http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52445
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Summa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42118
xunxun changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xunxun1982 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52433
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52445
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.4.5
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52445
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52445
Bug #: 52445
Summary: conditional store replacement causes segfault in
generated code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52417
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva 2012-03-01
03:29:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 26796
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26796
Patch that seems to cure the problem
I'm not very happy about this patch, but... It's what I got
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52417
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52444
Bug #: 52444
Summary: gcc.dg/tree-prof/pr44777.c execution,
-fprofile-generate -D_PROFILE_GENERATE fails at -m32
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52439
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52387
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle 2012-03-01
01:48:23 UTC ---
Are all the cards played here yet? I assume we won't waste time implementing
any changes until the requirements are clearly understood. Please ping me when
that point is reached. Th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52268
--- Comment #5 from Jack Howarth 2012-03-01
01:29:13 UTC ---
The test/MC/MachO/tls.s from llvm svn also may have some useful hints on the
expected assembly for tis on darwin11 and later.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52268
--- Comment #4 from Jack Howarth 2012-03-01
01:27:54 UTC ---
Created attachment 26795
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26795
test/MC/MachO/tls.s from llvm svn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52442
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-01
00:29:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Here is my shoot, feel free to criticise.
It's formatted bizarrely and hurts my eyes ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51785
--- Comment #19 from Benjamin Kosnik 2012-03-01
00:21:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 26794
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26794
gets conditionally declared/used
Here's a way to deal with gets that is pretty simple. If it's a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52437
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52437
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-29
23:45:14 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 29 23:45:08 2012
New Revision: 184676
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184676
Log:
PR target/52437
* config/i386/sse.md (vec_s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52191
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52442
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Yeleighton
2012-02-29 23:25:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> You're right, it can't be used like that, but it's not meant to be.
>
> By design temporary_buffer is not copyable, so it's not swappable either.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52442
--- Comment #2 from Christopher Yeleighton
2012-02-29 23:23:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> You're right, it can't be used like that, but it's not meant to be.
>
> By design temporary_buffer is not copyable, so it's not swappable either.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49468
--- Comment #9 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-02-29
23:18:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Perhaps. Anyway looks fine to me except one minor failure
on sh64-elf:
xsh64-elf-combined/combined/libgcc/libgcc2.c: In function '__powisf2':
xsh64-elf-com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52424
--- Comment #9 from William J. Schmidt 2012-02-29
22:19:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I think this is related to PR 45685.
On the surface this looked like a good possibility. However, I just tried
compiling the code from that PR on powe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52443
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52443
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-02-29
22:11:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 26793
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26793
ice-memx.c: C source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52443
Bug #: 52443
Summary: ICE: verify_gimple failed: invalid types in nop
conversion
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52442
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-29
21:44:21 UTC ---
You're right, it can't be used like that, but it's not meant to be.
By design temporary_buffer is not copyable, so it's not swappable either.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52386
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52386
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas 2012-02-29 21:24:11
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Wed Feb 29 21:24:05 2012
New Revision: 184673
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184673
Log:
2012-02-29 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/52386
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52437
--- Comment #8 from Uros Bizjak 2012-02-29 21:19:19
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Created attachment 26791 [details]
> gcc47-pr52437.patch
>
> So does this look ok?
Yes, perfect!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52442
Bug #: 52442
Summary: temporary_buffer does not swap
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52437
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-29
21:17:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 26791
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26791
gcc47-pr52437.patch
So does this look ok?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52437
--- Comment #6 from Uros Bizjak 2012-02-29 21:14:34
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > movsi uses re constraint, not rn, so I'd think we should use re.
On a second thought, re won't hurt and it will also handle symbo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52441
Bug #: 52441
Summary: SH Target: Double sign/zero extensions for function
arguments
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52387
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2012-02-29
21:12:46 UTC ---
It gets even messier with STREAM I/O. For a compiler comparison w/o further
comments, see
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.fortran/aUBQsYBto2c/d_noVS80FV4J (and
for an older v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52437
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2012-02-29 21:00:26
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> movsi uses re constraint, not rn, so I'd think we should use re.
re also includes symbols and labels and whatnot (please see
x86_64_immediate_operand predicat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52424
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski 2012-02-29
20:47:34 UTC ---
I think this is related to PR 45685.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52437
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52437
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-29
20:37:49 UTC ---
I've tried:
@@ -3899,7 +3899,7 @@
(vec_merge:VI4F_128
(vec_duplicate:VI4F_128
(match_operand: 2 "general_operand"
- " x,m,*r,m,x,x,*rm,*rm,x,fF,*r"))
+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52437
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak 2012-02-29 20:32:06
UTC ---
This patch adds missing alternative, and also disparages alternatives that end
with excess register->mem moves.
Index: sse.md
===
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52440
Bug #: 52440
Summary: [C++11] Wrong template argument deduction/substitution
failures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52424
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt 2012-02-29
20:27:45 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Feb 29 20:27:41 2012
New Revision: 184671
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184671
Log:
2012-02-29 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-opt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52424
--- Comment #6 from William J. Schmidt 2012-02-29
20:26:33 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Feb 29 20:26:29 2012
New Revision: 184670
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184670
Log:
2012-02-29 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-opt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52439
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52437
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52439
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52425
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-02-29
19:43:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 26789
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26789
reduced test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51483
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-02-29
19:18:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> applying my tentative
> patch did allow a successful build of a gcc-4.7 cross to m68k w/ ada, so I'll
> try a native bootstrap with it soonish.
Native
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
--- Comment #17 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-02-29
19:13:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Created attachment 26757 [details]
> make fold_rtx handle prev_insn_cc0 == NULL
>
> The effect of Richard Guenther's r180192 patch to tree-eh.c is tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52439
Bug #: 52439
Summary: Calculation of natural log
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52438
Bug #: 52438
Summary: Some files still GPLv2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52407
Paulo César Pereira de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolut
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52419
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52429
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52419
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-29
17:46:08 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 29 17:45:55 2012
New Revision: 184666
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184666
Log:
PR middle-end/52419
* expr.c (expand_assign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52429
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-29
17:44:01 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 29 17:43:56 2012
New Revision: 184665
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184665
Log:
PR tree-optimization/52429
* tree-parloops.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52268
--- Comment #3 from Jack Howarth 2012-02-29
17:18:19 UTC ---
Also in clang 3.0, I see test/CodeGen/darwin-thread-specifier.c which
contains...
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-apple-macosx10.7.0 -emit-llvm -o - %s |
FileCheck %s
// CHECK: @b =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52433
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2012-02-29
17:01:44 UTC ---
Sure, sure, likewise for vector swap ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52430
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2012-02-29
16:45:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 26787
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26787
Proposed untested fix
n_cloning_candidates is zero because ipcp_initialize_node_lattices
thinks that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52433
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-29
16:37:43 UTC ---
The problem exists in all active branches and isn't a regression, so I'll
implement a swap asap but it isn't urgent for 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52437
Bug #: 52437
Summary: internal compiler error: in spill_failure, at
reload1.c:2120
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46596
Mike Frysinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||toolchain at gentoo dot org
Se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48820
--- Comment #6 from Walter Spector 2012-02-29
15:58:10 UTC ---
Tobias,
If you are interested, I tried the patch you posted on the email list to a
freshly checked out trunk. After building the compiler, I tried the following
small test case:
mo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51663
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52425
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52433
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52430
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51737
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka 2012-02-29 15:24:18
UTC ---
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51737
>
> --- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-29
> 15:17:33 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > > The question is why we c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51737
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-29
15:17:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> > The question is why we call delete_unreachable_blocks from
> > tree_function_versioning at all. We do not bother updating the
> > callgraph anywhere
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51737
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46596
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka 2012-02-29 15:07:18 UTC
---
> glibc runs into the "sorry, unimplemented" part of the issue, with
> delta-reduced code like:
>
> $ cat test.i
> typedef __builtin_va_list __gnuc_va_list;
> extern __inline __attribut
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51737
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka 2012-02-29 15:01:31
UTC ---
> The question is why we call delete_unreachable_blocks from
> tree_function_versioning at all. We do not bother updating the
> callgraph anywhere else.
>
> Honza, you added that beas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52419
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #26785|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52419
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52427
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52433
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52419
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-29
14:19:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 26785
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26785
alternative
This patch avoids expand_expr on the MEM_REF's base twice, by moving the mem
var computa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52436
Bug #: 52436
Summary: BIT_FIELD_REF > should be canonicalized for
non-bitfield accesses
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52436
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52432
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2012-02-29
14:13:44 UTC ---
Grunt, the mechanism part of unqualified_name_lookup_error isn't actually used
for decltype32.C: something else is happening which manages to avoid the
recursion in the error_messages
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52435
Bug #: 52435
Summary: ICE in arm_select_dominance_cc_mode, at
config/arm/arm.c:10625
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52419
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-29
13:52:05 UTC ---
Failed to match this instruction:
(set (reg:DI 62)
(vec_select:DI (subreg:V2DI (unspec:V16QI [
(mem:V16QI (reg/v/f:DI 59 [ p ]) [0 *p_1(D)+0 S16 A8])
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52432
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2012-02-29
13:51:03 UTC ---
Admittedly, though, the error which we currently produce for decltype32 isn't
optimal, ie:
decltype32.C: In substitution of ‘template decltype (make_array(il))
make_array(const T&) [w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52419
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-29
13:46:01 UTC ---
We are not prepared to handle bitsize != GET_MODE_BITSIZE in expand_assignment
for the movmisalign case. The following fixes it
Index: gcc/expr.c
=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52432
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-02-29
13:41:24 UTC ---
It's a bit more tricky, because if we only do that we have a diagnostic quality
regression for decltyp32.C: many error messages are recursively produces
instead of one. The fact is, un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22200
Gabriel Dos Reis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gdr at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #41
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52411
--- Comment #10 from evrinoma at gmail dot com 2012-02-29 13:37:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > gdb) disassemble 0x0053e800,+32
> > Dump of assembler code from 0x53e800 to 0x53e820:
> >0x0053e8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52434
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jb at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52411
--- Comment #9 from evrinoma at gmail dot com 2012-02-29 13:33:36 UTC ---
okey
i tried build astrisk on OpenSuse 12.1
with gcc
gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-suse-linux/4.6/lto-wrapper
Targe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52434
Bug #: 52434
Summary: Insufficient number of digits in floating point
formatting
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52419
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52419
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52411
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-02-29
13:18:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> gdb) disassemble 0x0053e800,+32
> Dump of assembler code from 0x53e800 to 0x53e820:
>0x0053e800 :movdqu -0x40(%rcx),%xmm0
>0x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52424
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52424
--- Comment #4 from William J. Schmidt 2012-02-29
13:06:40 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Feb 29 13:06:28 2012
New Revision: 184662
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184662
Log:
2012-02-29 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-opt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52432
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43878
--- Comment #2 from Frank 2012-02-29 13:02:49 UTC ---
On 03.02.2012 18:56, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43878
>
> --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-02-03
> 22:56:06 UTC ---
> The trick is t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52387
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2012-02-29
13:02:21 UTC ---
I think it get's even messier with the following, simpler looking code, which
consists of four variants (without read/with nonadvanced read -- and with
advanced/nonadvanced write):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52433
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-29
13:01:25 UTC ---
Also untested, and sub-optimal (swapping would be better than copying):
/**
* @brief Move assignment.
* @post @p __x is singular and unattached
*/
_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52432
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo