http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53025
Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53022
Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52916
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51646
--- Comment #5 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18 08:31:47
UTC ---
Another build problem at
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10202966/android-ndk-fortran-build-of-lapack-problems-with-unresolved-sincos
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53027
Bug #: 53027
Summary: pointer_traits::rebind is private
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53027
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38199
--- Comment #21 from Manfred Schwarb manfred99 at gmx dot ch 2012-04-18
09:01:46 UTC ---
This new version does fix it, timings are around 0.2s for the
above test-case (exactly as fast as the user-optimized len_trim
variant). Thanks a lot!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52108
--- Comment #2 from Petr Ovtchenkov abominable-snowman at yandex dot ru
2012-04-18 09:09:04 UTC ---
There are opinion, that this is not a bug:
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=12583
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
Bug #: 53028
Summary: add dg-pedantic
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53026
--- Comment #2 from mattipee at yahoo dot co.uk 2012-04-18 09:32:16 UTC ---
The code was many hundreds of lines long, but I've stripped it down to fewer
than 40 lines with which I can reliably reproduce the ICE.
user@host:~$ g++ -v --save-temps
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-04-18
09:34:16 UTC ---
Ok, let's not touch the branch for the time being. If you can figure out other
fixes on top of the first one, please let us know (preferably, on the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53026
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52681
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53024
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53022
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52422
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-18 10:21:52 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Apr 18 10:21:43 2012
New Revision: 186565
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186565
Log:
/cp
2012-04-18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53021
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #9 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18 10:23:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 27181
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27181
test ?
For the record, here is the modified version of the test I'm playing with.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52422
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52108
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50478
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-04-18
10:35:59 UTC ---
Seems fixed in mainline.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52363
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44688
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18
11:34:01 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 18 11:33:51 2012
New Revision: 186566
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186566
Log:
2012-04-18 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-04-18
12:01:27 UTC ---
Of course I meant it doesn't *link*. I guess I have never noticed this error
before:
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lm
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lpthread
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18 12:08:55
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Of course I meant it doesn't *link*. I guess I have never noticed this error
before:
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lm
/usr/bin/ld:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-04-18
12:19:04 UTC ---
But anyway -static-libstdc++ works on Linux too to avoid the link-time problem.
Still (on x86_64-linux) the testcase runs Ok for me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30006
Marty vadmium+gc at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vadmium+gc at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
--- Comment #16 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-18 12:25:30 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Apr 18 12:25:17 2012
New Revision: 186567
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186567
Log:
gcc:
2012-04-18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51646
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=47762
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18 12:31:06
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
But anyway -static-libstdc++ works on Linux too to avoid the link-time
problem.
Still (on x86_64-linux) the testcase runs Ok for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #16 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18 12:37:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
But anyway -static-libstdc++ works on Linux too to avoid the link-time
problem.
Still (on x86_64-linux) the testcase runs Ok for me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
--- Comment #8 from Michal Hlavinka mhlavink at redhat dot com 2012-04-18
12:22:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 27182
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27182
pre-processed reproducer (avr)
(In reply to comment #7)
Would you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52976
--- Comment #17 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-18 12:29:39 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Apr 18 12:29:23 2012
New Revision: 186568
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186568
Log:
gcc:
2012-04-18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52363
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-04-18
12:52:04 UTC ---
Interestingly, removing the const from the move assignment avoids the issue
with -pedantic.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53029
Bug #: 53029
Summary: missed optimization in internal read (without
implied-do-loop)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36446
Marty vadmium+gc at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vadmium+gc at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47772
Marty vadmium+gc at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vadmium+gc at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51646
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52693
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18
12:43:00 UTC ---
does it help if you link to libpthread using --whole-archive ?
g++ deallocate_global_thread-1.cc -static -Wl,--whole-archive -lpthread
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47772
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36446
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52363
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-04-18
13:01:37 UTC ---
And this is enough to see the inconsistency vs -pedantic:
#include type_traits
#include cassert
struct proxy
{
void operator=(int const);
void
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18
12:57:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
by the way, (not the bug), I'm wondering if there is another way than
using pthread_key_create to hold the thread's freelist ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36446
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||darren at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #20 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18 13:32:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
does it help if you link to libpthread using --whole-archive ?
g++ deallocate_global_thread-1.cc -static -Wl,--whole-archive -lpthread
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52363
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30006
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36446
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||darren at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52681
--- Comment #5 from Matt Kline mkline at cs dot wisc.edu 2012-04-18 14:04:37
UTC ---
That, if feasible, would be perfect.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52363
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18
14:02:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
now it worked for Paolo without it :-(
Some distros rebuild libpthread.a to make it work automatically.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52363
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-04-18
13:29:10 UTC ---
Oh, and isn't really a run-time issue:
#include type_traits
struct proxy
{
void operator=(int const);
void operator=(int ) const;
};
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #19 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-04-18
13:10:59 UTC ---
At the moment I'm using an x86_64-linux machine using glibc 2.14.1, not a RH,
really no problem with this specific testcase, no Seg fault, no valgrind
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #22 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-04-18
14:14:37 UTC ---
To be clear: for some reason, on my Linux machine, I badly need
-static-libstdc++, what suggested by Jon in Comment #17 doesn't change much. If
code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #23 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-04-18
14:24:47 UTC ---
Ah, thanks Jon, that may indeed explain it!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52681
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18
14:16:20 UTC ---
Entirely feasible, and probably safe enough for the 4.6 and 4.7 branches too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53016
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53030
Bug #: 53030
Summary: [4.8 Regression] LTO bootstrap failed with
bootstrap-profiled
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52363
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2012-04-18 14:41:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Daniel, can you have a look to snippet in Comment #5? Should it compile or
not?
It needed a while until I recognized
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53031
Bug #: 53031
Summary: [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp54.c
scan-tree-dump-not vrp1 link_error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53032
Bug #: 53032
Summary: [4.8 Regression] 447.dealII in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to
build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52363
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-04-18
14:59:02 UTC ---
Ah, thanks Daniel. Therefore the situation is becoming more clear.
Then - assuming this interpretation is correct - I'm not sure what we want to
do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52363
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18
15:14:58 UTC ---
std::is_assignable uses SFINAE, so it should always act pedantic, and the
assert should fail.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52363
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53015
--- Comment #3 from brainschrat at gmx dot de 2012-04-18 15:22:01 UTC ---
Maybe this is related to using both -I and -J to the same directory.
As I wanted to use delta, I tried to simplify my folder layout for the test
case:
project
- src
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43833
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29467
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32960
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33443
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33715
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33925
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39731
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-04-18
16:38:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 27183
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27183
combined patch
I've combined HJ's two patches to one and verified that it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34455
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44600
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42689
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33715
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18
16:53:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
I would like to have a warning in C++ that warns about local variables
assigned
via operator new or operator new[], but then are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33925
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18
17:01:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
First, I think the C++ standard forbids a function from having a null
address:
But GCC extensions allow it, see the weakref
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33925
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18
17:04:25 UTC ---
... That's not an argument against improving the warning though. GCC's uses
occur in system headers so warnings are suppressed, and could be worked around
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18
17:23:24 UTC ---
I've combined HJ's two patches to one and verified that it restores bootstrap
on sparc64-linux.
But it probably breaks SPARC/Solaris, as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-04-18 17:32:38
UTC ---
If someone can provide a description of what TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128
should be in all cases, I can try to come up with a patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #2 from Mike Stump mikestump at comcast dot net 2012-04-18
17:35:23 UTC ---
I don't see much value in this. The primary idea of the gcc testsuite is as a
regression suite. For a regression, there is just one bit of code that you're
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53008
--- Comment #1 from Dave Boutcher daveboutcher at gmail dot com 2012-04-18
17:46:17 UTC ---
The problem seems to be that functions referenced only by function pointers are
not put in the tmclone table. I can work around the problem by making a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52985
--- Comment #2 from Will Benfold will at benfold dot com 2012-04-18 18:08:16
UTC ---
Another test case; this one doesn't need any headers and also cuts out the
loop. The exit status should always be 1, but in fact it's 0 if no
command-line args
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18
18:25:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I don't see much value in this. The primary idea of the gcc testsuite is as a
regression suite. For a regression, there is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45521
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45521
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18 19:38:10 UTC ---
To implement this, we'll presumably need to modify 'gfc_compare_interfaces' in
interface.c (for the case of generic_flag=1 and strict_flag=0). Possibly the
changes should go
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53033
Bug #: 53033
Summary: [avr]: Wrong register number for 3-byte loads via X
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53033
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
--- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18
20:00:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
We can see this bug on avr target too.
Thanks for the test case.
It's a bug, but completely unrelated to this one. See PR53033.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #4 from Mike Stump mikestump at comcast dot net 2012-04-18
20:01:23 UTC ---
You explained yourself properly. Just because there are hundreds that do this,
doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with them. Personally, I'd rip out all
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53033
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18
20:07:43 UTC ---
Until the issue is fixed you can use the command option -mstrict-X as a
work-around.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53034
Bug #: 53034
Summary: [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] tree-switch-conversion is
too aggressive
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53034
--- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-18
20:25:45 UTC ---
The gimple switch conversion pass is much too aggressive, worse code is
generated for the examples that were used to introduce the implementation of
switch
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
