http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54061
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54061
Bug #: 54061
Summary: [4.8 Regression] gcc.c-torture/compile/mipscop-1.c
ICEs with -g
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54060
Bug #: 54060
Summary: [C++11] Lambda expression's type should not be in an
anonymous namespace
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54034
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53967
--- Comment #17 from bfriesen at simple dot dallas.tx.us 2012-07-21 01:04:55
UTC ---
I discovered that GCC's __attribute__((__optimize__())) and optimization
pragmas do not work for OpenMP code because OpenMP uses a different function
name for the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54059
--- Comment #4 from Jason Toffaletti 2012-07-20
23:16:56 UTC ---
I knew there was something familiar about this, thanks for the reminder.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54059
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-07-20
23:14:09 UTC ---
This is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_vexing_parse
The declaration f2 declares a function, it is not a variables definition.
To convince yourself, try taking its address:
foo*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54059
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54059
--- Comment #1 from Jason Toffaletti 2012-07-20
23:11:37 UTC ---
$ g++-4.7 -c -g -Wa,-alh -std=c++11 bug.cc
155.LEHE0:
13:bug.cc unsigned int a = 200;
156.loc 2 13 0 discriminat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54059
Bug #: 54059
Summary: g++ silently omits code that creates a
std::chrono::millisecond temporary
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54058
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-07-20
21:51:30 UTC ---
I think G++ is correct. The injected functions can only be found by ADL and ADL
only applies to function calls, not when taking the address of a function.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54034
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-20 21:47:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Janus, please try to run the executable under valgrind:
Sorry, I still can not reproduce it. Neither with valgrind, nor at later
revisions (189690,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54008
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54058
Bug #: 54058
Summary: Injected friend functions are not considered when
using contextual type info to take a function address
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54008
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-07-20
21:08:14 UTC ---
This is fixed for me, and I think by intent (189712:189718). I'll leave it to
H.J. or Steven to close this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54056
Bug #: 54056
Summary: Fast run out of memory compiling template
specialization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53787
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54055
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54034
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-07-20
19:26:05 UTC ---
This works for me on x86_64-apple-darwin10 at revision 189718 even when the
executable is run under valgrind. Nevertheless this remind me pr43716 which
disappeared without being
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54055
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Krügler
2012-07-20 19:02:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > > Jonathan, given the state of 1423, should I open a new reminder bugzilla
> > > entry
> > > to take care of this? AFAIK we h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52174
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53974
--- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-07-20 18:48:25 UTC ---
On 7/20/2012 1:42 PM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53974
>
> --- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou 2012-07-20
> 17:42:19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54055
Bug #: 54055
Summary: spurious(?) "invalid use of incomplete type" warning
in template definition
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54050
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53238
--- Comment #18 from Daniel Richard G. 2012-07-20
17:44:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Between comment 5 (with missing ;;) and comment 14 it should work, I think.
Okay, I'm re-starting the build with those two changes (plus my omnibus pa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54038
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53974
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou 2012-07-20
17:42:19 UTC ---
> I've never seen this. In addition to HARD_REGNO_MODE_OK, the definition of
> CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS prevents mode changes to larger modes
> when it is greater than UNITS_PER_WORD.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51811
--- Comment #4 from Jing Yu 2012-07-20 17:28:09 UTC
---
Author: jingyu
Date: Fri Jul 20 17:27:57 2012
New Revision: 189724
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189724
Log:
2012-07-19 Jing Yu
Backport r183875 to fix wrong
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53974
--- Comment #8 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-07-20 17:20:29 UTC ---
On 7/20/2012 11:01 AM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Sure, just like on SPARC, but DImode arguments can nevertheless be unaligned.
I've never seen this. In additio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54054
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54054
Bug #: 54054
Summary: merged compilation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54042
--- Comment #3 from stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com
2012-07-20 16:23:33 UTC ---
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 5:36 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-07-20
> 15:36:11 UTC ---
> PPH might be already supporting
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53912
--- Comment #17 from Rainer Emrich 2012-07-20
16:18:00 UTC ---
I'm travelling for 2 weeks from now on. During this time I have no opportunity
to work any further on this issue.
Kai, perhaps you may help out?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54038
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill 2012-07-20
16:12:05 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 20 16:11:58 2012
New Revision: 189720
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189720
Log:
PR c++/54038
* tree.c (build_cplus_array_ty
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54038
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill 2012-07-20
16:11:51 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 20 16:11:42 2012
New Revision: 189719
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189719
Log:
PR c++/54038
* tree.c (build_cplus_array_ty
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54038
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill 2012-07-20
16:11:51 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 20 16:11:42 2012
New Revision: 189719
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189719
Log:
PR c++/54038
* tree.c (build_cplus_array_ty
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53912
--- Comment #16 from Uros Bizjak 2012-07-20 15:56:43
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> ../../../src/gcc-4.8.0/gcc/print-tree.c:258:31: error: cast from 'tree' to
> 'long unsigned int' loses precision [-fpermissive]
>hash = ((unsigned lon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53912
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-07-20
15:54:08 UTC ---
That patch can't work properly, on targets where uintptr_t isn't unsigned long
you'll either get warnings from using %lx for it, or it will misbehave if
uintptr_t is even different si
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53912
--- Comment #14 from Uros Bizjak 2012-07-20 15:53:07
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> ../../../src/gcc-4.8.0/gcc/tree-dump.c:171:63: error: cast from 'void*' to
> 'long unsigned int' loses precision [-fpermissive]
>fprintf (di->stream, "%-4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53912
--- Comment #13 from Uros Bizjak 2012-07-20 15:44:27
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Created attachment 27846 [details]
> proposed patch
>
> This fixes the C and C++ part.
-#define POINTER_HASH(x) (hashval_t)((long)x >> 3)
+#define POINTER_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54042
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-07-20
15:36:11 UTC ---
PPH might be already supporting this though.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54050
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-07-20
15:33:47 UTC ---
I don't think PCH will ever support this because nobody is working on PCH but
PPH might handle this (and might already does).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53912
--- Comment #12 from Rainer Emrich 2012-07-20
15:30:09 UTC ---
Created attachment 27846
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27846
proposed patch
This fixes the C and C++ part.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54034
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak 2012-07-20 15:29:32
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Possibly a dup of 54031?
No, still fails with:
gcc version 4.8.0 20120720 (experimental) [trunk revision 189718] (GCC)
Janus, please try to run
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54016
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54046
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53974
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou 2012-07-20
15:01:49 UTC ---
> I believe that the definition of HARD_REGNO_MODE_OK on PA prevents
> partially overlapping
> DImode registers. See comment comment for HARD_REGNO_MODE_OK . So,
> clobbering %R0 c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54053
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54016
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54053
Bug #: 54053
Summary: g++ accepts (invalid?) ""0; expression.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54052
Bug #: 54052
Summary: Segmentation Fault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54051
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54051
Bug #: 54051
Summary: Invalid alignment specifier generated for vld3_lane_*
and vld3_dup_* intrinsics.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-07-20
14:14:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> > Jonathan, given the state of 1423, should I open a new reminder bugzilla
> > entry
> > to take care of this? AFAIK we have done so for other "ready" iss
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54050
Bug #: 54050
Summary: chaining
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: pch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54047
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Krügler
2012-07-20 14:04:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> In this context it is presumably interesting to mention a recently intended
> core language change:
>
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_act
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54016
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-07-20 14:00:23 UTC ---
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012, krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54016
>
> --- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel 2012-07-20
> 13:48:57
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54049
Bug #: 54049
Summary: cr16: ICE: in gen_rtx_SUBREG with -O1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54016
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel 2012-07-20
13:48:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Do I have to do something special now when creating a loop on RTL level?
Perhaps tell the framework that the loop infos needs to be refreshed or
something li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54042
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53974
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-07-20 13:28:47 UTC ---
On 7/20/2012 8:26 AM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> SPARC has essentially the same pattern (it's a splitter though) and there was
> a
> missing early clobber becau
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54041
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54041
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54046
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54046
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-07-20
12:39:30 UTC ---
void foo (void) __attribute__((noreturn));
struct A
{
~A () {}
};
bool
check (int x)
{
A z;
switch (x)
{
case 0:
return false;
default:
foo ();
br
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043
--- Comment #5 from Aryeh Gregor 2012-07-20 12:39:00
UTC ---
Thanks. Is there any publicly-accessible summary of the previous discussion,
so that I can read it and not retread old ground? Also, if the WG agrees to
make the change in the next ve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54041
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Schwab 2012-07-20 12:37:41
UTC ---
expr.c:7576: tmp = convert_memory_address_addr_space (tmode, tmp, as);
This looks bogus, tmp (which is the expanded offset) isn't a memory address.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53974
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou 2012-07-20
12:26:33 UTC ---
> I don't think there is an earlyclobber problem in the insn at 4923.
SPARC has essentially the same pattern (it's a splitter though) and there was a
missing early clobber because the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54048
Bug #: 54048
Summary: Uninitialized input_location in front-end
initialization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52062
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-07-20
12:17:48 UTC ---
In fact it was discussed last August, one of the final comments was "It also
feels like it's not a defect, so it would have to wait for a new TR or
standard."
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53974
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-07-20 12:16:37 UTC ---
On 18-Jul-12, at 6:15 AM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I have seen the same error on SPARC. The fix is
>
>* config/sparc/sparc.md (adddi3_insn_sp32): Add
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54046
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||3.4.3
Summary|wrong control
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54046
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54047
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|minor |enhancement
--- Comment #3 from Jonatha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043
--- Comment #2 from Aryeh Gregor 2012-07-20 12:00:57
UTC ---
See third-to-last paragraph of comment #0. AFAICT, gcc is currently correct
according to the standard, but I think the behavior specified by the standard
is undesirable. If gcc mainta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54047
Bug #: 54047
Summary: unused variable warning not for std::string
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54046
Bug #: 54046
Summary: wrong control reaches end of non-void function for
switch case with throw and default
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54038
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54038
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-07-20
11:33:38 UTC ---
I doubt that it is a good idea to put TYPE_CANONICAL in type variant lists.
At most they should be the main variant itself, but in this case you can
end up merging two type variant
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54041
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-07-20
11:33:14 UTC ---
Ok, in that case I'd say the m68k backend is entitled to not define P_E_U, and
it's really c_m_a_a_s (or something related to it) that's broken.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54031
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54031
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2012-07-20
11:25:01 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jul 20 11:24:55 2012
New Revision: 189715
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189715
Log:
2012-07-20 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54038
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-07-20
11:08:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 27844
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27844
gcc48-pr54038.patch
Untested fix. On array23.C testcase, we have Foo as main variant of Foo2 and
we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54041
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab 2012-07-20 10:54:41
UTC ---
-mshort doesn't change word_mode, UNITS_PER_WORD is fixed at 4. -mshort only
changes sizeof(int).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54028
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54028
Rainer Emrich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54028
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Emrich 2012-07-20
10:23:32 UTC ---
Am 20.07.2012 09:23, schrieb gingold at gcc dot gnu.org:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54028
>
> ging...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
>
> What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54041
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-07-20
10:21:13 UTC ---
I think this behaviour is correct, do you have a standard reference indicating
otherwise?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54044
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54045
Bug #: 54045
Summary: Building bash 4.2 fails with gcc version 4.7.1 and
throughing an error message gcc:internal compiler
error : Segmentation fault (program cc1).
Classification:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53828
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54029
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54025
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Version|4.7.1
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
