http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41993
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49220
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51570
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47624
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49888
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #43 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-08
02:26:12 UTC ---
On 11/08/2012 02:56 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On the other hand, the old-old code for rehash didn't use
> _M_growth_factor in these computations, it just literally enforced t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #42 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-08
01:56:15 UTC ---
On 11/08/2012 01:58 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 7 November 2012 22:02, François Dumont wrote:
>> Ok to commit ? If so, where ?
> That patch is OK for trunk and 4.7, thanks.
... I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29845
--- Comment #13 from Oleg Endo 2012-11-08
01:08:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #11)
>
> > Do you have any particular example in mind?
>
> Just compare the size & performance of the code generated from fp-b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #41 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-11-08
00:58:55 UTC ---
On 7 November 2012 22:02, François Dumont wrote:
>
> Ok to commit ? If so, where ?
That patch is OK for trunk and 4.7, thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29845
--- Comment #12 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2012-11-07 23:56:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Do you have any particular example in mind?
Just compare the size & performance of the code generated from fp-bit.c with
the hand-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48806
--- Comment #8 from Ryan Mansfield 2012-11-07
23:56:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Is it OK to close this PR without adding the test case to the test suite?
That's fine with me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48806
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo 2012-11-07 23:50:09
UTC ---
I've tried to reproduce the test case of this PR on rev 193240 (4.8) with the
change in rev 185714 reverted. It seems that this test case doesn't trigger
the error any more. Howev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43313
--- Comment #8 from Peter Bergner 2012-11-07
23:39:56 UTC ---
...and the reduced test case I used for the above. Does any of the above make
sense for anyone?
class CObject {};
class CMsgProc:virtual public CObject { };
template < ty
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43313
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner 2012-11-07
23:33:54 UTC ---
Backtrace:
#0 fancy_abort (file=0x113d6b90
"/home/bergner/gcc/gcc-fsf-mainline-base/gcc/expr.c", line=7597,
function=0x113d7158
"expand_expr_addr_expr_1")
at /ho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29845
--- Comment #11 from Oleg Endo 2012-11-07
23:33:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> but the compiler is not much good at combining
> high-level transformations with streamlined data representation,
> ABI modification, register allocati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #25 from Oleg Endo 2012-11-07
23:31:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 28633
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28633
Arithmetic right shift rework 2
This could be an alternative approach for the arith right shif
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41993
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49220
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-07 23:02:58
UTC ---
Created attachment 28632
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28632
A complete testcase
I applied i386 change at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55151
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-11-07
22:43:35 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Nov 7 22:43:30 2012
New Revision: 193317
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193317
Log:
2012-11-07 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #22 from Eric Botcazou 2012-11-07
22:43:00 UTC ---
> (,%eax,4) generates a 0x67 address-size prefix, which zero-extends
> 32-bit address to 64-bit.
OK, I see. Then it would be interesting to have a testcase that generates th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29845
--- Comment #10 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2012-11-07 22:40:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Jörn,
> I was curious whether the soft fpu code of yours is also available as C/C++,
> or
> did you write it in asm only? I guess it would be an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55219
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Version|4.6.
nd/55219
* fold-const.c (fold_binary_op_with_conditional_arg): Do not fold if
the argument is itself a conditional expression.
Added:
branches/gcc-4_6-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20121107-1.c
- copied unchanged from r193313,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55219
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|ebotcazou at gcc dot|
|gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55235
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-07 22:34:53 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Nov 7 22:34:48 2012
New Revision: 193314
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193314
Log:
PR middle-end/55235
* ex
* fold-const.c (fold_binary_op_with_conditional_arg): Do not fold if
the argument is itself a conditional expression.
Added:
branches/gcc-4_7-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20121107-1.c
- copied unchanged from r193312,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/2012
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43207
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-07 22:26:18 UTC ---
Here is a draft patch which rejects comment #1:
Index: gcc/fortran/primary.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/pri
* fold-const.c (fold_binary_op_with_conditional_arg): Do not fold if
the argument is itself a conditional expression.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20121107-1.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fold-const.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55227
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55151
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-11-07
22:20:26 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Nov 7 22:20:15 2012
New Revision: 193311
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193311
Log:
2012-11-07 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43313
--- Comment #6 from Peter Bergner 2012-11-07
22:16:52 UTC ---
Reconfirmed. It fails with mainline as of today and with the FSF 4.7 branch,
but only with -m32. It compiles fine with -m64.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||33704
--- Comment #19 from Dav
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #21 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-07 22:11:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> If you compile the testcase with the unmodified compiler but without -fPIC,
> you
> get in the assembly file:
>
> movl%edx, _dl_rtld_map-1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55122
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-11-07
22:11:13 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Nov 7 22:11:08 2012
New Revision: 193310
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193310
Log:
2012-11-07 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55235
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou 2012-11-07
22:07:00 UTC ---
> Please note that before your patch, emit_block_move was never called.
Indeed, I missed that.
> Following patch fixes testcase for me:
>
> --cut here--
> Index: expr.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #40 from frs.dumont at gmail dot com 2012-11-07 22:02:56 UTC ---
Here is the patch to fix the redundant rehash/reserve issue.
2012-11-07 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/54075
* include/bits/hashtable.h (_Hashtable<>::rehash
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43207
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-07 22:00:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> r159431 fixes the ICE. Comment #0 is now accepted without an error message.
With 4.7 and trunk, comment #0 is rejected with:
this_pa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29845
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo 2012-11-07 21:37:47
UTC ---
Jörn,
I was curious whether the soft fpu code of yours is also available as C/C++, or
did you write it in asm only? I guess it would be an interesting bunch of code
quality tests for the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53949
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo 2012-11-07 21:31:39
UTC ---
Christian, I just wanted to check with you whether you've already started doing
something regarding the mac.w / mac.l instructions?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54830
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo 2012-11-07 21:27:11
UTC ---
Just for the record..
The arithmetic right shift by 16 splits into the sequence swap.w exts.w after
combine. Thus, any other following extensions don't get combined away.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55158
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher 2012-11-07
21:19:42 UTC ---
Completely untested patch for someone else to foster-parent:
--- sched-rgn.c 2012-11-04 14:48:19.110019609 -0800
+++ sched-rgn.c 2012-11-07 13:17:06.740019608 -0800
@@ -298
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55171
--- Comment #4 from Adam Mitz 2012-11-07 21:10:26 UTC
---
The generated code for the thunk is incorrect in that it re-uses the %eax
register, clobbering the original "this" value:
Dump of assembler code for function _ZTv0_n16_NK7Derived3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55236
Bug #: 55236
Summary: [4.8 Regression] gcc.c-torture/execute/pr22493-1.c
FAILs with -fPIC
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55158
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55158
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher 2012-11-07
20:57:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> The last basic block is 23, and the array bb_state[] is initialized only
> for entries 0..22. Perhaps the number entries allocated should be
> (la
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55235
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak 2012-11-07 20:17:45
UTC ---
Please note that before your patch, emit_block_move was never called.
Following patch fixes testcase for me:
--cut here--
Index: expr.c
=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43313
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48385
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-11-07
19:47:58 UTC ---
This was fixed for gcc-4.6.2 in r176841, the 4.6 fix for the essentially
identical issue reported as PR49866. The generated assembly for the test case
in comment #7 changed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55224
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-07 19:35:29 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Nov 7 19:35:25 2012
New Revision: 193306
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193306
Log:
PR target/55224
* config
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55224
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55224
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-07 19:30:53 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Nov 7 19:30:48 2012
New Revision: 193305
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193305
Log:
PR target/55224
* config
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52816
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55235
--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak 2012-11-07 19:05:33
UTC ---
It looks to me that this is the problematic change:
--- trunk/gcc/expr.c2012/10/20 20:16:27192640
+++ trunk/gcc/expr.c2012/10/20 21:00:23192641
(...)
@@ -5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55235
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52965
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52965
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler
2012-11-07 18:45:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I agree with Jonathan and James this issue can be closed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52965
--- Comment #3 from James Caccese 2012-11-07
18:40:44 UTC ---
On 11/7/2012 1:39 PM, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52965
>
> Paolo Carlini changed:
>
> What|Remov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52965
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #20 from Eric Botcazou 2012-11-07
18:35:13 UTC ---
If you compile the testcase with the unmodified compiler but without -fPIC, you
get in the assembly file:
movl%edx, _dl_rtld_map-1073742800(,%eax,4)
I presume
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fate66260 at gmail dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50998
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53063
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-11-07
18:27:22 UTC ---
Author: manu
Date: Wed Nov 7 18:27:14 2012
New Revision: 193304
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193304
Log:
gcc/
2012-11-07 Manuel López-Ibáñez
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53518
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54671
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53145
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54997
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53063
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-11-07
17:54:20 UTC ---
Author: manu
Date: Wed Nov 7 17:54:11 2012
New Revision: 193302
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193302
Log:
c-family/
2012-11-07 Manuel López-Ibáñez
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55235
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak 2012-11-07 17:39:52
UTC ---
(gdb) p debug_rtx (x)
(mem/j/c:BLK (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 54 virtual-stack-vars)
(const_int -16 [0xfff0])) [0 a.V4SF+0 S16 A128])
$1 = void
(gdb) p debug_rtx (y)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55235
Bug #: 55235
Summary: [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr44948-2a.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54713
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54713
--- Comment #11 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-11-07 17:17:47 UTC ---
On 11/7/2012 8:29 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Which test started failing?
pr53410 was failing here
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-10/msg02016
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51294
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51294
--- Comment #11 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-11-07
16:58:13 UTC ---
Author: manu
Date: Wed Nov 7 16:58:03 2012
New Revision: 193301
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193301
Log:
2012-11-07 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR c/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55234
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55003
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||supercilious.dude at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55159
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53787
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor 2012-11-07
15:56:00 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Nov 7 15:55:54 2012
New Revision: 193298
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193298
Log:
2012-11-07 Martin Jambor
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55159
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
es through, other compilers like xlf or pgf90 complain about
it.
gcc version 4.8.0 20121107 (experimental) (GCC)
module mod
interface foo
module procedure :: foo1
end interface
contains
subroutine foo1 ( )
end subroutine foo1
end module mod
Valery
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #18 from Adi 2012-11-07 15:25:27 UTC
---
Follow up on comment 17:
1) I did try to set the priority on the shared lib (via -binitfini) and it does
not work. I mean the priority is set but the exe is still the one that is
g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55224
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i686
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55141
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55058
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||petschy at gmail dot com
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55097
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55219
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55149
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8 Regression] capturing |capturing VLA in lambda
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-07
14:54:59 UTC ---
Patches should go to gcc-patches. But I'm afraid it's too late for something
like this to make 4.8.0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #17 from Adi 2012-11-07 14:45:59 UTC
---
Finally I got it working. You are right, there are _GLOBAL* symbols generated
for each constructor, but only when you specify the init_priority attr for
that object. (otherwise there is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55139
--- Comment #3 from Andi Kleen 2012-11-07
14:45:17 UTC ---
I saw the problem both with bootstrapped and non bootstrapped (4.6 base)
compilers
I haven't checked if it's always the missing and, but it's likely
Ok I can change everything t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55139
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55232
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|4.7.3 |
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55219
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-07
14:18:36 UTC ---
Slightly deobfuscated testcase:
int x, c, d, e, f, g, h, i;
double j;
const int k;
const enum { B } a;
void
fn1 (void)
{
h = (g ? c : g ? f : g ? e : g ? i : g ? f : g ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55219
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55233
Bug #: 55233
Summary: libstdc++ atomic does not support hle_acquire/release
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55232
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-11-07
14:08:42 UTC ---
4.7.3 gives:
t.cc: In instantiation of 'void X::push_back(typename T::value_type ...)
[with T = {vector}; typename T::value_type = ]':
t.cc:17:20: required from here
t.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55232
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-checking|
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54828
--- Comment #7 from John Baldwin 2012-11-07 14:06:22
UTC ---
I tested the backport to 4.7 on my original production case and it compiles
fine now, thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54718
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-07
14:05:15 UTC ---
Did you mean some other PR?
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
