http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55320
--- Comment #1 from Benjamin Kircher
2012-11-14 08:10:06 UTC ---
Sorry.
System type was
$ uname -a
Linux 3.2.0-4-486 #1 Debian 3.2.32-1 i686 GNU/Linux
$ file a.out
a.out: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dyn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55321
Bug #: 55321
Summary: [4.8 regression] Ada bootstrap failure on
armv5tel-linux-gnueabi
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55293
--- Comment #15 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-11-14
08:34:11 UTC ---
FWIW, I bootstrapped a pure 64-bit gcc-4.7.2 on Solaris 10/SPARC64 yesterday,
with C, Ada, and C++, using a normal 32-bit-but-64-bit-capable gcc-4.7.2 as
host compiler. Ab
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55317
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-11-14
08:42:23 UTC ---
Duplicate of PR55268?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55293
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou 2012-11-14
08:49:46 UTC ---
> FWIW, I bootstrapped a pure 64-bit gcc-4.7.2 on Solaris 10/SPARC64 yesterday,
> with C, Ada, and C++, using a normal 32-bit-but-64-bit-capable gcc-4.7.2 as
> host compiler.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54429
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo 2012-11-14 09:45:22
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
>
> makes the unwanted subreg propagation go away, but ends up in another reload
> trouble:
>
> sh_tmp.cpp:92:1: error: unable to find a register to sp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55320
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55322
Bug #: 55322
Summary: Suggestion: Warn suspicious usage of arrays of
structures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55320
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55323
Bug #: 55323
Summary: [4.8] ICE in expand_aggr_init_1, at cp/init.c:1718
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54619
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18016
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||brunonery+bugzilla at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55318
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55320
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55320
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-11-14
12:12:19 UTC ---
Untested:
--- functional.orig 2012-11-14 12:11:32.442993035 +
+++ functional 2012-11-14 12:11:34.315184425 +
@@ -2318,8 +2318,8 @@
if (_My_handler::_M
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55268
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55268
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jojelino at gmail dot com
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55317
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55324
Bug #: 55324
Summary: diagnostic about abstract new in type derivation
misleading due to being overly terse
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54413
--- Comment #18 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-11-14
13:07:00 UTC ---
I added a bullet for this flag in gcc-4.8/changes.html.
How does one close a bug?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54413
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54413
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-11-14
13:21:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> I added a bullet for this flag in gcc-4.8/changes.html.
Thanks!
> How does one close a bug?
You need to have the right permission bits set
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55322
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55292
--- Comment #1 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-14
13:46:01 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Nov 14 13:45:56 2012
New Revision: 193500
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193500
Log:
Check __x86_64__ instead of __WOR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55292
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55253
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #24 from David Edelsohn 2012-11-14
14:20:06 UTC ---
I successfully built GCC 4.7 earlier this week.
You may need to use GMP 4.3.2, not GMP 5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54466
--- Comment #12 from Matt Clarkson 2012-11-14
14:24:11 UTC ---
@Dodji, thanks for fixing this :) What release will this be in? 4.8.1?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #21 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-14
14:24:43 UTC ---
Patch posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg01116.html which
assumes the libsanitizer maintainers import mach_override/mach_override.h and
mach_override/mach_ov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54466
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
--- Comment #13 from Jo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55323
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #22 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-14
14:45:48 UTC ---
Revised patch posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg01119.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55323
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-14 15:06:44
UTC ---
With revision 193500, we got
libdecnumber -I../../src-trunk/gcc/../libdecnumber/bid -I../libdecnumber
-I../../src-trunk/gcc/../libbacktrace../../src-trunk/gcc/gimple-iterator.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-14 15:08:53
UTC ---
There are
badness = (relative_time_benefit (callee_info, edge, edge_time)
* (INT_MIN / 16 / RELATIVE_TIME_BENEFIT_RANGE));
badness /= (growth * MAX (1,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-14 15:35:26 UTC
---
> --- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf
> 2012-11-14 15:13:08 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > There are
> >
> > badness = (relative_time_benefit (callee_info,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #23 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-14
15:51:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 28683
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28683
debug output from mach_override running use_after_free test case
Debugging output from mach
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #24 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-14
15:59:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 28684
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28684
disassembled use-after-free.o from clang 3.2
Disassembled use-after-free.o generated with..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #25 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-14
16:02:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 28685
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28685
disassembled use-after-free.o from gcc trunk
Disassembled use-after-free.o generated with..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #26 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-14
16:03:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 28686
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28686
diff between disassembled use-after-free.o generated by clang 3.2 and gcc trunk
rride.c
overridePossible = false @299
err = f801
../../../../gcc-4.8-20121114/libsanitizer/interception/mach_override/mach_override.c:308
err = f801
../../../../gcc-4.8-20121114/libsanitizer/interception/mach_override/mach_override.c:321
err = f801
../../../../gcc-4.8-20121114/l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
Bug #: 55325
Summary: [4.8 Regression]: g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-complex.C
excess errors
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
Alexander Potapenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glider at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55326
Bug #: 55326
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-complex.C (test for
excess errors)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55326
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gretay at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-14
16:37:36 UTC ---
Also, this comparison doesn't have numbers for pure clang without
-fsanitize=address and gcc without -faddress-sanitizer, so likely most of the
speed differences can't be attrib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #29 from Alexander Potapenko 2012-11-14
16:40:53 UTC ---
Index: mach_override.c
===
--- mach_override.c(revision 167724)
+++ mach_override.c(working copy)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55323
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47440
--- Comment #8 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-14 16:47:43 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Nov 14 16:47:29 2012
New Revision: 193503
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193503
Log:
PR target/47440
* config
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #30 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-14
16:54:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #29)
Thanks with the patch applied from comment 29, now the use-after-free testcase
works without errors...
howarth% ./use-after-free
==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55318
--- Comment #2 from brunonery+bugzilla at brunonery dot com 2012-11-14 16:55:36
UTC ---
Not -Winit-self alone, but together with -Wuninitialized.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-11-14
16:59:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I also see failing g++.dg/parse/template23.C and for this one too the problem
> seems related to the recent changes for PR54413.
Right, thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-11-14 17:02:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Also, this comparison doesn't have numbers for pure clang without
> -fsanitize=address and gcc without -faddress-sanitizer, so likely most of th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55254
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55327
Bug #: 55327
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/slp-perm-8.c scan-tree-dump-times
vect "vectorized 1 loops" 2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54717
--- Comment #12 from Sergey Ostanevich 2012-11-14
18:56:22 UTC ---
Actually, it is not.
I found that PRE did not collected a memory access within the loop that caused
later missing vectorization. Here is dump before (good one) and after t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #31 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-14
19:10:15 UTC ---
Also fine on i386-apple-darwin10...
howarth% ./use-after-free
=
==82550== ERROR: AddressSanitizer heap-use-aft
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55079
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8 regression] false |[4.8 regression] false
|
> So for the loop that starting at bb 28 you can see the xxtrt_46 access was not
> put into pretemp. Possible reason is exactly as it was mentioned by Richard -
> there were extra candidates collected and this one become less anticipatable
>
> Skipping partial partial redundancy for expression
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54717
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-14 19:43:00
UTC ---
> So for the loop that starting at bb 28 you can see the xxtrt_46 access was not
> put into pretemp. Possible reason is exactly as it was mentioned by Richard -
> there were extr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54717
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11750
--- Comment #9 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-14 20:12:56 UTC ---
Author: fabien
Date: Wed Nov 14 20:12:47 2012
New Revision: 193504
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193504
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2012-11-14 Fa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11750
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Reso
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-11-14
20:20:27 UTC ---
OK, g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-complex.C will fail with the patch to control GNU
literal parsing. i.e. this behavior in intended.
The purpose of th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #32 from Konstantin Serebryany 2012-11-14 20:21:19 UTC ---
Just want to repeat, that any work on mach_override may end up being wasted
time
because we plan to get rid of mach_override *really* soon.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55323
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-14 20:29:26 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Nov 14 20:29:07 2012
New Revision: 193505
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193505
Log:
/cp
2012-11-14 Paolo Carlin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-14
20:36:37 UTC ---
If you ask me, I have I slight preference for the latter, because isn't always
obvious what gnu++* includes beyond c++*. But Jason will tell you, and the fix
is straightforward
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55323
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55328
Bug #: 55328
Summary: ICE: in output_addr_table_entry, at dwarf2out.c:21780
with -gsplit-dwarf
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-11-14 20:48:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 28688
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28688
testcase
The testcase is only reduced to 97K, but it gets reduced very slowly
and I'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55329
Bug #: 55329
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE: internal compiler error: in
operator[], at vec.h:487 with -O
-fno-guess-branch-probability -fnon-call-exceptions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #33 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-14
20:56:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
> Just want to repeat, that any work on mach_override may end up being wasted
> time
> because we plan to get rid of mach_override *really* soon.
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55321
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55330
Bug #: 55330
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE: Maximum number of LRA constraint
passes is achieved (15) on
gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_1.f90
Classification: Unclassif
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55329
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55330
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-11-14
21:43:28 UTC ---
I don't see it on x86_64-apple-darwin10 (revisions 193495+patches and 193329).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #6 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-11-14
21:52:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
>
> Invoke with gnu++0x:
> // { dg-options -std=gnu++0x }
>
> Invoke with new flag:
> // { dg-options -std=c++0x -fe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55331
Bug #: 55331
Summary: [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in
substitute_and_fold with -O2 -fno-tree-fre
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #34 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-14
22:09:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
> Just want to repeat, that any work on mach_override may end up being wasted
> time
> because we plan to get rid of mach_override *really* soon.
O
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55331
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #7 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-11-14
22:18:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > I also see failing g++.dg/parse/template23.C and for this one too the
> > problem
> > see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53346
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-14
22:28:19 UTC ---
The latter seems indeed a target issue, as you can read here Hans-Peter
reported it for cris-elf, but have a look to the testresults mailing list to
double check. Personally, I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-14
22:30:51 UTC ---
In fact, however, a Linux target like s390x is also affected:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-11/msg01187.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53346
--- Comment #22 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-14
22:38:19 UTC ---
OK, similar loop in C looks like:
float a[1];
float b[1];
t()
{
int mi = 0,i;
for (i=0;i<1000;i++)
if (a[i]")))
(set (pc) (if_then_else
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #10 from Uros Bizjak 2012-11-14 22:42:45
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> > Right, thanks, I was just about to analyze that one. Speaking of that
> > commit,
> > some of the new tests fail for me:
> > FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-14
23:03:27 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Nov 14 23:03:22 2012
New Revision: 193512
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193512
Log:
PR bootstrap/55051
* ipa-inli
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53841
Richard Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard-gccbugzilla at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #35 from Konstantin Serebryany 2012-11-14 23:10:00 UTC ---
>> Is that certain to be soon enough
Not 100%. I am just warning you.
>> Will the replacement of mach_override also depend on the Core Foundation
>> framework?
Th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53841
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48636
--- Comment #39 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-14
23:22:40 UTC ---
Hmm, indeed. Good catch. I will look into it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55320
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-11-14
23:33:08 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Nov 14 23:33:01 2012
New Revision: 193514
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193514
Log:
PR libstdc++/55320
* include/s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55332
Bug #: 55332
Summary: [4.8 Regression] libsanitizer breaks build on hpux
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55328
--- Comment #1 from sterling at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-14 23:36:54 UTC ---
Author: sterling
Date: Wed Nov 14 23:36:50 2012
New Revision: 193515
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193515
Log:
2012-11-14 Sterling Augu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #36 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-11-14 23:49:25 UTC ---
Jack,
Could you please post a patch with the regenerated files. I have lost my
struggle with the auto* versions and I am giving up.
TIA
mgrid do not seem to be sensitive to --param min-inline-speedup, so it seems
independent regression of this change.
No idea what goes wrong.
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48636
--- Comment #40 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-14 23:54:44
UTC ---
mgrid do not seem to be sensitive to --param min-inline-speedup, so it seems
independent regression of this change.
No idea what goes wrong.
Honza
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
