http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50171
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50173
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-08-24
06:19:59 UTC ---
Seems to be a duplicate of the regression caused by the patch for PR 50050,
see bug 50050 comment 7. Draft patch posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-08/msg00199.html
Sorry
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50173
jpr at csc dot fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50050
jpr at csc dot fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jpr at csc dot fi
--- Comment #9 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44618
Kumar Gala changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||galak at kernel dot
|
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran
--disable-bootstrap --prefix=/wrk/jpr/gcc-4.7 --with-gmp=/wrk/jpr/extralib
--with-mpfr=/wrk/jpr/extralib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20110823 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-v' '-c' '-mtune=generic' '-march=pen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50172
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-24 03:13:09
UTC ---
I got
spawn -ignore SIGHUP /export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test-x32/bld/gcc/xgcc
-B/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test-x32/bld/gcc/
/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test-x32/src-trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.ta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50172
Bug #: 50172
Summary: AVX2 test failures for x32
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50171
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-08-24
00:05:25 UTC ---
int baz(char **, const char *);
int quux(char *);
int foo(const char *a)
{
char *b;
int t1;
{
char *t;
if (!baz(&t, a))
t1 = -1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50171
Bug #: 50171
Summary: False positive -Wuninitialized warning
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50168
--- Comment #4 from Gunther Piez 2011-08-23 22:00:31 UTC
---
On 23.08.2011 19:58, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> While __builtin_c[lt]z* documentation
> says that the result is undefined in that case, I wonder if it would be fine
> even if lon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50168
--- Comment #3 from Gunther Piez 2011-08-23 21:54:40 UTC
---
On 23.08.2011 19:58, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50168
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50153
--- Comment #10 from Steve Ellcey 2011-08-23 21:32:37
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Tue Aug 23 21:32:34 2011
New Revision: 178018
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178018
Log:
2011-08-23 Steve Ellcey
PR libstdc++/50153
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50170
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50169
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50170
Bug #: 50170
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/sse-22a.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50050
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50153
--- Comment #9 from Steve Ellcey 2011-08-23 20:55:15
UTC ---
I think all I need to do is expand the existing hpux11_abs fixinclude rule
from 'ia64-hp-hpux11*' to '*-hp-hpux11*' I am currently testing this.
The other checks for '__cplusplus < 19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50024
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50169
Bug #: 50169
Summary: "new struct X {{}};" incorrectly treated as an invalid
struct-definition
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50024
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2011-08-23
20:12:28 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Aug 23 20:12:22 2011
New Revision: 178012
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178012
Log:
PR c++/50024
* semantics.c (maybe_constant_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50050
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
el: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20110823 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Schmidt-Dominé 2011-08-23
19:31:37 UTC ---
“Any particular reason?”
No particular one, but a small specialisation would be nicer than changing
everything or doing bitfiddling.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38509
Mark Heffernan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|missed-optimization |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse 2011-08-23
19:16:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> For my application I should simply use an unordered_map and all the overhead
> has gone. :D
Great.
> “I haven't thought about the potential drawbacks of imp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Schmidt-Dominé 2011-08-23
19:15:20 UTC ---
There seem to be a lot of tricks to achieve that:
http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#ReverseByteWith64BitsDiv
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Schmidt-Dominé 2011-08-23
19:10:06 UTC ---
Hmm, reversing really is not that nice.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Schmidt-Dominé 2011-08-23
19:04:25 UTC ---
For my application I should simply use an unordered_map and all the overhead
has gone. :D But operator< simply should not be that slow.
“I haven't thought about the potentia
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49890
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse 2011-08-23
18:35:57 UTC ---
If I understand correctly, operator< is supposed to give a lexicographic order,
and vector stores {true,false,false} as 1 and {false,false,true} as 4, so
we can't just make operator< com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Schmidt-Dominé 2011-08-23
18:29:19 UTC ---
Ok, I can write a patch and test if it is actually faster (it
should). Is there any coding-guide line (style, variables etc.)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Schmidt-Dominé 2011-08-23
18:26:48 UTC ---
In libc++ it seems to be the same, specialised hashing, but no specialised
comparison. Ok, I can write a patch and test if it is actually faster (it
should). Is there any cod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Schmidt-Dominé 2011-08-23
18:21:36 UTC ---
In libc++ it is the same, specialised hash, but no specialised operator<.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50083
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38509
--- Comment #4 from Mark Heffernan 2011-08-23
18:06:48 UTC ---
Author: meheff
Date: Tue Aug 23 18:06:42 2011
New Revision: 178004
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178004
Log:
2011-08-23 Mark Heffernan
PR middle-e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50168
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50153
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50168
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49045
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini 2011-08-23
16:40:01 UTC ---
Great. I'll soon remove the wa and adjust the library.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50168
Bug #: 50168
Summary: __builtin_ctz() and intrinsics __bsr(), __bsf()
generate suboptimal code on x86_64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50165
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-08-23 16:38:22 UTC ---
This regression is caused by revision 177571.
Reverting only 177661 and 177704 doesn't solve the problem.
Reverting all three revisions (77571, 177661 and 177704) solves the prob
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-08-23
16:31:40 UTC ---
I meant: which improvement do you expect, in practice? I supposed you are aware
if other implementations of the library already including the optimization. I'm
looking for some concret
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49045
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill 2011-08-23
16:03:56 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Aug 23 16:03:44 2011
New Revision: 177998
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177998
Log:
PR c++/49045
Core 1321
* tree.c (depend
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50024
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-08-23
16:03:06 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Aug 23 16:03:01 2011
New Revision: 177994
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177994
Log:
PR c++/50024
* semantics.c (maybe_constant_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50158
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50161
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50158
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-08-23
15:53:23 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Aug 23 15:53:18 2011
New Revision: 177992
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177992
Log:
PR c++/50158
* typeck.c (cp_build_modify_ex
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49045
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50161
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-08-23
15:51:55 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Aug 23 15:51:45 2011
New Revision: 177991
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177991
Log:
PR middle-end/50161
* simplify-rtx.c (simpl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50167
Bug #: 50167
Summary: gmp memory functions are extern "C" (graphite)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49590
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-08-23
15:50:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> The part you quote concerns "statement functions". There are
> no statement functions in your example.
Well spotted. The problem also occurs in the stateme
Component: go
AssignedTo: i...@airs.com
ReportedBy: r...@gcc.gnu.org
Host: i386-pc-solaris2.10
Target: i386-pc-solaris2.10
Build: i386-pc-solaris2.10
Between 20110819 and 20110823, go1 started to ICE compiling libgo. This seems
to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50165
Bug #: 50165
Summary: [4.7 regression] Huge build time regression (Firefox
lto build)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47380
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse 2011-08-23
15:27:35 UTC ---
In case someone else has issues with _GLIBCXX_CONCEPT_CHECKS, all the bad cases
I have hit came from _SGIAssignableConcept, so I simply removed the content of
that concept (not very sub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49119
--- Comment #4 from Sebastian Huber
2011-08-23 15:01:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 25084
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25084
Generated assembler file.
Command line:
powerpc-rtems4.11-gcc -O2 -save-temps -fverbose-asm -c bs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50055
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2011-08-23
14:56:55 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Aug 23 14:56:48 2011
New Revision: 177990
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177990
Log:
PR c++/50055
* except.c (begin_eh_spec_bloc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50131
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sergos.gnu at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50164
Bug #: 50164
Summary: [IRA, 4.7 Regression] Performance degradation due to
increased memory instructions count
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45076
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Schmidt-Dominé 2011-08-23
13:50:09 UTC ---
Well, it made my specific application very slow, when using vector as
key_type for (ordered) map. What kind of numbers would be usefull? I think it
should simply have a spec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48338
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46862
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46862
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-08-23
13:23:29 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Aug 23 13:23:22 2011
New Revision: 177988
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177988
Log:
PR c++/46862
* class.c (finish_struct_1):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46862
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-08-23
13:20:11 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Aug 23 13:20:04 2011
New Revision: 177987
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177987
Log:
PR c++/46862
* class.c (finish_struct_1): I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50153
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-08-23 12:52:30 UTC ---
On 22-Aug-11, at 7:31 PM, sje at cup dot hp.com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50153
>
> --- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey 2011-08-22
> 23:31:20 UT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50158
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49556
licheng.1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31600
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31600
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-08-23
12:13:40 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Aug 23 12:13:34 2011
New Revision: 177985
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177985
Log:
2011-08-23 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/31
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50163
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50162
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-08-23
10:20:31 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Aug 23 10:20:26 2011
New Revision: 177984
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177984
Log:
2011-08-23 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50162
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
Target Milestone|4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50163
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43862
Andrew Stubbs changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ams at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50133
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50163
Bug #: 50163
Summary: Internal compiler error: initialization expression
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50162
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.4.6
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50162
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7 Regression] Wrong |[4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50162
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50162
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50161
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-08-23
08:21:25 UTC ---
The simplify_const_unary_operation changes from that patch look totally wrong.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2011-08-23
08:14:06 UTC ---
Do you have some numbers? Of course we can make progress on this, but we'd like
to know when it's good enough.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50162
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50162
Bug #: 50162
Summary: Wrong vectorization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50161
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
86 matches
Mail list logo
