http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53350
--- Comment #4 from Ryan Thompson 2012-05-15
07:40:00 UTC ---
Ok, I will try to do it. This is my first time reporting a compile bug, so
please be patient with me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52804
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53343
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-05-15
09:14:40 UTC ---
Also occurs on powerpc64 and arm, so not specific to sparc64.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53356
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53357
Bug #: 53357
Summary: Add -fcheck=bounds for character type-spec in ALLOCATE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53355
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53346
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53358
Bug #: 53358
Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE due to
TARGET_READ_MODIFY_WRITE peephole2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53347
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Bonzini 2012-05-15 09:56:59
UTC ---
The code in conforming_compare matches this comment with or without the
duplicate test:
(1) All comparison patterns are represented as
[(set (reg:CC) (compare:CC (reg) (immedi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
--- Comment #14 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-15 10:00:28 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue May 15 10:00:19 2012
New Revision: 187515
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187515
Log:
2012-05-15 Paolo Carlini
PR lib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53358
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53358
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-05-15
10:13:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 27409
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27409
gcc47-pr53358.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53337
--- Comment #4 from vincenzo Innocente
2012-05-15 10:19:29 UTC ---
tested with latest binutil
no change (but nicer error message)
GNU gold (GNU Binutils 2.22.52.20120515) 1.11
/tmp/innocent/ccIKFOKY.ltrans1.ltrans.o:ccIKFOKY.ltrans1.o:function v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53349
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53229
--- Comment #1 from Dodji Seketeli 2012-05-15
11:19:12 UTC ---
A patch for this has been proposed at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg01004.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15316
Blogspot changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||youtubevideos2012 at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15316
--- Comment #5 from Blogspot
2012-05-15 11:47:05 UTC ---
and finally a link about the most beautiful women in the world, and talk about
women who model, this is a excellent blog that features fashion models, fitness
models, and all kinds of infor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50134
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53343
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50134
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-05-15
12:21:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
>
> int f();
> int f(void) { return 0; }
>
> gets a warning with -Wmissing-prototypes but not -Wmissing-declarations,
> because "int f();" is a non-pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50134
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-05-15
12:23:50 UTC ---
Nonetheless, this is a patch that explains the current situation:
--- gcc/doc/invoke.texi (revision 187462)
+++ gcc/doc/invoke.texi (working copy)
@@ -4413,21 +4413,26 @@ This
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
--- Comment #16 from Eugene Toder 2012-05-15
12:30:55 UTC ---
Makes sense. I was hoping to avoid copyright assignment by having someone else
do the work :) Thank you.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53346
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-05-15
12:39:50 UTC ---
> Do you possibly have a testcase?
I am not sure to understand what you ask for.
The source for cptrf2.f90 has been attached to pr53340. I can provide a version
of rnflow wit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45170
--- Comment #34 from Tobias Burnus 2012-05-15
12:54:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #24)
> call hello(ceiling(11*rnd),string)
That should be floor or "10" - otherwise, it can give "11" which is too large.
(Or and better: Change the "10" to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53360
Bug #: 53360
Summary: Problems with -std=gnu++0x
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-15
13:11:55 UTC ---
Still, if you mean to contribute, something else maybe, just let use (me) know:
it's just matter of filling a form and waiting a bit. You do it once and then
you are set forever.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52370
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2012-05-15
13:15:49 UTC ---
See also http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-05/msg00066.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53355
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-15
13:18:42 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 15 13:18:32 2012
New Revision: 187535
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187535
Log:
2012-05-15 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53355
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-15
13:19:06 UTC ---
With the patch we now emit
foo:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
movq%rdi, %rax
salq$60, %rax
sarq$63, %rax
movq%rax, %rdx
andl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53348
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53351
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53350
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse 2012-05-15
14:50:42 UTC ---
You may first want to check whether you still get the bug with a more recent
gcc version.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53361
Bug #: 53361
Summary: Could not convert ‘{0, 0, 0}’ from ‘’ to ‘std::array’
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53360
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse 2012-05-15
15:00:58 UTC ---
clang and gcc reject it, but intel and oracle accept it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11586
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-15 15:14:59 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue May 15 15:14:49 2012
New Revision: 187542
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187542
Log:
/cp
2012-05-15 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53358
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-05-15
15:19:22 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 15 15:19:10 2012
New Revision: 187544
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187544
Log:
PR target/53358
* config/i386/i386.md (*add
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11856
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53358
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-05-15
15:21:47 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 15 15:21:38 2012
New Revision: 187545
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187545
Log:
PR target/53358
* config/i386/i386.md (*add
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11586
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53362
Bug #: 53362
Summary: gcc 4.7 generates invalid code with -O3 and
-mtune=bdver2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53363
Bug #: 53363
Summary: g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/thunk1.C FAILs
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32911
Colin Walters changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||walters at verbum dot org
--- Comment #2
Note that I was thinking of similar attribute for C++ iostream initialization
code.
Currently every unit including iostream gets a call to the iostream
constructor. With LTO
we merge the constructors together and get _alot_ of redundant calls to the
construction
code. Declaring that only first
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32911
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka 2012-05-15 15:57:29 UTC
---
Note that I was thinking of similar attribute for C++ iostream initialization
code.
Currently every unit including iostream gets a call to the iostream
constructor. With LTO
we merge the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32911
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53008
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||torvald at gcc dot gnu.org
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53358
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38219
Sean McGovern changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gseanmcg at gmail dot com |
--- Comment #15 from Sean McGovern 2012
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53322
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53348
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Richard G. 2012-05-15
17:35:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> AIX 4.3.2 was announced in 1998 and end of service in 2003. The AIX header is
> wrong and was fixed in later versions. You have a work-around. I am not a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53359
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53362
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53361
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-15
17:48:58 UTC ---
Works on the trunk for me ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53348
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53362
--- Comment #2 from Valerio Aimale 2012-05-15
18:07:01 UTC ---
Andrew,
thank you for your email. I'll extract some code from the R code base
and generate a test case.
Valerio
On 5/15/12 11:43 AM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53348
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Richard G. 2012-05-15
19:01:45 UTC ---
My first thought had been to put in AIX-version-dependent cpp conditionals in
aix-stdint.h, but admittedly, that would have been an ugly way to go.
I have an AIX 5.3 system here a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53363
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2012-05-15
19:09:37 UTC ---
Yes, the test should only run in 32-bit mode.
For me, on i686-unknown-linux-gnu the test passes. What are the uses of LFB3
on Solaris for?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51195
Sean McGovern changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|viewcvs can't display |upgrade request for viewvc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53364
Bug #: 53364
Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] Wrong code generation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53365
Bug #: 53365
Summary: gcc.target/i386/pr53249.c FAILs for -m64 on Solaris 10
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53366
Bug #: 53366
Summary: wrong code generation by tree vectorizer using AVX
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53367
Bug #: 53367
Summary: FMOD Standar C++ library
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53367
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53362
--- Comment #3 from Valerio Aimale 2012-05-15
22:13:47 UTC ---
First of all, I made a mistake. The FX-8150 (which is family 14h) requires
-march=bdver1 not bdver2. The SIGSEGV, however, happens even with bdver1
To reproduce, compile R with
CC=g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53362
--- Comment #4 from Valerio Aimale 2012-05-15
22:15:19 UTC ---
On 5/15/12 11:43 AM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53362
>
> Andrew Pinski changed:
>
> What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53008
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Marlier
2012-05-15 22:23:54 UTC ---
Created attachment 27412
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27412
testcase for gcc testsuite
The problem is not into libitm.
Attached a testcase for testsuite (gcc/
4.8.0 20120515 (experimental)
class Message; // comment out -> works
namespace proto {
struct Message {
virtual void Copy(const Message&);
};
}
struct MessageSet: public proto::Message {
// using Message::Copy; // this works
using proto::Message::Copy;
};
/// --- cut ---
$ g++ -c t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52494
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou 2012-05-15
22:34:11 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue May 15 22:33:58 2012
New Revision: 187562
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187562
Log:
PR ada/52494
* s-taprop-dummy.adb (Spec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52494
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou 2012-05-15
22:35:38 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue May 15 22:35:33 2012
New Revision: 187564
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187564
Log:
PR ada/52494
* s-taprop-dummy.adb (Spec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52494
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53369
Bug #: 53369
Summary: Integral promotion with ~ operator - Different
behavior for signed and unsigned char.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53369
--- Comment #1 from Rahul Ramachandran
2012-05-16 00:03:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 27414
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27414
The assemply file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53369
Rahul Ramachandran changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27414|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53369
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53180
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53008
--- Comment #6 from Dave Boutcher 2012-05-16
01:43:51 UTC ---
Thanks for the testcase Patrick. Let me dig into the pr51516.C failure before
I resubmit the patch with the testcase.
Torvald, as Patrick said, this seems to be purely a gcc issue...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-16
02:12:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> I was hoping to avoid copyright assignment by having someone else
> do the work :)
That's OK, but in that case I think (and this is just IMHO) it's bet
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53368
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fabien at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
--- Comment #19 from Eugene Toder 2012-05-16
02:21:07 UTC ---
Fair point, noted. I believe ideas are not copyrightable, though.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53238
--- Comment #11 from Daniel Richard G. 2012-05-16
02:51:24 UTC ---
Okay, the bootstrap gets further this time. A couple of unrelated issues came
up which I was able to work around, but then I encountered this:
[...]
/tmp/gcc-build/./prev-gcc/g++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53339
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-16
02:52:26 UTC ---
So please feel free to share ideas. A patch is not an idea though, it's an
implementation. In any case last time I checked the law is not based just on
what you believe ;)
Please d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53370
Bug #: 53370
Summary: Unbalanced parenthesis when using __attribute__
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53238
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-16
03:05:51 UTC ---
IIRC that should already be instantiated
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52841
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppluzhnikov at google dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53368
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53368
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2012-05-16 03:19:27
UTC ---
This is triggered by revision 181118:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2011-11/msg00406.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52841
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu 2012-05-16 03:22:36
UTC ---
This is triggered by revision 181118:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2011-11/msg00406.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53371
Bug #: 53371
Summary: rvalue reference type as exception-declaration
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53371
--- Comment #1 from Jeroen Habraken 2012-05-16
03:30:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 27416
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27416
minimal example
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53364
--- Comment #1 from foom at fuhm dot net 2012-05-16 04:10:59 UTC ---
Asm generated. Note that at no point is anything ever actually written to the
stack, only read from it:
:
0:83 3d 00 00 00 00 09 cmpl $0x9,0x0(%rip)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53364
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-16
04:13:07 UTC ---
Does -fno-tree-vrp fix the issue?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53364
--- Comment #3 from foom at fuhm dot net 2012-05-16 04:28:21 UTC ---
> Does -fno-tree-vrp fix the issue?
Nope, "g++ -O2 -fno-tree-vrp -c test.cpp" is no different than without.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53366
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53372
Bug #: 53372
Summary: [avr] Section attribute ignored with address space
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53372
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53362
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2012-05-16 06:13:53
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Is this enough for you to work with?
No, please follow the instructions in [1]. Also, since this is a runtime
problem, we will need (preferrably minimized)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53083
--- Comment #8 from Uros Bizjak 2012-05-16 06:30:58
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I've tried to take the source-file in question (miarc.c) and make something
> self-contained, but I was unable to make it work due to this being an internal
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53083
--- Comment #9 from Uros Bizjak 2012-05-16 06:33:35
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> > I've tried to take the source-file in question (miarc.c) and make something
> > self-contained, but I was unable to make it work due to this being an
> > i
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
