http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52041
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31 08:06:38
UTC ---
x86-64-darwin10 @ r183725 bootstrapped with comment #17 #18 applied (and
fails repeatably without).
testing under way - do you want any more/different
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52063
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52062
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52063
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52012
--- Comment #7 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com 2012-01-31 08:23:18 UTC ---
Dear Tobias,
Thanks for fixing the more pressing issue.
(I think the other issue - second item in comment 4 - is not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52042
Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52039
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
08:41:52 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 31 08:41:46 2012
New Revision: 183751
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183751
Log:
PR bootstrap/52041
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52041
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
08:41:53 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 31 08:41:46 2012
New Revision: 183751
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183751
Log:
PR bootstrap/52041
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51974
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
08:41:53 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 31 08:41:46 2012
New Revision: 183751
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183751
Log:
PR bootstrap/52041
Ok, here is a variant treating stack-alignment for closure.
ChangeLog
2012-01-31 Kai Tietz kti...@redhat.com
* src/prep_cif.c (ffi_prep_cif): Allow for X86_WIN32
also FFI_THISCALL.
* src/x86/ffi.c (ffi_closure_THISCALL): Add prototype.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51528
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
09:46:36 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 31 09:46:29 2012
New Revision: 183752
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183752
Log:
2012-01-31 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51500
--- Comment #17 from ktietz70 at googlemail dot com 2012-01-31 09:47:08 UTC ---
Ok, here is a variant treating stack-alignment for closure.
ChangeLog
2012-01-31 Kai Tietz kti...@redhat.com
* src/prep_cif.c (ffi_prep_cif): Allow for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52041
--- Comment #21 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
09:53:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
Created attachment 26522 [details]
X450
And ipa-prop doesn't seem to initialize ao.volatile_p. I think it is a bad
idea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51974
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
10:06:57 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 31 10:06:50 2012
New Revision: 183753
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183753
Log:
PR bootstrap/52041
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52041
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52039
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
10:06:56 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 31 10:06:50 2012
New Revision: 183753
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183753
Log:
PR bootstrap/52041
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52039
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51974
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52041
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
10:06:55 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 31 10:06:50 2012
New Revision: 183753
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183753
Log:
PR bootstrap/52041
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51528
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52062
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52058
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50176
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.0 |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52057
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52056
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52055
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50176
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #31 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
11:23:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #30)
it outputs 22
and it returns 0 with _XOPEN_SOURCE defined?
which appears to be...
The pthread_mutex_lock() and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52059
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
11:35:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
It works if one undoes the change to trans-expr.c, i.e. [...]
Completely untested patch (neither compiled nor tested in gdb):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
--- Comment #28 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31 11:40:21
UTC ---
Author: ro
Date: Tue Jan 31 11:40:17 2012
New Revision: 183754
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183754
Log:
Link C++ tests with -shared-libgcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51822
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52065
Bug #: 52065
Summary: template function of template class s;e
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52064
Bug #: 52064
Summary: template function of template class s;e
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52012
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31 12:30:38
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Tue Jan 31 12:30:32 2012
New Revision: 183757
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183757
Log:
2012-01-31 Paul Thomas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52012
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6/4.7 Regression]|Wrong-code with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52012
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52065
Keean Schupke ke...@fry-it.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ke...@fry-it.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52064
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52065
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
12:51:25 UTC ---
*** Bug 52064 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52065
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
12:55:53 UTC ---
template typename T2 friend void f(AT, T2);
would be a partial specialization of f which is not allowed. I don't think
it is possible to do what you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52066
Bug #: 52066
Summary: IRA and reginfo initialization too expensive
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52065
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52066
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
13:09:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 26531
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26531
patch
Patch to inline them. Quite ugly, but I can't use extern inline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49581
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51771
--- Comment #3 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31 13:20:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 26532
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26532
test for false returns-twice warning
Attached a test that triggers a false warning due to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51771
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52066
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
13:21:23 UTC ---
PR0?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40963
--- Comment #6 from Lars Pastewka pastewka at gmail dot com 2012-01-31
13:24:27 UTC ---
A simple workaround for this bug seems to be:
cptr = c_loc(obj1%array(1,1))
in the above example. It compiles and appears to be doing what it should.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52054
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
13:26:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 26533
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26533
patch
Prototype patch. Passes bootstrap but testing shows some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52037
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-01-31 13:34:13
UTC ---
BTW I've been using the following patch since August last year:
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-inline-transform.c b/gcc/ipa-inline-transform.c
index 75b8e9d..530fca3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52042
Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin11 |*-apple-darwin*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51998
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
13:56:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 26534
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26534
Patch in testing
Hi,
I am testing the attached patch. It also plugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
14:02:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
It looks like IVOPTs fails to consider a candidate for the use inquestion
and thus, after choosing the final IV set ends up
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52012
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Wrong-code with realloc on |[4.6/4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52067
Bug #: 52067
Summary: force sibling call optimization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48600
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
14:15:27 UTC ---
Sorry, missed this bug (and for really long file as I see now). It is
originally Zdenek's code. Will check it now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52068
Bug #: 52068
Summary: libc++98.a and libc++11.a are installed
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52067
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
14:23:50 UTC ---
I suppose you would want to annotate a specific call, not necessarily _all_
calls to loop (those from main).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48600
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
14:31:56 UTC ---
I am testing the attached patch
Index: predict.c
===
--- predict.c (revision 183666)
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51998
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
14:50:56 UTC ---
I guess in varpool.c you shouldn't talk about function in the message.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52066
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
14:54:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 26535
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26535
i386 patch
Incremental patch to speed up i386 *CLASS_P macros. I agree it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #32 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-01-31
14:56:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #31)
FYI, the example code for pthread_mutex_trylock at...
http://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/images/0201633922/sourcecode/trylock.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52069
Bug #: 52069
Summary: ARM: initialization of static member in template
struct
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52069
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Betker thomas.bet...@rohde-schwarz.com 2012-01-31
15:07:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 26536
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26536
bug test source files
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #33 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
15:27:47 UTC ---
Unsurprising. That code only statically-allocates a mutex, doesn't use C++
non-static data member initializers and doesn't use a recursive mutex (from the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52069
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
15:47:40 UTC ---
The program is ill-formed:
If a template, a member template or a member of a class template is explicitly
specialized then that specialization shall be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52069
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
15:50:57 UTC ---
Oops ... that should say explicitly specialized and explicit specialization
instead of explicitly instantiated and explicit instantiation
Sorry for any
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52018
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51522
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51786
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52069
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52058
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
16:08:56 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 31 16:08:47 2012
New Revision: 183763
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183763
Log:
PR bootstrap/52058
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52043
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52058
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52069
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Betker thomas.bet...@rohde-schwarz.com 2012-01-31
16:25:02 UTC ---
Okay, got it; thanks a lot for the ultra-quick reply!
Wouldn't a diagnostic message be helpful here even if it is not required by the
standard? After
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52069
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
16:34:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Okay, got it; thanks a lot for the ultra-quick reply!
Wouldn't a diagnostic message be helpful here even if it is not required by
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52069
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
16:38:47 UTC ---
Or perhaps, because nothing in tmpl.cpp referes to the constant, it is not
emitted in libtmpl.so at all when optimisation is enabled.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52067
--- Comment #2 from trashyankes at wp dot pl 2012-01-31 17:04:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I suppose you would want to annotate a specific call, not necessarily _all_
calls to loop (those from main).
Im interested in calls from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52055
--- Comment #2 from Josh Haberman jhaberman at gmail dot com 2012-01-31
17:23:51 UTC ---
Is there any requirement that you trap if the 64-bit read would have trapped?
Aren't unaligned reads undefined behavior that only happen to work on x86-64?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52043
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
17:41:32 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jan 31 17:41:24 2012
New Revision: 183768
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183768
Log:
PR c++/52043
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52043
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52042
--- Comment #5 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-01-31
17:54:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
on i686-darwin9:
make check-target-libitm
RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board=unix/-fpie\{-m32,-m64\}
clone-1 fails (m32, m64),
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51874
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-01-31 18:27:32 UTC ---
I've still to closer investigate why this happens. I suspect that this
is also the cause of the IRIX failures (a libgo build
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52055
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52013
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
18:36:45 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Jan 31 18:36:40 2012
New Revision: 183769
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183769
Log:
2012-01-31 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52029
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
18:38:49 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Jan 31 18:38:43 2012
New Revision: 183770
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183770
Log:
2012-01-31 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52024
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
18:41:57 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Jan 31 18:41:47 2012
New Revision: 183771
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=183771
Log:
2012-01-31 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52029
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52013
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52024
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
--- Comment #29 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31
19:09:00 UTC ---
(N.B. that ChangeLog entry cited the wrong PR)
The wording quoted in comment 25 is a POSIX defect:
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=70#c127
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52024
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52070
Bug #: 52070
Summary: missing integer comparison optimization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52071
Bug #: 52071
Summary: Constructor invocation confused
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52072
Bug #: 52072
Summary: Several non-deduced context not recognized
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52071
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52009
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-31 21:08:34 UTC ---
submitted patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg01731.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52009
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
/gcc-r183767-install
--program-prefix=r183767- --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20120131 (experimental) (GCC)
[regehr@gamow tmp]$ current-gcc -Ofast small.c
small.c: In function 'fn8':
small.c:28:1: internal compiler error: vector VEC(vec_void_p,base) index domain
1 - 100 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
