http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54398
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=54528
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54515
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-11
08:32:43 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Sep 11 08:32:29 2012
New Revision: 191174
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191174
Log:
2012-09-11 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54515
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54515
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54546
Bug #: 54546
Summary: SH: Enable -fshrink-wrap
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54546
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54545
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54534
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-11
09:49:27 UTC ---
I am testing
Index: gcc/cgraph.h
===
--- gcc/cgraph.h(revision 191174)
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54534
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-11
10:19:04 UTC ---
Well, the patch really is quite symptomatic - i.e. dwarf2out should not forget
about the decl when it is removed from varpool.
The way things are supposed to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54403
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54534
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-09-11 10:38:32 UTC ---
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54534
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54534
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-11
10:43:17 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Sep 11 10:43:13 2012
New Revision: 191176
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191176
Log:
2012-09-11 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54534
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54398
--- Comment #7 from ramrad01 at arm dot com 2012-09-11 10:44:30 UTC ---
On 09/11/12 07:09, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54398
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54534
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54548
Bug #: 54548
Summary: unclear error message for ambiguous type lookup.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54312
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-11
11:03:52 UTC ---
Patch pre-approved (also for 4.7) if it passes your testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54149
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-11
12:28:11 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Tue Sep 11 12:28:02 2012
New Revision: 191179
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191179
Log:
PR middle-end/54149
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54149
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54549
Bug #: 54549
Summary: Compilation Error : Assertion Failure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54519
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50640
--- Comment #26 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-11
13:44:44 UTC ---
The solution of comment 3, fixed by comment 24 seems to break the test case of
PR fortran/53718.
Reverting the patch (comment 24, except for unrelated
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53718
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-11
13:47:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
Could it be revision 181505?
Very likely. If it is, I'm betting on the PR50640 part of that commit.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54550
Bug #: 54550
Summary: GCC -O3 breaks floating point equality comparison
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52445
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54551
Bug #: 54551
Summary: DF resets some DEBUG_INSNs unnecessarily
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53957
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-11
15:02:00 UTC ---
There are a lot more reasons why we do not vectorize this loop :(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54172
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-11
15:23:01 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Sep 11 15:22:54 2012
New Revision: 191190
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191190
Log:
PR libstdc++/54172
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54172
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-11
15:23:01 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Sep 11 15:22:54 2012
New Revision: 191190
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191190
Log:
PR libstdc++/54172
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54172
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-11
15:24:12 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Sep 11 15:24:06 2012
New Revision: 191191
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191191
Log:
PR libstdc++/54172
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54550
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-11
15:34:59 UTC ---
Have you read http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#nonbugs_general and PR 323?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54550
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54550
--- Comment #3 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-11 15:48:10
UTC ---
Or with the more recent -fexcess-precision=standard option.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53718
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-11 15:57:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
My suspicious is that one of Richard's commits in May fixed the issue. In turn
that probably means that backing out the patch for PR50640 only
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54492
William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54552
Bug #: 54552
Summary: Cast to pointer to VLA crash the compiler
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54552
--- Comment #1 from Jens Gustedt jens.gustedt at loria dot fr 2012-09-11
16:11:59 UTC ---
The compiler error is
test-p99-gcc-bug.c:9:6: internal compiler error: in gimplify_expr, at
gimplify.c:7584
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54552
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54544
Zakhar jimfr06 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #16 from Teresa Johnson tejohnson at google dot com 2012-09-11
17:24:58 UTC ---
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Teresa Johnson tejohn...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:49 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-09-11 17:29:15
UTC ---
Thanks for looking into it. This is a long standing problem.
I have seen random profiledbootstrap failures for a long time.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #18 from Teresa Johnson tejohnson at google dot com 2012-09-11
17:39:00 UTC ---
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:29 AM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #19 from davidxl at google dot com 2012-09-11 17:44:29 UTC ---
How much saving do we get by not writing out the 0 entries? With the
proposed change, how less frequent is the problem occuring?
David
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:38 AM,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #20 from Teresa Johnson tejohnson at google dot com 2012-09-11
18:05:13 UTC ---
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
How much saving do we get by not writing out the 0 entries? With the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #21 from davidxl at google dot com 2012-09-11 18:08:26 UTC ---
Assuming the size of histogram for the same file does not vary that
much, is it better to round the size to the next power of 2 -- 60
entries will need print out 64 etc?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-09-11 18:10:55
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
Obviously the best solution would be to figure out how the lock is
being lost/ignored and fix that, but that may take some time.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #23 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-09-11 18:14:52 UTC ---
gcc/gcov-io.h has:
#if defined (HOST_HAS_F_SETLKW)
#define GCOV_LOCKED 1
#else
#define GCOV_LOCKED 0
#endif
But HOST_HAS_F_SETLKW isn't defined
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53306
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-09-11
18:16:59 UTC ---
This PR is fixed by the patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-09/msg00035.html for pr54225. Isn't it a
duplicate?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54225
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-09-11
18:19:29 UTC ---
This PR seems to be a duplicate of pr53306.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54550
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|32-bit X86 on Linux |i?86-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #24 from Teresa Johnson tejohnson at google dot com 2012-09-11
18:57:05 UTC ---
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:14 AM, markus at trippelsdorf dot de
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-11
18:58:59 UTC ---
Indeed, seems http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-05/msg00571.html
has introduced use of that macro, but didn't bother to actually define it
anywhere.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
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=54487
--- Comment #27 from Teresa Johnson tejohnson at google dot com 2012-09-11
19:08:07 UTC ---
Thanks for the pointers, Jakub. I'll work on adding this check.
Teresa
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:04 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40836
--- Comment #31 from Daniel Drake dsd at laptop dot org 2012-09-11 19:11:27
UTC ---
Created attachment 28173
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28173
preprocessed source that crashes
Another preprocessed source example that shows
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54544
--- Comment #4 from Zakhar jimfr06 at gmail dot com 2012-09-11 21:09:28 UTC
---
MORE
Unfortunately, I don't think the hypothesis of the uninitialized pointed memory
hold. That should prove it if we add:
/*01*/ int fct(volatile int *p);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54551
--- Comment #1 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-11
21:20:11 UTC ---
I guess we have to somehow local all death points of the pseudo in paths
towards the debug use, and insert debug insns binding the same debug temp to
the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28896
Larry Baker baker at usgs dot gov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28165|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44191
Israel Pinkas ipinkas at nds dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ipinkas at nds dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54482
Benjamin Kosnik bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54550
--- Comment #5 from Veiokej veiokej at gmail dot com 2012-09-12 03:28:43 UTC
---
Johnathan,
Yes, I've read the floating point nonbug stuff. This isn't a nonbug.
Michael,
I understand your point, and thanks for the command line option. However,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54550
--- Comment #6 from Veiokej veiokej at gmail dot com 2012-09-12 04:14:52 UTC
---
In the process of trying to create a demo, I think I found the problem.
Indeed, no math is taking place between when the value X is first computed and
stored to the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54482
--- Comment #3 from Ollie Wild aaw at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-12 04:58:29 UTC
---
Note, however, that simply changing pic_flag to
pic_flag=-D_GLIBCXX_SHARED -fPIC -DPIC
is insufficient. It suffers from the same issue as the original
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54551
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-12
05:54:29 UTC ---
If there is a death point of the pseudo that dominates bbs with uses in some
debug insns, then I think best is to insert the debug temporary immediately
before
65 matches
Mail list logo
