http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53620
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-06-11 06:27:16 UTC ---
The attached testcase crashes in determine_visibility.
4.8 is also affected.
Here is an ugly testcase:
markus@x4 /tmp % cat test.ii
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53627
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2012-06-11 06:47:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #4)
because that was fixed with C++11 due to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53627
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2012-06-11 06:47:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #4)
because that was fixed with C++11 due to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53629
Bug #: 53629
Summary: [c++11] spurious uninitialized warning in case of
non-static data member initializers.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53629
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53594
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53594
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53630
Bug #: 53630
Summary: C+11 regex compiler produces SIGSEGV
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53630
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11
08:29:50 UTC ---
Documented as missing in
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/status.html#status.iso.2011
The whole of Clause 28 is partially supported or not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53631
Bug #: 53631
Summary: [C++11] regex is unimplemented
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53630
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52719
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53622
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49870
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53631
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bisqwit at iki
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53631
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bisqwit at iki
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53631
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bisqwit at iki
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32629
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-06-11 08:39:45 UTC ---
On Sat, 9 Jun 2012, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32629
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53594
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51969
--- Comment #8 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11 09:10:17 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Mon Jun 11 09:10:07 2012
New Revision: 188381
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188381
Log:
2012-06-11 Joey Ye joey...@arm.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52214
--- Comment #5 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11 09:10:16 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Mon Jun 11 09:10:07 2012
New Revision: 188381
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188381
Log:
2012-06-11 Joey Ye joey...@arm.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48600
--- Comment #22 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11 09:10:14 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Mon Jun 11 09:10:07 2012
New Revision: 188381
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188381
Log:
2012-06-11 Joey Ye joey...@arm.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53620
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53599
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rohangarg at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53594
--- Comment #6 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-06-11 09:28:49 UTC ---
the patch compiles and fixes my test case,
I've not tested any possible side effects
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
Bug #: 53632
Summary: [bugzilla] Bugzilla being very slow to submit changes,
sending duplicate emails
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53623
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||50176
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53616
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53605
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51466
--- Comment #7 from xuepeng guo xguo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11 09:51:11
UTC ---
Author: xguo
Date: Mon Jun 11 09:51:05 2012
New Revision: 188383
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188383
Log:
2012-06-11 Terry Guo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50078
--- Comment #16 from xuepeng guo xguo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11 09:51:12
UTC ---
Author: xguo
Date: Mon Jun 11 09:51:05 2012
New Revision: 188383
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188383
Log:
2012-06-11 Terry Guo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53590
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53590
--- Comment #3 from Georg georggcc at googlemail dot com 2012-06-11 10:09:18
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Other versions of the Ada compiler, and the C compiler,
and the C++ compiler of the same version produce
1 DIVPD instruction, as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53592
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=53613
--- Comment #3 from Kirby Zhou kirbyz...@sogou-inc.com 2012-06-11 10:15:58
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Fixed on trunk by patch for PR 50043
Did this patch apply to 4.7 branch?
I retested with 4.7 branch 20120610, The bug is still exist.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53613
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50043
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53590
--- Comment #4 from Georg georggcc at googlemail dot com 2012-06-11 10:31:00
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
Other versions of the Ada compiler, and the C compiler,
and the C++ compiler of the same version produce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53605
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53590
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36602
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11
10:58:41 UTC ---
Ok. I suppose I need to fix gcc.target/x86_64/abi/test_struct_returning.c
somehow then ... :/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53590
--- Comment #6 from Georg georggcc at googlemail dot com 2012-06-11 10:59:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Small note: Same sequence of instructions from GNAT GPL 2011
running on x86_64 Linux/GNU:
You're comparing apples with oranges
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #1 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2012-06-11
11:04:57 UTC ---
I did no changes to the Bugzilla code for almost two months, so I guess the
problem is external to Bugzilla. Based on duplicated comments in emails, I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #2 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2012-06-11
11:06:57 UTC ---
Wow, Bugzilla is indeed very slow, even when sending two emails only.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53433
--- Comment #17 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11
11:09:17 UTC ---
I can reproduce it on SLE11-SP2, glibc-2.11.3, with plain ./configure
--with-build-config=bootstrap-lto.
Honza? I suppose we have spurious
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11
11:16:38 UTC ---
Yeah :-) It's got _really_ slow. I don't remember which day it happened, but
it was a very noticeable sudden change from reasonably responsive to very slow.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #5 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2012-06-11
11:36:20 UTC ---
fche told me on IRC that jobqueue has been disabled two weeks ago, which is
exactly when the slowness started to appear. So it may still be mail-related.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #6 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2012-06-11
11:46:26 UTC ---
He just told me that the checks for outgoing emails take between 2 and 10
seconds *per email*! I think we found the culprit. Either the scan must be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53633
Bug #: 53633
Summary: __attribute__((naked)) should disable -Wreturn-type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #7 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2012-06-11
12:03:19 UTC ---
fche says that some spammers create a Bugzilla account to send spam, which is
why these spam checks are enabled for outgoing emails. So to mitigate the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53623
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=53470
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11
12:38:06 UTC ---
Removing the whole
if (debug_info_level DINFO_LEVEL_TERSE
|| (TYPE_CONTEXT (type)
TREE_CODE (TYPE_CONTEXT (type)) != FUNCTION_DECL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53470
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11
12:54:50 UTC ---
It seems we never come along with a DECL_CONTEXT that is a BLOCK (nor does
the C++ frontend do that ...). Replacing the TYPE_CONTEXT clearing with
if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11
13:03:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
fche says that some spammers create a Bugzilla account to send spam,
Yes, we've had a few attacks recently.
Thanks for identifying
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53470
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11
13:37:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
thus, replace a BLOCK context with the first non-BLOCK context, works.
That sounds good.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53605
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11
13:41:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
but I wonder about the inconsistency between the max == INTEGER_CST and
!INTEGER_CST case where we do _not_ add one to the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53621
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=53634
Bug #: 53634
Summary: Segmentation fault on nested lambda + template
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53616
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11
13:58:38 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jun 11 13:58:29 2012
New Revision: 188386
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188386
Log:
2012-06-11 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53605
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53470
--- Comment #14 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11
14:14:15 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jun 11 14:14:09 2012
New Revision: 188387
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188387
Log:
2012-06-11 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53470
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53605
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11
14:22:41 UTC ---
Bah, commit (I fixed up the ChangeLog already):
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jun 11 13:58:29 2012
New Revision: 188386
URL:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52014
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53634
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53635
Bug #: 53635
Summary: --enable-build-with-cxx: stage1-gcc shrinks from 1.1
GiB to 0.4 GiB
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53602
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Benton andy at benton dot eu.com 2012-06-11
15:00:41 UTC ---
Many thanks, Libre Office now compiles as expected. Should this bug be marked
as fixed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #14 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com 2012-06-11 15:05:43
UTC ---
Is there a chance to get this into 4.7.1 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53324
--- Comment #3 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com 2012-06-11 15:10:49
UTC ---
I get the point.
However, I could imagine that it is a quite common scenario to have a binary
contributed C++ lib. Mixing debug/non-debug is impossible due to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53602
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regression] Libre |[4.7 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53602
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53602
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11
15:22:10 UTC ---
Oops, right you are.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-06-11
15:27:17 UTC ---
Too late for 4.7.1. Francois, can you please apply the patch to 4_7-branch as
soon as 4.7.1 is out, thus for 4.7.2? Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53324
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11
15:34:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Maybe some annotation for the linker could help here.
Suggestions welcome.
I don't see any way to do anything here.
The docs say
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51222
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-06-11
16:02:40 UTC ---
Last posted version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg00157.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53604
Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tetra2005 at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53636
Bug #: 53636
Summary: SLP may create invalid unaligned memory accesses
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53636
Ulrich Weigand uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53540
--- Comment #2 from Akim Demaille akim.demaille at gmail dot com 2012-06-11
17:27:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I think it's valid, CC'ing Dodji for confirmation.
Any news?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53633
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm*-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53511
--- Comment #12 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11
19:24:24 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Jun 11 19:24:20 2012
New Revision: 188396
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188396
Log:
PR target/53511
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53637
Bug #: 53637
Summary: NRVO not applied in branches when it could be
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
--- Comment #3 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-06-11 19:56:14 UTC
---
Created attachment 27603
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27603
ZIP with pre-processed shorter example, callgrind output, and smaller binaries
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
--- Comment #4 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-06-11 19:57:12 UTC
---
Created attachment 27604
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27604
shorter source example, ~150 lines w/o comments
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
--- Comment #5 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-06-11 20:02:41 UTC
---
Got rid of graphite options, it made no difference. I reduced the original test
from the suite and attached it's source, preprocessor output from 4.6 and 4.7
(no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53568
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53638
Bug #: 53638
Summary: static_assert handling behavior ignores template
specializations
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53638
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11
21:14:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
It is my opinion that this is not true.
It is true.
It is possible that the template might
have valid specializations that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53639
Bug #: 53639
Summary: x86_64: redundant 64-bit operations on 32-bit integers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53640
Bug #: 53640
Summary: Missed cmove with stores
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53640
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53621
--- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-12
00:05:05 UTC ---
I thought that -pg and -fomit-frame-pointer are always incompatible.
Agree with the possible issues for old unwinders.
I've forgotten that sh coff targets
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53634
--- Comment #2 from Taiju Tsuiki mail+gcc at tzik dot jp 2012-06-12 01:20:49
UTC ---
Oh, sorry. I might search in wrong way.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50472
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-12 02:33:29 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Jun 12 02:33:23 2012
New Revision: 188414
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188414
Log:
Backport r179200 from GCC-4.6 branch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53613
--- Comment #5 from Kirby Zhou kirbyz...@sogou-inc.com 2012-06-12 02:39:44
UTC ---
It is a BAD NEWS about no fix on the 4.7.X branch, and it's not a regression.
The bug breaks a lot of already exist oode which is workable with GCC-4.4.X
release.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50571
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-12 02:45:27 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Jun 12 02:45:23 2012
New Revision: 188415
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188415
Log:
Backport r179389 from mainline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50106
--- Comment #12 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-12 02:50:37 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Jun 12 02:50:34 2012
New Revision: 188416
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188416
Log:
Backport r180240 from mainline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50608
--- Comment #9 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-12 03:11:03 UTC ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Jun 12 03:10:55 2012
New Revision: 188418
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188418
Log:
Backport r180986 from mainline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51768
--- Comment #7 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-12 03:49:37 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Tue Jun 12 03:49:33 2012
New Revision: 188419
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188419
Log:
2012-06-12 Joey Ye joey...@arm.com
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
