http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51903
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51903
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51832
--- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill 2012-01-19
15:16:04 UTC ---
I still can't reproduce this, either on my Fedora 14 i686 laptop or on gcc20.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
--- Comment #19 from Michael Matz 2012-01-19 15:10:43
UTC ---
The var-expansion slowness is fixed again. The rest of course still applies.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
--- Comment #18 from Michael Matz 2012-01-19 15:06:14
UTC ---
Author: matz
Date: Thu Jan 19 15:06:04 2012
New Revision: 183305
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183305
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46590
* cfgexpand.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51900
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6 Regression] const |[4.6/4.7 Regression] const
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51889
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51904
Bug #: 51904
Summary: Internal Compiler Error on size function evaluation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51903
Bug #: 51903
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: in
gimple_purge_all_dead_eh_edges, at tree-cfg.c:7196
with -fnon-call-exceptions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51900
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51889
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2012-01-19
14:58:32 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jan 19 14:58:28 2012
New Revision: 183304
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183304
Log:
PR c++/51889
* class.c (finish_struct): Cal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51900
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Starke
2012-01-19 14:51:33 UTC ---
Compiling it with
gcc -static -fcommon -o main.o -c main.c
gcc -static -fcommon -o a.o -c a.c
gcc -static -o main.exe main.o a.o
results in
$ ./main
myVar[0] = 5
myVar[1] = 6
myVar[2]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51902
Bug #: 51902
Summary: lexical_blocks inside inlined_subroutines generate
duplicate debug_ranges
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51856
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Krebbel 2012-01-19
14:38:46 UTC ---
Created attachment 26379
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26379
Fix
I've introduced that bug with:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg01527.html
So it'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51871
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-01-19 14:34:56 UTC ---
On 1/19/2012 7:55 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> So, you are not sure this is a regression?
Yes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51698
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51698
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51280
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51280
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-01-19
13:57:12 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Thu Jan 19 13:57:04 2012
New Revision: 183303
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183303
Log:
PR lto/51280
* lto-wrapper.c (run_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51895
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-19
13:55:31 UTC ---
Peter's patch does as well. The thing is that we still do wrong expand_expr on
that kind of MEM_EXPR, and I don't see anything that would prevent such
MEM_EXPRs in all kinds of other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25733
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aravindvijayan224185 at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51894
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51344
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51659
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51899
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-19
13:32:06 UTC ---
Created attachment 26378
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26378
Draft patch, tested on x86-64-linux but not (yet) on MinGW
(In reply to comment #1)
> Which target e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50200
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka 2012-01-19 13:26:32
UTC ---
Testcase from comment #2 still ICEs in r183298, the fix for PR51505 didn't help
here.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51895
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-19
13:17:25 UTC ---
For example (untested, and probably completely bogus):
Index: expr.c
===
--- expr.c (revision 183296)
+++ expr.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51895
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51876
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-19
13:05:13 UTC ---
I did, but I'm waiting for testing results from Ramana.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51899
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |libfortran
--- Comment #1 from Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51895
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenthe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51856
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-19
12:59:44 UTC ---
Why P4? This is a secondary target, failure to build mysql.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51889
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51570
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-19
12:56:53 UTC ---
Then it would XPASS with latest gdb.
With the gdb 7.4.50.20120103-8.fc17 I'm only seeing lots of guality XPASSes on
x86_64 and no FAILs and on i686 again lots of XPASSes and just a sin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51876
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenthe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51871
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-19
12:55:26 UTC ---
So, you are not sure this is a regression?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51856
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51819
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm |arm-*-*
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51832
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51570
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-19
12:49:40 UTC ---
Any updates here? Should we simply XFAIL the tests?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50557
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #11 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50229
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Severity|major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51901
--- Comment #2 from gee 2012-01-19 12:36:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Why the 4.7 regression tag? Does it work in 4.6? I think the amount of
> libgcj
> changes since 4.6 has been very small...
sorry for 4.7 regression tag. it worked be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51895
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-19
12:33:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 26377
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26377
gcc47-pr51895.patch
Untested patch that attempts to fix BLKmode MEM_REF expansion with
non-DECL_ADDR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49936
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Target Milestone|4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48949
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47249
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenthe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51784
--- Comment #39 from Iain Sandoe 2012-01-19 12:01:32
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #38)
> If the insn pattern is "#", then if no split pass splits it before final,
> during final it will be split anyway. So no idea why you play games with
> !opti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51900
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-19
11:57:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> [...]
> COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-static' '-O2' '-v' '-Q' '-o' 'a.o' '-c' '-mtune=i386'
> '-march=i386'
> [...]
> GNU C (GCC) version 4.6.2 (mingw32)
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51900
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Starke
2012-01-19 11:52:27 UTC ---
[...]
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-static' '-O2' '-v' '-Q' '-o' 'a.o' '-c' '-mtune=i386'
'-march=i386'
[...]
GNU C (GCC) version 4.6.2 (mingw32)
compiled by GNU C version 4.6.2, GMP v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51900
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-01-19
11:34:52 UTC ---
I can reproduce with x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc-4.6.2 on cygwin. Adding 'extern'
to the declaration in the .h file fixes it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51784
--- Comment #38 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-19
11:30:37 UTC ---
If the insn pattern is "#", then if no split pass splits it before final,
during final it will be split anyway. So no idea why you play games with
!optimize vs. optimize.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48496
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51901
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=51901
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51900
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30994
Axel Mueller changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51784
--- Comment #37 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-01-19 11:03:58 UTC ---
Regstrapped with the patch in comment #35. The patch fixes this PR without
regression (down to 2 failures with some pending patches) and the tests for
pr10901 pass with the dif
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50200
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka 2012-01-19 11:03:26
UTC ---
Created attachment 26376
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26376
testcase failing in r183270
Both testcases were reduced from testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr44575.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51901
Bug #: 51901
Summary: [4.7 regression] java.security.Security.getProperty
throws ExceptionInInitializerError
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51845
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51566
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51566
--- Comment #2 from Greta Yorsh 2012-01-19
10:50:09 UTC ---
I did git bisect and it shows that the ICE disappears from r182403.
Looks like the problem has been fixed by this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01247.html
It's a fi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50237
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #37
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48496
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-19
10:48:05 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 19 10:47:59 2012
New Revision: 183301
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183301
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/48496
* src/ia64/ffi.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51893
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51845
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-19
10:46:35 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 19 10:46:31 2012
New Revision: 183300
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183300
Log:
PR libstdc++/51845
* include/bits/hashtabl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50237
--- Comment #36 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-19
10:43:58 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 19 10:43:54 2012
New Revision: 183299
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183299
Log:
PR bootstrap/50237
* config/initfini-array
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51900
Bug #: 51900
Summary: [4.6 Regression] const variable initialization always
zero
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51895
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-19
10:16:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> > bftype = TREE_TYPE (base);
> > if (TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (exp)) != BLKmode)
> > bftype = TREE_TYPE (exp);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51893
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51894
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51895
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51896
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-19
09:43:16 UTC ---
Shorter testcase for gcc.c-torture/compile/ :
int
foo (int x)
{
asm goto ("" : : "i" (x) : : lab);
return 1;
lab:
return 0;
}
Yeah, I think delete_insn_and_edges is the right fi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37997
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-19
09:38:04 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 19 09:37:58 2012
New Revision: 183297
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183297
Log:
2012-01-19 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37997
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37997
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-19
09:35:38 UTC ---
int foo (int i, int b)
{
int mask;
int result;
if (b)
mask = -1;
else
mask = 0;
result = result & mask;
return result;
}
actually works if you do not have resul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51832
--- Comment #13 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-01-19 09:34:07 UTC ---
Created attachment 26375
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26375
libxul link error log
BTW I've first observed this bug while building
a PGO-LTO Firefox. The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45472
--- Comment #18 from Andrey Belevantsev 2012-01-19
09:28:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> By the way I think we could get cases where the user wrote volatile in one
> case
> and non-volatile in another so fixing up the merging is still a g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abel at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51899
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49829
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26373|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49829
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Bonzini 2012-01-19 08:59:02
UTC ---
The convenience library can be linked with -L.../.libs -lsupc++convenience
-lstdc++convenience98.
But it really looks like you attached the wrong patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49829
--- Comment #6 from Benjamin Kosnik 2012-01-19
08:52:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 26373
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26373
libstdc++ binary composed from three convenience libraries
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49829
--- Comment #5 from Benjamin Kosnik 2012-01-19
08:52:04 UTC ---
As per #4, here's the convenience library approach.
With this, libstdc++.so is composed of three convenience libraries:
1. libsupc++convenience.la
2. libstdc++98convenience.la
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51505
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
Summary|[4.5/4.6/4.7 Reg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51899
Bug #: 51899
Summary: [4.7 Regression] libgfortran's chmod.c fails to build
on MinGW
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48426
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51634
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
101 - 193 of 193 matches
Mail list logo
