http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50764
--- Comment #10 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-30 07:39:36 UTC ---
Tentative patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg02767.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50917
Bug #: 50917
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Mozilla build fails because of C++11
user-defined literals
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50878
--- Comment #9 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-30 08:21:52 UTC ---
Posted fix: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg02782.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50918
Bug #: 50918
Summary: Unoptimal code for vec-shift by scalar for integer
(byte, short, long long) operands
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50917
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50916
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50915
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50912
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50911
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50908
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50917
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50908
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-30
09:40:38 UTC ---
I don't see why RTL invariant motion should move the one variant but not
the other. Of course this also shows that we should, after loop unrolling
on the tree level, also perform l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #3 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50902
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50919
Bug #: 50919
Summary: [OOP] Don't use vtable for NON_OVERRIDABLE TBP
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50881
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50881
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50917
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-10-30 10:20:42 UTC ---
Another example (happened later in Mozilla build, after putting
a space between "libxul"MOZ_DLL_SUFFIX):
struct SECMODModule *nssMod = SECMOD_CreateModule(__null,
"NSS Internal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50916
Aurelien Jarno changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aurelien at aurel32 dot net
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50848
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-30
10:30:35 UTC ---
With -fpermissive ICEs for me, however:
50848.C: In member function ‘void B::f()’:
50848.C:2:53: warning: there are no arguments to ‘u’ that depend on a template
parameter, so a decla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50875
--- Comment #9 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-30 10:30:11 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Sun Oct 30 10:30:06 2011
New Revision: 180676
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180676
Log:
PR target/50875
* config/i386/sse.md
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50916
Arkadiusz Miskiewicz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ar...@pld-linux.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50916
Pawel Sikora changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pluto at agmk dot net
--- Comment #4 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43328
Alexandre Pereira Nunes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alexandre.nunes at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-10-30
11:24:57 UTC ---
> It would be nice if somebody could reduce this to a more managable testcase.
I have posted a reduced test in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34265#c34 (pr34265).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-10-30
11:34:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 25666
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25666
Further reduced test for induct.f90
The reduced test contains a single et of nested loops in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50875
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46328
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50917
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-10-30 12:22:30 UTC ---
The problem in comment 2 is fixed by:
replacing:
#define SECMOD_MAKE_NSS_FLAGS(fips,slot) \
"Flags=internal,critical"fips" slotparams=("#slot"={"SECMOD_SLOT_FLAGS"})"
with:
#def
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50920
Bug #: 50920
Summary: add a -std=c++11 option to the driver
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50749
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo 2011-10-30 12:36:51 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #4)
>
> I'm a bit curious to see what happens if they are changed
> to non-zero for SI/DImode.
..not much actually. I've tried defining both as TARGET_SH1 and compar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50823
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-10-30
12:41:34 UTC ---
I get the same ICE when compiling the polyhedron test aermod.f90:
[macbook] lin/test% gfc aermod.f90 -O3 --param max-inline-insns-auto=198
aermod.f90:39103:0: internal compiler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50694
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo 2011-10-30 12:45:30 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
>
> This problem doesn't require the theoretical/mathematical
> completeness. There are many inappropriate combinations
> of options w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50921
Bug #: 50921
Summary: GCC cannot find dependent conversion-function-id even
if there's a using declaration for it
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50749
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo 2011-10-30 13:53:51 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> GCC makes usual mem accesses into those with post_inc/pre_dec at
> auto_inc_dec pass. I guess that auto_inc_dec pass can't find
> post_inc insns well in that ca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50921
--- Comment #1 from Johannes Schaub
2011-10-30 13:54:21 UTC ---
Someone notified me that you can substantially reduce this to the following
template
struct Base {
operator int();
};
template
struct Derived : Base {
using Base::operator int;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50602
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50913
--- Comment #2 from Ruben Van Boxem
2011-10-30 15:20:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> What was the ICE?
Sorry about that:
/home/ruben/mingw-w64/toolchain/src/gcc/libgfortran/generated/spread_i1.c: In
function 'spread_i1':
/home/ruben/mingw-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50922
Bug #: 50922
Summary: infinite loop when optimized
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50602
--- Comment #9 from Andi Kleen 2011-10-30
15:53:10 UTC ---
Sorry made a mistake and i supplied the wrong command line
With this
gcc47 -O2 -m32-freg-struct-return io_apic.i -flto -c
gcc47 -O2 -flto io_apic.o
the test case ICEs hwith any pat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49934
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49677
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50922
xunxun changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xunxun1982 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50922
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-10-30
17:03:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> int main(void)
> {
> long x=0;
> unsigned long c;
> for(c=0;c<2147483648UL;c++)
>{
> lcdSendData(x++);
> }
You're causing a signed over
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50598
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50923
Bug #: 50923
Summary: [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] No warning if function
return value is not set
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50924
Bug #: 50924
Summary: Attempt to allocate negative amount of memory.
Possible integer overflow
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50924
fwi at inducks dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fwi at inducks dot org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50924
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50925
Bug #: 50925
Summary: avr ICE at spill_failure, at reload1.c:2118
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50922
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50925
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill 2011-10-30 19:42:50
UTC ---
gcc (GCC) 4.7.0 20111029 (experimental)
Newlib up to date at same time
Cut and pasted from log with multiple jobs in parallel. The actual command
line for hash.c was.
/home2/joel/b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50925
--- Comment #2 from Joel Sherrill 2011-10-30 19:43:24
UTC ---
Created attachment 25667
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25667
Preprocessed output
Preprocessed code.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50802
--- Comment #5 from John David Anglin 2011-10-30
19:59:27 UTC ---
Created attachment 25668
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25668
vrp dumps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50926
Bug #: 50926
Summary: Output to 'fort.6" file instead of console
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50708
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-10-30
20:35:03 UTC ---
The regression started with r158372:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-04/msg00478.html
Here's what seems to have happened:
1. Anatoly Sokolov suggested to add a bunch of double_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26567
Serge Belyshev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50926
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50927
Bug #: 50927
Summary: lm32 ICE seg fauit compiling libgcc2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50927
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill 2011-10-30 21:02:27
UTC ---
Created attachment 25669
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25669
Preprocessed source code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50928
Bug #: 50928
Summary: ICE building RTEMS
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50928
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill 2011-10-30 21:09:56
UTC ---
Created attachment 25670
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25670
Preprocessed source code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50924
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50923
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50573
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-30 21:59:27 UTC ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Oct 30 21:59:24 2011
New Revision: 180686
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180686
Log:
2011-10-30 Steven G. Kargl
PR fort
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50753
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50573
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50753
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-30 22:09:50 UTC ---
Dang. I transposed numbers in the PR in the ChangeLog. Here's
the commit message with the correct PR number.
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Oct 30 21:59:24 2011
New Revision: 1806
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39351
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50749
--- Comment #7 from Kazumoto Kojima 2011-10-30
23:36:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I wonder whether there might be something in the target code that suggests the
> early optimizers to do that? I've tried playing with the TARGET_ADDRESS_C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50878
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-linux-gnueabi |arm-linux-gnueabi
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46328
--- Comment #4 from Damian Rouson 2011-10-31
02:06:36 UTC ---
Thanks for the update. The same error occurs when a defined assignment is
added:
$ cat abstract_field_expression.F90
module field_module
implicit none
type ,abstract :: field
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49682
Matt Turner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50888
--- Comment #4 from Christian Joensson
2011-10-31 05:29:38 UTC ---
Recent bootstrap/build on i686/linux
libtool: link: /usr/local/src/trunk/objdir/./gcc/gcj
-B/usr/local/src/trunk/objdir/i686-redhat-linux/libjava/
-B/usr/local/src/trunk/objdir/.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50929
Bug #: 50929
Summary: [C++0x] Wrong function selected for overload with
template and rvalue reference
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
76 matches
Mail list logo