http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17729
--- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe 2012-01-23 14:08:21
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Hi Iain, I'm not 100% sure to understand: did your patch in Comment #16 pass
> the testsuite? Did you get around to submit it?
The problem I was referring t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
Chris Jefferson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chris at bubblescope dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25973
--- Comment #17 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-23 14:04:07 UTC ---
> I tested an earlier version of this patch without any problems, I just need to
> retest and submit.
Submitted patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg01071.htm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51966
Bug #: 51966
Summary: internal compiler error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51957
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
--- Comment #1 from Aliaksandr Valialkin 2012-01-23
13:51:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 26427
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26427
Testcase for determining redundant move constructions in stl_heap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
Bug #: 51965
Summary: Redundant move constructions in heap algorithms
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25973
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|paolo.carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51964
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-23 13:43:33 UTC ---
I have a still rather vague idea that we might value number the uses rather
than the defs: assign the same number to uses which use a value in the same
way. I don't know how t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17729
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #19 from Paolo Carlini 2012
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51964
Bug #: 51964
Summary: Missed tail merging opportunity
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51642
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-23
13:07:17 UTC ---
No idea what fixed it, so I don't know - I don't even know where it segfaults.
I suspect the change to make -fuse-linker-plugin the default maybe had an
effect?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab 2012-01-23 13:05:35
UTC ---
After r183426 this is now dormant on the 4.6 branch again.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51011
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51938
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse 2012-01-23
12:51:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I suspect also worthwhile for integral types. Note that for real types
> you need -ffinite-math-only - I bet the clang result is wrong for NaNs.
I hadn't tho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51941
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-23
12:51:06 UTC ---
> > Could some Darwin savvy people confirm that the fix works for them?
>
> As a fix for the test-case this works for me (and, logically, there is no
> reason to exclude darwin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc*-*-*|powerpc*-*-* arm-none-eabi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51934
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Greta.Yorsh at arm dot com
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51963
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51963
Bug #: 51963
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr51344.C
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51959
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-23
12:26:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 26425
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26425
autoreduced testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51895
--- Comment #17 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-23
11:59:57 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 23 11:59:53 2012
New Revision: 183429
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183429
Log:
2012-01-23 Richard Guenther
PR tree-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51642
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51941
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe 2012-01-23 11:46:19
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Created attachment 26424 [details]
> Candidate fix for the bug
>
> This candidate fix works for me on both x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu and
> x86_64-apple-darwin1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51948
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.3
Summary|[OOP] Rejects va
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51962
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-23
11:33:39 UTC ---
It was very easy to find using valgrind, or a static analysis tool.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51960
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51962
--- Comment #3 from Mario Achkar 2012-01-23
11:27:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> You do not initialise found1. Set that to false and your problem probably
> goes
> away.
Thanks for the fast reply.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51962
Mario Achkar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51950
--- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-01-23 11:22:36 UTC ---
GDB command for the PASS/FAIL output:
gdb -nx a.out -ex 'b 6' -ex r -ex 'ptype F'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51941
--- Comment #2 from Dodji Seketeli 2012-01-23
11:22:46 UTC ---
Created attachment 26424
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26424
Candidate fix for the bug
This candidate fix works for me on both x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu and
x86_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51962
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51941
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51962
Bug #: 51962
Summary: Compiling with -O3 and using the same input produces a
different result
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51949
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-23
10:53:01 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 23 10:52:57 2012
New Revision: 183424
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183424
Log:
2012-01-23 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51961
Bug #: 51961
Summary: [OOP] ALLOCATE with MOLD= rejects if source-expr has
a different rank
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51949
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51957
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-23
10:51:39 UTC ---
To reject just .toc related SYMBOL_REFs, guess we'd need to set
#define SYMBOL_FLAG_TOC_SECTION (1 << SYMBOL_FLAG_MACH_DEP_SHIFT)
or so flag on the symbol refs when creating them and t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51955
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-23
10:50:52 UTC ---
void _start() {
main();
}
isn't properly aligning the stack for the ABI GCC assumes. Simply drop it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51957
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-23
10:48:05 UTC ---
The problem is that during var-tracking adjust_insn doesn't
avoid_constant_pool_reference because we have:
(debug_insn 116 33 34 5 (var_location:DI D#3 (reg:DI 2 2)) -1
(nil))
...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51910
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51950
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.3
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51949
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-23
10:42:04 UTC ---
We do not honor cur_node->local.can_change_signature, and that does not
take into account return value removal. I have a smallish workaround.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51949
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51960
Bug #: 51960
Summary: Missing move-assignment operator in
raw_storage_iterator
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51939
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29333
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-23
10:25:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > This is the patch which I am testing:
>
> I Have a slightly different one since we should do a few more things before
> the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51938
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51916
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-01-23 10:21:38 UTC ---
> Yes. Can you please post it to gcc-patches@ and commit it? It's preapproved
> as obviously correct. Thx.
A patch has already been submitted by Patrick Marlier at
http://g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51959
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51916
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-23
10:11:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > (In reply to comment #7)
>
>
> > ... so this is a build/config issue - or, alternatively, the segment name
> > can
> > be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51959
Bug #: 51959
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE in set_mem_alias_set, at
emit-rtl.c:1884
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51926
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50325
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #39 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51958
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51933
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51933
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-23
09:25:55 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jan 23 09:25:52 2012
New Revision: 183416
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183416
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/51933
* ree.c (transfor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51956
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51893
--- Comment #8 from Aurelien Buhrig
2012-01-23 08:27:22 UTC ---
It seems the problem occurs with big endian targets when value is at least 4
times bigger than a word.
Example:
bitsize=40, value = reg:DI sub words-->HI. So wordnum = 3.
The for lo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51940
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
101 - 160 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
