http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52307
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |critical
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51437
--- Comment #10 from Ruben Van Boxem vanboxem.ruben at gmail dot com
2012-02-19 09:33:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
You really do want to flag both definition and usage. For instance, there's
plenty of buggy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51782
--- Comment #18 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-19
09:31:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
Created attachment 26695 [details]
Untested proposed fix
This untested patch fixes the issue for me on a cross-compiler. It
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52223
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51437
--- Comment #11 from David Krauss potswa at mac dot com 2012-02-19 11:09:28
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #9)
However, note that the standards also reserve various other classes of
names,
such as types ending in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51882
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-02-19
11:17:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
However, the issue is no longer present in the
latest 4.7 snapshot (tested with a custom toolchain based on
gcc-4.7-20120114).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52258
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52258
--- Comment #2 from Aurelien Jarno aurelien at aurel32 dot net 2012-02-19
11:30:36 UTC ---
Created attachment 26700
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26700
Testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52307
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-02-19
12:22:21 UTC ---
PR52307 could be a duplicate.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52307
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52275
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-02-19
12:26:24 UTC ---
PR52307 could be a duplicate.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52307
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-02-19
12:27:18 UTC ---
PR52307 could be a duplicate.
Oops! put in the wrong pr;-(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52307
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-02-19
13:34:13 UTC ---
In spbtrf.f I have put PRINT statements before and after the loops
DO 90 J = 1, NB
DO 80 I = J + 1, NB
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52307
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-02-19
14:19:23 UTC ---
Reduced code
integer :: I, J, NB = 3
real :: WORK(3,3) =1.0
real :: ZERO = 0.0
DO 90 J = 1, NB
DO 80 I = J + 1, NB
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50616
Stefan Reichardt fbi.sr at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fbi.sr at gmx dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52229
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-02-19
14:42:35 UTC ---
A working patch has been submitted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-02/msg00068.html .
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52219
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-02-19
15:20:14 UTC ---
cxg2001 has passed my last tests without failure. What is it supposed to test?
Is it in the same class as Thread_Sleep_2 in libjava or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52219
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-19 15:37:47
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
cxg2001 has passed my last tests without failure.
likewise on all my recent tests on both patched un-patched trees.
I find that the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52219
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51882
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50616
--- Comment #9 from niXman i.nixman at gmail dot com 2012-02-19 16:22:52 UTC
---
lto-plugin/lto-plugin.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/lto-plugin/lto-plugin.c?view=markup
line 363.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52309
Bug #: 52309
Summary: [c++0x] unordered_set illegally requires
value_type::operator!=
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50616
--- Comment #10 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-19 16:31:32
UTC ---
Yes, not all msvcrt versions are supporting %ll width modifier. Modern
versions of it (as 64-bit versions) are supporting it, but older (and still
pretty common
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52309
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52300
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52300
--- Comment #2 from niXman i.nixman at gmail dot com 2012-02-19 17:14:03 UTC
---
Thanks Kai!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52310
Bug #: 52310
Summary: Internal Compiler Error when building lesstif with
-Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50946
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42961
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-02-19
17:43:07 UTC ---
The movss instructions were eliminated on trunk by Vladimir Makarov's patch to
solve recent SPEC2000 degradation in r178019:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51882
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-19
17:48:16 UTC ---
With slightly modified test case (manually inlined apply_aa_coverage()):
BEFORE RELOAD:
(insn 142 133 314 9 (set (subreg:SI (reg:HI 283) 0)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52311
Bug #: 52311
Summary: implicitly_declare_fn: valgrind problem
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52312
Bug #: 52312
Summary: grokfndecl: valgrind problem
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52303
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51437
--- Comment #12 from Josh Triplett josh at joshtriplett dot org 2012-02-19
18:50:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #9)
However, note that the standards also reserve various other classes of
names,
such as types
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51437
--- Comment #13 from Josh Triplett josh at joshtriplett dot org 2012-02-19
18:56:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #9)
(Some of the other reserved identifier categories, such as E[A-Z0-9].*,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52241
--- Comment #16 from Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com 2012-02-19
18:58:41 UTC ---
Jakub, could you please clarify your statement - But libstdc++.so.6's tree.cc
has been compiled with
-fPIC -DPIC before Benjamin's change and is compiled
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38114
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50688
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52241
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-19
19:24:05 UTC ---
libstdc++.so.6 obviously contained -fPIC code before and does now as well, and
people really should be using the shared library (almost) always.
See
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52312
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52312
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52311
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44022
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47844
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52310
--- Comment #1 from Pascal Terjan pterjan at gmail dot com 2012-02-19
20:23:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 26703
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26703
Reduce source code leading to the crash
Here is the minimal code I managed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52310
Pascal Terjan pterjan at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26701|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52310
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51437
--- Comment #14 from Ruben Van Boxem vanboxem.ruben at gmail dot com
2012-02-19 21:51:37 UTC ---
I don't think adding future reserved identifiers serves any purpose. In
general, code is written against a certain version of a language's Standard,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52313
Bug #: 52313
Summary: useless error message for old version of .mod file
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52258
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-02-19
23:32:52 UTC ---
On my Tegra2 machine the testcase does report that FE_INVALID got set when
compiled at -O1 with gcc-4.6 and 4.5, but not when compiled at -O0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42522
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52261
--- Comment #3 from Stefan Reichardt fbi.sr at gmx dot de 2012-02-20 02:01:30
UTC ---
Could you add support for the few new devices with USB Support aswell? example
Xmega32A4U.
For the moment, i am using your code with xmega128a1 and i see no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52314
Bug #: 52314
Summary: gimplifier produces volatile
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52314
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52241
--- Comment #18 from Vladimir Yakovlev vbyakovl23 at gmail dot com 2012-02-20
05:37:32 UTC ---
I tested Paolo's patch and got acceleration on 447.dial
base: +7.36%
peak: +5.97%
Also I looked dumps: the new routine
55 matches
Mail list logo