http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288
--- Comment #14 from Tobias Burnus 2011-09-06
06:49:11 UTC ---
Sorry for missing the issue with "run-once"; I thought I had tested it, but
seemingly I haven't done so.
(In reply to comment #13)
> Ok, since class_45{a,b} is not really a run-time
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50257
--- Comment #9 from Justin SB 2011-09-06 04:04:12
UTC ---
I think I personally prefer the original patches for readability, but I guess
it all depends on what gets optimized away. But that caused me to think: how
about relying on constexpr? We
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50301
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50302
Bug #: 50302
Summary: inefficient float->double conversion in AVX with
-mtune=generic
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33259
--- Comment #4 from Ken Raeburn 2011-09-05
22:45:28 UTC ---
I did a little experimentation with git revision c3f18f1 and it looks like it
does the right thing (optimizes away the calculations and returns a constant)
with Andrew Pinski's simplifie
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50301
Bug #: 50301
Summary: [4.7 Regression] 416.gamess in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to
build with LTO
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50230
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50296
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i686-pc-linux-gnu, cris-elf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37110
Ludovic Brenta changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|WONTFIX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-05 19:52:53 UTC ---
Ok, since class_45{a,b} is not really a run-time test, I think the best
solution would be to just convert it to "dg-do link":
Index: class_45b.f03
=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49606
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47500
Peter Schildmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||linux at schildmann dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49606
--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-09-05 19:39:30 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Mon Sep 5 19:39:27 2011
New Revision: 178557
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178557
Log:
gcc/
PR target/49606
* con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-05 19:33:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gfortran-dg.exp
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gfortran-dg.exp
> @@ -104,7 +104,9 @@ proc gfortran-dg-runtest { testcases defaul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50300
Bug #: 50300
Summary: Error message incomplete and points to the wrong
place. "premature usage of incomplete type"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50296
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-05 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48320
Takaya Saito changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||rejects-valid
Summary|[C++0x] c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50230
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #4 from John David An
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50299
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50294
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50299
Bug #: 50299
Summary: entryval: bigendian 32bit->64bit extension breaks
address match
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50298
Bug #: 50298
Summary: [C++0x][constexpr] References cannot be bound to
static constexpr reference members
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50297
Bug #: 50297
Summary: Bugzilla suffers an internal error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/PR48333
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49911
--- Comment #19 from Rafael Avila de Espindola 2011-09-05 17:14:29 UTC ---
> I've lost the track of whether anything else needs to be done to close
> this bug, though. Should the patch be applied to the 4.6 and 4.5
> branches too (assuming it pas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49911
--- Comment #18 from Martin Jambor 2011-09-05
16:35:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 25199
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25199
Patch preventing SRA from creating enumeration type replacements
I'm currently testing this patch w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50296
Bug #: 50296
Summary: [4.7 Regression] New C++ test failures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50230
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-09-05 16:28:00 UTC ---
> rebuild binutils 2.21.1 using the gcc-4.5.3 I have installed
> rebuild binutils 2.21.1 using the gcc-4.5.3 I have installed once
> again
> rebuild gcc 4.5.3
> rebuild b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-05 15:59:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > I think one should also do this for class_4{a-d}.f03, where Tobias
> > apparently
> > worked around the problem by a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50295
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose 2011-09-05
15:52:11 UTC ---
caused by
r178482 | jamborm | 2011-09-02 16:30:34 +0200 (Fri, 02 Sep 2011) | 10 lines
2011-09-02 Martin Jambor
PR middle-end/49886
* ipa-split.c (split_function
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50230
--- Comment #2 from Rolf Eike Beer 2011-09-05 15:48:10 UTC ---
> It is possible your tools are miscompiled. For example, some
> fixes to reorg were backported in May. These caused GCC to be
> miscompiled and produce incorrect code when optimizin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49458
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49267
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49267
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2011-09-05
15:44:06 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Sep 5 15:43:58 2011
New Revision: 178552
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178552
Log:
PR c++/49267
* call.c (compare_ics): rvalue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50257
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-05
15:35:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 25198
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25198
Yet another try
I'm also considering this variant: I guess overall I like it a tad better, in
partic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus 2011-09-05
15:19:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I think one should also do this for class_4{a-d}.f03, where Tobias apparently
> worked around the problem by adding an extra file (just to do the cleanup).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50295
Bug #: 50295
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE (segfault) in expand_debug_expr
at cfgexpand.c:2380
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46906
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse 2011-09-05
15:05:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> > When I read that operator* returns sgetc(), I understand that as
> > assert(*i==buf.sgetc()).
> But as explained below this requires that no further exter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46906
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Krügler
2011-09-05 14:17:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > Why do you think that either implementation form could be
> > considered as non-conforming?
>
> When I read that operator* re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50294
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-05
14:06:57 UTC ---
Index: gcc/varasm.c
===
--- gcc/varasm.c(revision 178527)
+++ gcc/varasm.c(working copy)
@@ -4746,9 +
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
Anders F Björklund changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25177|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46906
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse 2011-09-05
14:01:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Why do you think that either implementation form could be
> considered as non-conforming?
When I read that operator* returns sgetc(), I understand that as
as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50294
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-05
13:59:44 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg00280.html fixes the
Storage_Error issue but still ICEs because of the forced sign-extension
in output_constructor_regular_field which w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-05 13:52:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> A better way is the following patch, which adds "dg-do run-once", which should
> then also be applied to cray_pointers_2.f90.
I think one should al
=GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.7.0 20110905 (experimental) (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) GCC error: |
| in output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.c:4751|
| Error detected around loop_optimization3.adb:16:4|
| Please submit a bug report; see ht
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48095
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-05 13:14:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> That should then also take care of:
>
> rect = rectangle (1.0, 2.0, get_my_area)
>
> which had the same issue, except that it is currently rejec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46906
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Krügler
2011-09-05 12:56:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Oh, are you saying that this rule has priority over the one that says that
> operator* just forwards to sgetc?
This was not my intention, but I recognize
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48095
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46906
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse 2011-09-05
12:38:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> 1) The fact that repeated calls of operator* without intervening operator++
> calls produce the same result for a given iterator object is required by
> expres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2011-09-05
12:30:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> That sounds reasonable (much better than the evil "double blank" trick). Ok
> with me.
Can you package it? (This patch, modification to class_45b.f03 w/ com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50289
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50288
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-05 12:26:14 UTC ---
Sorry for the breakage, guys. Of course I *did* check the test case before
committing, but for some reason the failures did not occur on my machine (I
have no idea why).
(I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50289
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-09-05
12:24:17 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Sep 5 12:24:06 2011
New Revision: 178529
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178529
Log:
PR target/50289
Backport from mainline r17
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50289
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-09-05
12:20:18 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Sep 5 12:20:03 2011
New Revision: 178528
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178528
Log:
PR target/50289
* config/avr/avr.c (sequen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50078
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48571
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50293
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-05
11:14:08 UTC ---
I'm not sure the quoting will survive, it is, for example, passed to the
collect-ld script and re-issued from lto-wrapper itself.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46906
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler
2011-09-05 11:11:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> On the other hand, it looks like I can
> construct i2 from s (instead of copying from i1) and still hit the same issue
> with a valid program. Do you agree?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50293
Bug #: 50293
Summary: -flto fails if GCC is installed in directory with
space in path name
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50191
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-09-05
10:26:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 25195
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25195
gcc47-ppc-REG_P-MEM_P.patch
And if anyone feels to continue in this, here is a partial REG_P/MEM_P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50191
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-09-05
10:24:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 25194
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25194
gcc47-pr50191-ppc.patch
Untested rs6000.c patch. Note with this one we even generate slightly bett
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46906
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse 2011-09-05
09:58:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> IMO the example program is broken and cannot be used to proof violation of
> contract of the library. This is so, because istreambuf_iterator is an input
> ite
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46906
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50191
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-09-05
08:25:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 25193
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25193
gcc47-pr50191.patch
Untested dwarf2out.c patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50191
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-09-05
08:23:56 UTC ---
The problem is that at var-tracking time the expression contains another
debug_expr (as at that point the register 12 which held the toc address is no
longer live):
(debug_insn 9141 9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50282
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50191
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47659
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Henlich
2011-09-05 07:55:13 UTC ---
Would it be feasible to generate a warning for line 3 of the following:
real(8) :: a, b
a = 1.4d0
b = a / 1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44646
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2011-09-05
07:42:29 UTC ---
Parser patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-09/msg2.html
TODO as follow up:
* Replace "Sorry" by a real implementation in trans-stmt.c
Note: Needs support for MASK= as all
69 matches
Mail list logo
