http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54746
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel 2012-10-01
07:23:21 UTC ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Mon Oct 1 07:23:12 2012
New Revision: 191885
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191885
Log:
2012-10-01 Andreas Krebbel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54746
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Krebbel 2012-10-01
07:33:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> break;
> case PROCESSOR_2097_Z10:
> s390_cost = &z10_cost;
> case PROCESSOR_2817_Z196:
> s390_cost = &z196_cost;
>
> Looks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54746
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Krebbel 2012-10-01
07:51:26 UTC ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Mon Oct 1 07:51:20 2012
New Revision: 191888
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191888
Log:
2012-10-01 Andreas Krebbel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19351
--- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-01
08:12:07 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Oct 1 08:12:01 2012
New Revision: 191891
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191891
Log:
Move PR c++/19351 ChangeLog entry to co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50457
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-01 08:34:11
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Oct 1 08:34:02 2012
New Revision: 191899
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191899
Log:
PR target/50457
* config/sh/sh.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54761
--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak 2012-10-01 08:48:24
UTC ---
FWIW, btest from libbacktrace already fails with:
test1: [0]: got C expected test.c
test1: [0]: got 197864 expected 303
test1: [0]: got expected f3
FAIL: backtrace_full noinl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54765
Bug #: 54765
Summary: I like to make any windows native exe file from a java
jar
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54765
--- Comment #1 from Kiskunsag 2012-10-01 10:05:47 UTC
---
Created attachment 28310
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28310
created .s file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54759
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54752
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54751
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Target Mil
-in.c:1022
0x4ccd8a lto_materialize_function
/home/dimhen/src/gcc-current/gcc/lto/lto.c:226
0x4ccd8a materialize_cgraph
/home/dimhen/src/gcc-current/gcc/lto/lto.c:3045
0x4d173a lto_main()
/home/dimhen/src/gcc-current/gcc/lto/lto.c:3307
Please submit a full bug report,
gcc vers
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54742
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-10-01
10:19:14 UTC ---
This is just (iterated) jump-threading I believe.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54741
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-10-01
10:20:43 UTC ---
use disassemble from inside gdb and look for the faulting instruction.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54737
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|lto |rtl-optimization
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54752
--- Comment #2 from Leith Bade 2012-10-01
10:40:18 UTC ---
Yes that did fix the problem.
Still it would be nice if the compiler said that rather than just crash with a
cryptic error.
Perhaps the linker should check that the same optim
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47799
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-10-01
10:58:06 UTC ---
If we arrange for "minimal" support, thus output BLOCK_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN/LOCATION
only if it is a FUNCTION_DECL (thus, try to handle 1-level inlining only) then
we run into the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54735
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-10-01
11:05:14 UTC ---
Hmhm, does it trigger with a reduced testcase also ...?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54741
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54764
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54764
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54761
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak 2012-10-01 12:11:16
UTC ---
For some reason _Unwind_Backtrace does not unwind after
backtrace_full/backtrace.c. This is problem in alpha unwinder.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54739
--- Comment #3 from Ulrich Weigand 2012-10-01
12:16:53 UTC ---
It seems all three of those targets have an "iordi3" pattern that triggers even
for 32-bit compiles. In this case, the lower-subreg pass now no longer splits
the register, so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54752
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i686-w64-mingw32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54741
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2012-10-01 12:55:07
UTC ---
Created attachment 28311
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28311
A patch
Please try this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54741
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53807
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54741
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28311|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47805
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50457
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-01 13:49:44
UTC ---
Hm, we still have libgcc/config/sh/linux-atomic.S around, which provides gUSA
only implementations of atomic functions. How about replacing this with a C
implementation instead? T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54766
Bug #: 54766
Summary: NAS Parallel Benchmark is killed during load for class
D and above
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54457
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-01 15:00:50 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Oct 1 15:00:41 2012
New Revision: 191928
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191928
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/54457
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54767
Bug #: 54767
Summary: Incorrect code generated with "-O2 -fcheck=bounds"
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54767
--- Comment #1 from Arnaud Desitter
2012-10-01 15:08:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 28313
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28313
test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54693
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-01
15:26:10 UTC ---
In VRP it is jump threading that performs the first CFG transformation, and the
second one happens as two merge_block opportunities during cleanup_tree_cfg.
Doing the new DEBUG
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54735
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-10-01 15:31:40 UTC ---
Created attachment 28314
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28314
testcase
(In reply to comment #6)
> Hmhm, does it trigger with a reduced testcase al
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54087
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Macleod 2012-10-01
15:50:26 UTC ---
Author: amacleod
Date: Mon Oct 1 15:50:09 2012
New Revision: 191929
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191929
Log:
2012-10-01 Andrew MacLeod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54766
fox at emphotonics dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Res
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54560
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bonzini at gnu dot org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54653
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54601
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54759
--- Comment #3 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-01 16:33:35 UTC ---
Author: dehao
Date: Mon Oct 1 16:33:23 2012
New Revision: 191931
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191931
Log:
2012-10-01 Dehao Chen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54431
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54413
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||3dw4rd at verizon dot net
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54325
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54767
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54303
Paul Brook changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pbrook at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54767
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2012-10-01
18:01:26 UTC ---
Confirmed.
For the failure, it is sufficient to use:
gfortran -fcheck=bounds -O1 -fstrict-overflow -ftree-pre -ftree-vrp xxx_2.f
(xxx_1.f can be compiled with any option.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54303
--- Comment #8 from Tom Rini 2012-10-01 18:01:37
UTC ---
I could be confused, but how is this a linker issue when gcc puts all of the
strings into a single section? To reiterate, if you have N functions each with
one string in it, on some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54767
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Targ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54767
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=54768
Bug #: 54768
Summary: ICE when struct with anon union has constexpr ctor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54653
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54413
--- Comment #5 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-10-01
18:47:33 UTC ---
If I remember correctly, we are supposed to parse compiler-specific extensions
before UDLs - i.e. The compiler extensions get dibs.
I guess th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54769
Bug #: 54769
Summary: C++ parser - dependent class method template not found
if structure template with the same name is visible
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54770
Bug #: 54770
Summary: sibling call optimization is not applied where it
ought to be
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54736
--- Comment #6 from Shane Hart 2012-10-01 19:29:24 UTC
---
Latest patch fixed it.
Thanks a lot for the time you put into this!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54761
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2012-10-01 19:45:30
UTC ---
If libbacktrace is compiled with -fasynchronous-unwind-tables, then btest works
OK. Also, when libbacktrace is compiled with this flag, log and runtime/pprof
does not fail anymore
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54759
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54751
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54627
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54761
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54303
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54653
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
uot;
FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr48636.f90 -O scan-ipa-dump inline "inline hints:
loop_iterations"
=== gfortran Summary ===
# of expected passes2
# of unexpected failures2
/usr/home/sgk/gcc/obj4x/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/../../gfortran ver
failures60
# of unsupported tests 1
/usr/home/sgk/gcc/obj4x/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/../../gfortran version 4.8.0
20121001 (experimental) (GCC)
Log file is attached.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54773
Bug #: 54773
Summary: no debug info generated for rvalue reference
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54772
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-01 22:24:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 28319
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28319
gzipped testsuite build log
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54757
--- Comment #17 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-01 23:10:08 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Oct 1 23:10:02 2012
New Revision: 191944
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191944
Log:
2012-10-01 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54757
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50457
--- Comment #9 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-10-01
23:29:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Would that be OK to do?
Yes, that sounds good for maintenance.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50457
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-01
23:39:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > Would that be OK to do?
>
> Yes, that sounds good for maintenance.
OK, I've already got something here, but I'm confus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53457
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-01
23:43:25 UTC ---
Can we close this now? I think we figured out that wasn't a C++ library-proper
issue, instead a fixincludes issue, but I don't understand whether the patches
are actually in and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53248
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54739
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-10-01 23:51:23 UTC ---
Thanks Ulrich for your analysis. On parisc, I believe it would be
best to remove
iordi3, anddi3, etc, for 32-bit targets if they are successfully
split. Testi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54770
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-02
00:37:30 UTC ---
4.5.2 is no longer maintained so won't be fixed in any case - could you check
whether the problem still exists in a current release, i.e. 4.6+, preferably
checking the trunk (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54774
Bug #: 54774
Summary: insufficient debug info for strong typed enum
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54775
Bug #: 54775
Summary: string error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50457
--- Comment #11 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-02
00:55:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 28321
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28321
cleanup libgcc/config/sh/linux-atomic
This is what I've got so far as a cleanup of the libgcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54775
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-02
01:00:21 UTC ---
That symbol is std::string::string(string&&), which will be found in the
libstdc++ from GCC 4.8, but not necessarily in earlier versions. The error
message says it's looking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54775
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-02
01:01:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> That symbol is std::string::string(string&&),
Sorry, that should be std::string::operator=(string&&), but otherwise my reply
applies.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53457
--- Comment #9 from rbmj at verizon dot net 2012-10-02 01:08:00 UTC ---
Paolo:
This was wrapped up with several other fixincludes patches with regards to
vxWorks, and Bruce Korb has approved the set and has agreed to commit.
However, he'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50457
--- Comment #12 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-10-02
02:17:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Created attachment 28321 [details]
> cleanup libgcc/config/sh/linux-atomic
Works fine for me.
> (three leading underscores)
You might get
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54769
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler
2012-10-02 06:04:56 UTC ---
In C++03 this was supposed to be ill-formed, but - as Mike Miller explained to
me - with the acceptance of CWG (no kidding ;-))
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_
84 matches
Mail list logo
