http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #19 from Marc Glisse 2011-03-03
06:41:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> I'm not sure to understand, I was under the impression that right now GCC is
> essentially equal to boost::rational?!?
That's the heuristic I was mentioning
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47774
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-03
02:49:23 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 3 02:49:19 2011
New Revision: 170638
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170638
Log:
PR c++/47774
* tree.c (build_vec_init_elt):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47950
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2011-03-03
02:49:30 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 3 02:49:28 2011
New Revision: 170639
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170639
Log:
PR c++/47950
* parser.c (cp_parser_conditio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47947
--- Comment #9 from David Edelsohn 2011-03-03 01:48:17
UTC ---
The assembly output produces the same results that Tejas shows in comment #4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #18 from Paolo Carlini 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
>
> (m,2)-(m,3)==(m,6) boost shoul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47947
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.6.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47947
--- Comment #8 from Pat Haugen 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 seen variations
now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47947
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
--- Comment #7 from Pat Haugen 2011-0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47947
--- Comment #6 from David Edelsohn 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
--- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn 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=47950
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47947
--- Comment #4 from Tejas Karkhanis 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 -mabi=altivec
-flax-vector-conversi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47947
--- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn 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 difficult
for LTC to reprod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47947
--- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn 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=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 cod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47949
--- Comment #3 from Steven Fuerst 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
of a function. i.e. gcc te
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=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=47913
--- Comment #17 from Marc Glisse 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 this one
(m/7*5-1,5)-(m-2,7)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47873
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47960
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-02
19:45:02 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=153768
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47960
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 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
, __GXX_MERGED_TYPEINFO_NAMES now defaults to zero."
I think
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47952
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47960
--- Comment #4 from Andy 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,
>
> sorry, I do not watc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47960
--- Comment #3 from Andy 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 progress, do you mean tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46159
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46159
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 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=gcc&view=rev&rev=170622
Log:
PR c++/46159
* parser.c (cp_parser_primary_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46159
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.0
AssignedTo|unassigned at gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47957
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46159
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 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=gcc&view=rev&rev=170621
Log:
PR c++/46159
* parser.c (cp_parser_primary_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47200
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 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=gcc&view=rev&rev=170620
Log:
PR c++/47200
* semantics.c (cxx_bind_parame
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
--- Comment #14 from Steve Kargl
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 from Tobias Burnus 2011-03-02
> 18:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47960
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 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 #13 from Tobias Burnus 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 MinGW64. But it does not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47960
--- Comment #1 from Andy 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=47960
Summary: dlopen call during DSO initialization breaks C++ RTTI
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Henlich
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
> #else
Since the comment above that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47899
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 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 rtl-optimization/47899 */
/* { dg-do compile }
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47145
--- Comment #23 from Benjamin Kosnik 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=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=47956
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47953
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 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
based on function prototyp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36299
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus 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 __USE_MINGW_ANSI_STDIO
In MinGW64,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43038
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka 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 conflicting used decla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47953
--- Comment #1 from 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=47836
--- Comment #12 from 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 built
or installed by default.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus 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 behaviour
>From libgfortran/lib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47919
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka 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...
$ gcc -fcse-follow-jumps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43038
--- Comment #16 from Richard Guenther 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 based on origin of as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43038
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther 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 won't fly with crossmoudl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43038
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka 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, so I think it is quite
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43038
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka 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=47950
--- Comment #3 from Adam Butcher 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 trying to build worked. So obvious
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47957
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
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
As
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47950
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UN
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=45967
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 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=47950
Adam Butcher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dev.lists at jessamine dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36299
--- Comment #9 from Vincent Lefèvre 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)
{
int i;
return i;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47714
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42622
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2011-03-02
15:06:29 UTC ---
Applied, thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini 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 #8 from Marc Glisse 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 explaining the algo instead of a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #15 from 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=gcc&view=rev&rev=170616
Log:
2011-03-02 Marc Glisse
PR libst
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini 2011-03-02
14:14:55 UTC ---
Excellent.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse 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 more serious changes for post
> 4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek 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 just hpux11...).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47567
Thomas Henlich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #28 from Jeffrey A. Law 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 Jelinek changed:
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47615
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47615
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 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=gcc&view=rev&rev=170614
Log:
2011-03-02 Richard Guenther
Backport f
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: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P4
--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47945
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Henlich
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
__mingw_snprintf has the desired behaviou
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: unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47954
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
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
Co
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: unassig.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47925
--- Comment #1 from 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=gcc&view=rev&rev=170613
Log:
gcc/
PR rtl-optimization/47925
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47850
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 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 looks by far the mos
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47939
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47858
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
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++
Assig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47951
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini 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 __builtin_clz if
intmax_t == int (etc): at t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 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 4.6...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse 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 #9 from Marc Glisse 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 them.
> I don't think you should
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47948
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka 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 -msse -mno-sse2. I didn'
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
ction 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 di
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 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 was unlikely to ever make
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47949
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36299
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 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 zero or null. So I wou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47948
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47947
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.6.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47949
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47948
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
