
UTC ---
Thank you for replies. I am sorry for a wrong report, I thought this switch
combination is valid and expected to work. There are tests in the testsuite
that use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2011-03-02
11:50:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Right. Mine was sort of a general comment: the comments in ratio_less are also
rather terse ;)
I'll try to expand a bit on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2011-03-02
11:53:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 23512
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23512
avoid denominator overflows (untested)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-03-02
11:59:34 UTC ---
Thanks for the attachment. Do you have a small testcase for it? I would test
here, commit, and then we can proceed with more serious changes for post
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-03-02
12:07:13 UTC ---
About int/long/long long I see what you mean, but we should double check that
__builtin_clzll is unconditionally available and the same as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47951
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47952
Summary: [trans-mem] undefined reference to transaction clone
Product: gcc
Version: trans-mem
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47858
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47939
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47850
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-03-02
13:22:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #4)
The regression appeared between revisions 158105 and 159105.
In the above revision range r158253
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47925
--- Comment #1 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-02 13:25:13 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Wed Mar 2 13:25:10 2011
New Revision: 170613
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170613
Log:
gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47953
Summary: Code generation depends on function prototype
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47954
Summary: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-ccp-33.c fails with link error on
m68k-linux
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47954
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47955
Summary: gcc.dg/stack-usage-1.c fails on m68k-linux
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Henlich thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-03-02 13:49:15 UTC ---
It seems that MinGW has its own implementation of snprintf called
__mingw_snprintf which can be activated by defining __USE_MINGW_ANSI_STDIO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P4
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47956
Summary: gcc accepts static data member declaration with
initializer for non-const literal type if
type-specifier is auto
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47615
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-02
13:56:48 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Mar 2 13:56:41 2011
New Revision: 170614
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170614
Log:
2011-03-02 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47615
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #28 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com 2011-03-02 13:58:19
UTC ---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/02/11 06:51, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
Jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567
Thomas Henlich thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-02
14:01:20 UTC ---
hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 is listed as secondary platform, though not sure how
narrowly we consider that (if hppa2.0w-hp-hpux10.* is considered also
secondary, or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2011-03-02
14:05:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Thanks for the attachment. Do you have a small testcase for it? I would test
here, commit, and then we can proceed with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-03-02
14:14:55 UTC ---
Excellent.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #15 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-02 14:58:00 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Mar 2 14:57:57 2011
New Revision: 170616
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170616
Log:
2011-03-02 Marc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42622
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2011-03-02
14:58:06 UTC ---
Created attachment 23514
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23514
4 lines of comments...
It might be better to write a single paragraph
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-03-02
14:59:23 UTC ---
Done. Then we can add more tests to 47913.cc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42622
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-03-02
15:06:29 UTC ---
Applied, thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47714
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36299
--- Comment #9 from Vincent Lefèvre vincent at vinc17 dot org 2011-03-02
15:17:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Every warning warns about something valid in C, otherwise it would be an error
not a warning.
No, for instance:
int main(void)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47950
Adam Butcher dev.lists at jessamine dot co.uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dev.lists
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45967
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-02
15:54:36 UTC ---
Created attachment 23515
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23515
patch for the 4.5 branch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47957
Summary: Type mismatch when a class derived a same name with
template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47950
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47958
Summary: [x32] reload generates invalid address reference
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47957
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47950
--- Comment #3 from Adam Butcher dev.lists at jessamine dot co.uk 2011-03-02
16:30:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Rolling back to my previous HEAD reveals that the reduced example above still
fails whereas the code I was originally
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43038
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2011-03-02 16:32:20
UTC ---
Not mangling statics unless conflict is found is indeed desirable QOI thing.
It makes assembly and other things look
a lot more smoother than it does now.
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43038
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2011-03-02 16:34:22
UTC ---
Ah, the reason for writting reply was primarily the observation that enforcing
partitioning based on origin of asm statement won't fly with crossmoudle
inlining,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43038
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-02
16:39:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
Ah, the reason for writting reply was primarily the observation that enforcing
partitioning based on origin of asm statement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43038
--- Comment #16 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-02
16:42:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
(In reply to comment #14)
Ah, the reason for writting reply was primarily the observation that
enforcing
partitioning
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47919
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2011-03-02 16:44:30
UTC ---
Created attachment 23516
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23516
different testcase
Another testcase that needs insane flags to reproduce...
$
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-02
16:45:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
It seems that MinGW has its own implementation of snprintf called
__mingw_snprintf [...] __mingw_snprintf has the desired
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47836
--- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2011-03-02 16:50:20 UTC ---
I do not believe any component of the GCC or src tree uses a target
libiberty. Thus, I do not think such a target libiberty should be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47953
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2011-03-02 16:54:10 UTC ---
I suspect this is the same as bug 46076; at least it looks related.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43038
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2011-03-02 16:56:47
UTC ---
Well, with a used global local decl I would just leave the unit alone,
doing a 1:1 partition for it (not mangling it). That way we can even
handle multiple
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-02
17:03:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
It seems that MinGW has its own implementation of snprintf called
__mingw_snprintf which can be activated by defining
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36299
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47953
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-03-02 17:09:48
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I suspect this is the same as bug 46076; at least it looks related.
I am not sure if they are related. Here we generate different codes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47956
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47959
Summary: [C++0x] brace-or-equal-initializer not allowed for
static data member of const literal type
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47145
--- Comment #23 from Benjamin Kosnik bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-02
17:43:54 UTC ---
Created attachment 23517
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23517
what debian is currently using
from Matthias Klose
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47899
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-02
17:48:27 UTC ---
Thanks, this patch seems to work (I've bootstrapped/regtested it on
x86_64-linux and i686-linux together with the #c3 testcase with
/* PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Henlich thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net
2011-03-02 17:54:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
From libgfortran/libgfortran.h:
#if defined __MINGW32__
# define _POSIX 1
# define gfc_printf gnu_printf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47960
Summary: dlopen call during DSO initialization breaks C++ RTTI
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47960
--- Comment #1 from Andy a_salnikov at yahoo dot com 2011-03-02 17:58:58 UTC
---
Created attachment 23518
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23518
test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
--- Comment #13 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-02
18:02:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
could it be that it was the intention to set __USE_MINGW_ANSI_STDIO in effect?
Yes - and that is what does happen for _POSIX=1 on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47960
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-02
18:12:13 UTC ---
works as expected with gcc 4.5, possibly due to the change to
__GXX_MERGED_TYPEINFO_NAMES
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
--- Comment #14 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2011-03-02 18:17:30 UTC ---
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 06:02:22PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
--- Comment #13
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47200
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-02
18:18:35 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Mar 2 18:18:31 2011
New Revision: 170620
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170620
Log:
PR c++/47200
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46159
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-02
18:18:48 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Mar 2 18:18:41 2011
New Revision: 170621
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170621
Log:
PR c++/46159
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47957
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46159
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46159
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-02
18:46:04 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Mar 2 18:46:01 2011
New Revision: 170622
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170622
Log:
PR c++/46159
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46159
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47960
--- Comment #3 from Andy a_salnikov at yahoo dot com 2011-03-02 18:50:56 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #2)
works as expected with gcc 4.5, possibly due to the change to
__GXX_MERGED_TYPEINFO_NAMES
Hi Jonathan,
sorry, I do not watch closely the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47960
--- Comment #4 from Andy a_salnikov at yahoo dot com 2011-03-02 18:51:49 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
works as expected with gcc 4.5, possibly due to the change to
__GXX_MERGED_TYPEINFO_NAMES
Hi Jonathan,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47952
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=47960
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-02
19:43:17 UTC ---
Yes, from http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/changes.html
The default behavior for comparing typeinfo names has changed, so in
typeinfo, __GXX_MERGED_TYPEINFO_NAMES
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47960
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-02
19:45:02 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revisionrevision=153768
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47873
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #17 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2011-03-02
20:50:42 UTC ---
Some more examples. Using the constants:
m=INTMAX_MAX;
n=INTMAX_MAX/2;
p=((intmax_t)1(4*sizeof(intmax_t)-1))-3
(m,2)-(m,3)==(m,6) boost should manage
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47961
Summary: media-libs/xvid-1.3.0 fails to build on SPARC unless
-mvis flag stripped
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47962
Summary: media-libs/xvid-1.3.0 fails to build on SPARC unless
-mvis flag stripped
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47949
--- Comment #3 from Steven Fuerst svfuerst at gmail dot com 2011-03-02
21:51:12 UTC ---
Having a quick look at generated code... it appears that this pattern doesn't
come up all that often. However, there is one case where it does: the epilogue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47963
Summary: [4.5/4.6 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected tree
that contains 'decl common' structure, have
'integer_cst' in is_global_var, at
tree-flow-inline.h:599 on invalid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47947
--- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-02 22:08:51
UTC ---
Did you build the application as a 32 bit or 64 bit application? If you used
the default 32 bit on AIX did you try using -maix64?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47947
--- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-02 22:29:43
UTC ---
I can reproduce this bug. It occurs in AIX 32 bit mode, but not in AIX 64 bit
mode.
Linux 32 bit mode ABI is different than AIX 32 bit ABI, so it is more
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47947
--- Comment #4 from Tejas Karkhanis tkarkha at us dot ibm.com 2011-03-02
22:35:01 UTC ---
David,
I tried building with -maix64 flag. Here is the output after compiling with
-maix64 flag:
gcc-4.6.0 -Wall -O3 -I ./ -std=gnu99 -maltivec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47950
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47947
--- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-02 22:48:10
UTC ---
The bug does not occur with -O1. It does occur with -O2 and above, both 32 bit
and 64 bit AIX.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47947
--- Comment #6 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-02 22:51:04
UTC ---
Created attachment 23520
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23520
Assembly output from testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47947
Pat Haugen pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47947
--- Comment #8 from Pat Haugen pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-02
23:03:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Created attachment 23520 [details]
Assembly output from testcase
David,
Can you post your output you get from this run, since we've
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47947
Pat Haugen pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.6.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #18 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-03-02
23:21:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
Some more examples. Using the constants:
m=INTMAX_MAX;
n=INTMAX_MAX/2;
p=((intmax_t)1(4*sizeof(intmax_t)-1))-3
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
