http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50977
--- Comment #3 from razya at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-06 08:35:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Without a small self-contained reproducer hard to do anything about it.
I know. Itried, but did not manage to create one.
Due to the non determinis
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50997
Bug #: 50997
Summary: ARM: No warnings for unreachable code for ARM cross
compiler
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50997
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
Hi all,
I'm currently looking into an gmp issue.
A few gmp tests fail.
make check-TESTS
make[4]: Entering directory `/usr/src/packages/BUILD/gmp-5.0.2/tests/cxx'
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::invalid_argument'
terminate called recursively
/bin/sh: line 5: 333 Aborted
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37798
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |ro at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37030
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36431
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43503
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50991
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Bonzini 2011-11-06 12:02:43
UTC ---
Yes, please commit the fix!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35688
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50998
Bug #: 50998
Summary: ICE partial specialization error at cp/pt.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50998
--- Comment #1 from fate66260 at gmail dot com 2011-11-06 12:34:32 UTC ---
correct
template < class... Types >
struct variant
{
// implements...
};
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45233
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe 2011-11-06 12:36:23
UTC ---
Trying to simplify this, the following is enough to trigger the behavior:
extern int w;
void
foo (void)
{
int e2 = w;
__asm__ volatile ("/* %0 */" : : "ro" (e2));
}
==
(1) the co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50998
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45233
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-06
12:46:43 UTC ---
Well, I guess the testcase is simply invalid for MachO, or the way MachO
does this UNSPEC stuff is broken (not properly checked during legitimization)
or not properly restoring the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45233
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe 2011-11-06 13:00:18
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Thanks..
> Well, I guess the testcase is simply invalid for MachO,
well it works for -O0 (and for x86 darwin) ... so let's assume that MachO can
do it ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47695
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35688
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2011-11-06
13:20:22 UTC ---
Ah, need to use constrain_visibility_for_template for function templates as
well as class templates.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35688
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2011-11-06
13:21:35 UTC ---
No, I was misreading the code, it should already deal with function templates.
Hi,
Bugs should be reported to Bugzilla, not the mailing list, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs
Requests for help using GCC should be sent to the gcc-help mailing
list, see http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50999
Bug #: 50999
Summary: [4.7 Regression]: g++.dg/lto/20081109 execute -O2
-flto -flto-partition=1to1 -fno-use-linker-plugin
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50640
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2011-10-15 00:00:00 |2011-11-06 0:00
--- Comment #10 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50999
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50640
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50640
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-11-06 17:20:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> It seemed there was work in progress last I looked.
> If not, it should be xfailed.
Please don't.
(In reply to comment #11)
> Wouldn't standard pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50640
--- Comment #13 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-11-06
17:47:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> second
> I would prefer to see the bug fixed
Certainly.
> rather than hidden by any of the above.
It wouldn't be hidden by xfailing it, as the xfai
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50640
--- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-06 18:16:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> > Wouldn't standard procedure be to revert the offending patch?
>
> Well, first, I am not sure that the "offending patch" is identified yet
Acco
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48508
Joshua Conner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||josh.m.conner at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50640
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-11-06 19:20:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> According to comment 0 and comment 8, it should be between 179600 and 179611.
> I
> have to admit that I don't see any obvious candidate at first s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50991
--- Comment #10 from John David Anglin 2011-11-06
19:24:22 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sun Nov 6 19:24:19 2011
New Revision: 181039
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181039
Log:
PR other/50991
* Makefile.in: Make E
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50991
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51000
Bug #: 51000
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: in vect_get_store_cost, at
tree-vect-stmts.c:923 on powerpc-apple-darwin9
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50640
--- Comment #16 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-06
19:42:22 UTC ---
Created attachment 25730
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25730
Possible patch which pushes the vtab to the toplevel
Based on Michael's suggestion (comment 4), thi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50640
--- Comment #17 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-11-06
20:02:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> From comment #3 I infered that the usual suspect is r179618. Hans-Peter are
> you
> sure about you range in comment #8?
You're right, my mistake, so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35688
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20296
Wim Lewis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wiml at dot org
--- Comment #2 from Wim
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51001
Bug #: 51001
Summary: redundant address re-computations on ARM
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51001
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||armv5tel-linux-gnueabi
Known to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47695
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-06 21:05:47 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sun Nov 6 21:05:44 2011
New Revision: 181042
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181042
Log:
2011-11-06 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51002
Bug #: 51002
Summary: SP_H register is used even on targets that do not have
it (eg attiny26)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47695
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50964
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35688
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jason at gcc dot gnu.org|vincenzo.innocente at cern
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42129
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||froydnj at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40355
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34983
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2011-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29028
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51003
Bug #: 51003
Summary: bfin ICE compiling libgcc in gen_const_vector, at
emit-rtl.c:5476
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51003
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||bfin-rtems4.11
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42129
Nathan Froyd changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38534
Julian Stecklina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||js at alien8 dot de
--- Comment #3 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42129
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-11-07
00:19:45 UTC ---
Nathan, if you can take care of this issue, it would be great. Feel free to
assign it to yourself.
Note, I didn't write any code, draft patch is submitter's.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50904
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou 2011-11-07
00:32:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 25731
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25731
Tentative fix
This enhances RTL PRE. You need an up-to-date tree to apply it.
The other approache
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50802
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30282
--- Comment #18 from Alan Modra 2011-11-07 01:14:37
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Mon Nov 7 01:14:33 2011
New Revision: 181056
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181056
Log:
PR target/30282
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30282
--- Comment #19 from Alan Modra 2011-11-07 01:15:13
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Mon Nov 7 01:15:08 2011
New Revision: 181057
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181057
Log:
PR target/30282
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30282
--- Comment #20 from Alan Modra 2011-11-07 01:15:42
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Mon Nov 7 01:15:35 2011
New Revision: 181058
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181058
Log:
PR target/30282
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30282
--- Comment #21 from Alan Modra 2011-11-07 01:16:06
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Mon Nov 7 01:16:01 2011
New Revision: 181059
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181059
Log:
PR target/30282
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30282
--- Comment #22 from Alan Modra 2011-11-07 01:39:11
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Mon Nov 7 01:39:08 2011
New Revision: 181060
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181060
Log:
PR target/30282
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30282
--- Comment #23 from Alan Modra 2011-11-07 01:39:24
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Mon Nov 7 01:39:22 2011
New Revision: 181061
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181061
Log:
PR target/30282
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30282
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35688
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2011-11-07
04:40:25 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Nov 7 04:40:14 2011
New Revision: 181069
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181069
Log:
PR c++/35688
gcc/c-common/
* c-common.c (de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51000
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50997
--- Comment #2 from Fredrik Hederstierna
2011-11-07 07:33:19 UTC ---
Ok, I didn't know that checks for unreachable-code was removed.
Though I would like to know about the background/discussion behind this
decision - do anyone have a link or refe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50982
--- Comment #40 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-11-07
07:34:05 UTC ---
I've tracked this behaviour down to cp_parser_parameter_declaration_clause in
cp/parser.c which has a special case for
else if (token->type == CPP_CLOSE_PAREN)
/* There are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50960
--- Comment #19 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-07
07:35:24 UTC ---
See also PR 50640 comment 16 and the patch in attachment 25730
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50982
--- Comment #41 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-11-07
07:54:12 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Nov 7 07:54:06 2011
New Revision: 181072
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=181072
Log:
PR libstdc++/50982
* include/std/mutex (_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50982
--- Comment #42 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-11-07
07:55:36 UTC ---
This should be fixed now, could you test again? Thanks
68 matches
Mail list logo