http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50698
Bug #: 50698
Summary: pretending to create versioning for alias when not
required
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50699
Bug #: 50699
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Bootstrap fails on *-apple-darwin*
due to revision 179820
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50699
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50700
Bug #: 50700
Summary: [4.6/4.7 Regression] __builtin_object_size computed
wrong
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50700
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49939
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-10-12
09:59:34 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Oct 12 09:59:30 2011
New Revision: 179843
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179843
Log:
PR target/49939
* config/avr/avr.md (*movq
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49939
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50346
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |tree-optimization
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50697
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-12
10:53:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
>
> ./configure --prefix=/swadm/local CFLAGS=-fPIC -I/swadm/local/include
> LDFLAGS=-L/swadm/local/lib --with-gmp-include=/swadm/local/include
>
> or
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49777
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50699
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50698
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias, missed-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-10-12 11:31:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Created attachment 25466 [details]
> test of -fstack-check
>
> a simple test program for Darwin ..
> .. AFAICT this DTRT under 'c' on {powerpc,i386
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50695
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-10-12 11:40:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
>Would you please try and reproduce the failure with a Linux target?
What for? AFAICT the failure occurs only on x86_64-apple-darwin10. One
possibi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-12 11:44:28
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > Created attachment 25466 [details]
> > test of -fstack-check
> >
> > a simple test program for Darwin ..
> > .. AFAICT this DT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-10-12 11:55:33 UTC ---
Created attachment 25471
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25471
Assembly file for the code in attachment 25466
> if it's aborting, that is wrong .. send me
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50565
--- Comment #5 from Joseph S. Myers 2011-10-12
11:56:06 UTC ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Wed Oct 12 11:56:03 2011
New Revision: 179845
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179845
Log:
PR c/50565
* convert.c (convert_to_intege
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50565
--- Comment #6 from Joseph S. Myers 2011-10-12
11:57:39 UTC ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Wed Oct 12 11:57:36 2011
New Revision: 179846
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179846
Log:
PR c/50565
* convert.c (convert_to_intege
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50565
--- Comment #7 from Joseph S. Myers 2011-10-12
11:58:52 UTC ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Wed Oct 12 11:58:47 2011
New Revision: 179847
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179847
Log:
PR c/50565
* convert.c (convert_to_intege
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50565
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25466|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50346
--- Comment #4 from Ryan Johnson 2011-10-12 12:40:25
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Well, it's a tree optimization issue. It's simple - the local aggregate f
> escapes the function via the member function call to baz:
>
> :
> foo::baz (&f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50346
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-10-12 12:44:15 UTC ---
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, scovich at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50346
>
> --- Comment #4 from Ryan Johnson 2011-10-12
> 12:40:25 UTC -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50701
Bug #: 50701
Summary: Pair and string constructor copy
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 3.3.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50701
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth 2011-10-12 13:09:59 UTC
---
Created attachment 25473
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25473
unreduced testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50700
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-12
13:19:38 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 12 13:19:34 2011
New Revision: 179850
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179850
Log:
2011-10-12 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50700
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-12
13:22:18 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 12 13:22:12 2011
New Revision: 179851
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179851
Log:
2011-10-12 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-12 13:35:05
UTC ---
built with ;
$ gnatmake -f -O2 -gnatws -fstack-check -I../../../support c52104y
--GCC="/GCC/gcc-4-7-trunk-build/gcc/xgcc -B/GCC/gcc-4-7-trunk-build/gcc" -cargs
-save-temps -fverbose-as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-12 13:47:32
UTC ---
rax0x1010 268435472
rbx0x7fff5fbff380 140734799803264
rcx0x7fff5bc00380 140734732698496
rdx0x1000 268435456
rsi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50702
Bug #: 50702
Summary: [4.7 Regression] 20020210-1.c:2:22: ICE: gimple_op, at
gimple.h:1704. at -O1 and above
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #12 from Paul Koning 2011-10-12
14:04:30 UTC ---
You said "GCC treats types compatible when they have the same precision".
That's where the problem lies, because enums with -fstrict-enums have their
precision set to just enough bits
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50702
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin 2011-10-12
14:05:04 UTC ---
Also,
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/nested-1.c -O1 (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/nested-1.c -O1 (test for excess errors)
fail in same way.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #21 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-12 14:07:45
UTC ---
Created attachment 25474
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25474
optimized tree dump for c52104y
shows the builtin_alloca_with_align
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50629
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-10-12 14:15:56 UTC ---
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
>
> --- Comment #12 from Paul Koning 2011-10-12
> 14:04:30 UT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-10-12 14:21:48 UTC ---
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
>
> --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de
> 2011-10-12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50700
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50702
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tom at codesourcery dot com
Target M
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50698
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-12
14:40:55 UTC ---
Patch:
Index: gcc/tree-data-ref.c
===
--- gcc/tree-data-ref.c (revision 179849)
+++ gcc/tree-data-ref.c (working cop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #22 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-12 14:54:01
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Would you please try and reproduce the failure with a Linux target? [Setting
> up Darwin GCC development environment (especially with GNAT in it) is a very
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50419
--- Comment #2 from Michael Matz 2011-10-12 15:09:53
UTC ---
Meeh, since the fix for PR49279 we don't retain the casts to restrict anymore,
making the testcase not work even with the fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-12
15:13:04 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 12 15:12:58 2011
New Revision: 179856
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179856
Log:
2011-10-12 Paul Koning
PR tree-optimi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.2
Summary|[4.5/4.6 Regr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #16 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-12
15:16:17 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 12 15:16:14 2011
New Revision: 179857
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179857
Log:
2011-10-12 Paul Koning
PR tree-optimi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50693
--- Comment #22 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-12
15:19:54 UTC ---
Yeah, maybe we can just throw them away with -O3. Or decay them (on BB
merging) to
# DEBUG user_label:
that exposes the label to more code motion issues, so its location would b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49629
--- Comment #7 from Pat Haugen 2011-10-12
15:19:54 UTC ---
No, I no longer see the failure on PowerPC, for the reduced testcase or the
full benchmark.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49279
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #18 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50703
Bug #: 50703
Summary: std::stringstream not thread-safe
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50703
--- Comment #1 from hoenle2...@kayser-threde.com 2011-10-12 15:36:50 UTC ---
Created attachment 25475
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25475
debugger screenshot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-12 15:37:46 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth 2011-10-12 13:08:48
> UTC ---
> The reghunt is not yet complete, but the bad patch is between r179536 (good)
> and r179566 (bad)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50704
Bug #: 50704
Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/warn-vect-op-1.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50703
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50704
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50239
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50705
Bug #: 50705
Summary: Wrong assembly generated in ppc 476
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50364
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15339
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jyasskin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48372
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48075
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49629
--- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-10-12
16:27:34 UTC ---
For me it works, too. There are no ICEs any more for avr-unknown-none and the
test cases mentioned in comment #0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50705
SK changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://rapidshare.com/file
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-10-12
16:46:23 UTC ---
This doesn't seem to happen with a cross compiler :(
When you say "in stage 2", do you mean the stage 1 compiler is crashing, or the
stage 2 compiler is crashing?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-12 16:53:32 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-10-12
> 16:46:23 UTC ---
> This doesn't seem to happen with a cross compiler :(
Drats. I've run the reghunt natively.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50704
Artem Shinkarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tema at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50698
--- Comment #3 from vincenzo Innocente
2011-10-12 17:00:40 UTC ---
the patch work for me.
Does not seem to break anything else.
thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50704
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-12 17:01:27
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Ah! It happens because the underlying architecture is 32-bit. We should run
> > these tests only on 64-bit architectures to get the c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40825
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50704
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-12 17:00:54
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Ah! It happens because the underlying architecture is 32-bit. We should run
> these tests only on 64-bit architectures to get the correct warnings. So I'll
> add
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50704
--- Comment #5 from Artem Shinkarov 2011-10-12
17:03:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > (In reply to comment #2)
> > > Ah! It happens because the underlying architecture is 32-bit. We should
> > > run
> > > these
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40695
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50706
Bug #: 50706
Summary: Fold check failed (expected tree that contains 'typed'
structure, have 'block' in fold_checksum_tree, at
fold-const.c:13921)
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50706
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2011-10-12 17:10:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 25476
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25476
Small testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50706
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2011-10-12 17:10:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 25477
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25477
Backtrace
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50699
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-12 17:21:37
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Looks like a minor oversight in r179820.
>
> I am testing the following on *-darwin9.
allows bootstrap to complete on *-darwin9 and x86_64-dariwn10.
reg-test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50705
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36812
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35606
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50704
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-12 17:36:05
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
>
> So if I want to run the test only on 64-bit architectures, then lp64 is the
> correct choice in dg-require-effective-target?
>
> Artem.
x32 also has 64bit reg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50695
--- Comment #11 from rickyrockrat 2011-10-12
17:40:25 UTC ---
Richard,
The original issue involved strtof, with -Wall enabled in the Makefile, and
stdlib.h included. That is the case that brought all this up, and that is the
case where it prints
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50704
--- Comment #7 from Artem Shinkarov 2011-10-12
17:45:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> >
> > So if I want to run the test only on 64-bit architectures, then lp64 is the
> > correct choice in dg-require-effective-ta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50704
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-12 17:58:19
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
>
> I need to make sure that UNITS_PER_WORD is 8 on the architecture I am running
> the test. Is it the case for x32?
>
Yes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #23 from Eric Botcazou 2011-10-12
18:04:00 UTC ---
It turns out that Tom's patch is innocent, you can reproduce the problem at the
preceding revision if you compiled at -O1 instead of -O2.
This appears to be a problem in the signal u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49967
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey 2011-10-12 18:07:29
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Wed Oct 12 18:07:25 2011
New Revision: 179862
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179862
Log:
2011-10-12 Steve Ellcey
PR target/49967
Ba
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49967
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50350
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at cup dot hp.com
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594
--- Comment #23 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-12 18:41:03 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Oct 12 18:40:58 2011
New Revision: 179863
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179863
Log:
2011-10-12 Paolo Carlini
PR c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50659
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-12 18:53:59 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Oct 12 18:53:55 2011
New Revision: 179864
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179864
Log:
2011-10-12 Janus Weil
PR fortran/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50350
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose 2011-10-12
19:16:01 UTC ---
I'll check, however I don't see the fix for 50326 applied to the 4.6 branch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26654
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27100
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27100
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50684
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-12 19:52:57 UTC ---
Some carryover form PR50570, where I proposed a draft patch:
Index: gcc/fortran/check.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #24 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-12 19:57:15
UTC ---
reproducible (using gdb 7.1) on darwin9 @ m64 (m32 is OK on D9 and D10) -
- so where are we looking for a problem- in the m64 libgcc_s unwinder - or in
the ada handers? .. or in libSys
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49740
--- Comment #5 from Douglas Mencken 2011-10-12
20:03:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Yep, it's still broken (gcc-4.7-20111008).
Configure line:
./gcc-v4.7-20111008.sourcedir/configure --prefix=/usr --sysconfdir=/etc
--mandir=/usr/share/man
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo