http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55967
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-15
07:55:06 UTC ---
Please google around on "undefined behavior", you'll find various FAQs about
it. When a program triggers undefined behavior, anything can happen, the
compiler can optimize base
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55967
JoeSoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||b1314361 at rmqkr dot net
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55987
Bug #: 55987
Summary: Redundant constant emitted
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #1 from Kostya Serebryany 2013-01-15
06:12:27 UTC ---
[DISCLAIMER] I don't have access nor any experience with powerpc.
Could you please insert various debugging Printf calls before the assertion in
asan_thread.cc:74?
Basic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54286
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54286
--- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas 2013-01-15 05:29:07
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Tue Jan 15 05:29:01 2013
New Revision: 195185
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195185
Log:
2013-01-15 Paul Thomas
PR fortr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55986
--- Comment #2 from David Krauss 2013-01-15 04:48:47
UTC ---
Passing `-O2` additionally causes it to skip a condition like `(i == 0 || i !=
0)`, so it looks like a general issue with expression simplification bypassing
use.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55986
--- Comment #1 from David Krauss 2013-01-15 04:47:53
UTC ---
Passing `-O2` additionally causes it to skip a condition like `(i == 0 || i !=
0)`, so it looks like a general issue with expression simplification bypassing
ODR-use.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55986
Bug #: 55986
Summary: RHS of logical operators may render LHS unevaluated in
constant-expression
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55739
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2013-01-15 02:19:55
UTC ---
There are already
R_386_SIZE32 38 word32 Z + A
R_X86_64_SIZE32 32 word32 Z + A
R_X86_64_SIZE64 33 word64 Z + A
They s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55925
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55985
Bug #: 55985
Summary: Misleading message about which variable 'may be used
uninitialized in this function'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55982
--- Comment #2 from Paul Pluzhnikov 2013-01-15
00:59:57 UTC ---
Patch mailed: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00756.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55925
lailavrazda1979 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55925
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55925
--- Comment #6 from lailavrazda1979 at gmail dot com 2013-01-14 23:18:30 UTC ---
So, you need GCC 4.8 to build GCC 4.8? That's just... why? Doesn't that mean
it's basically impossible to build GCC 4.8 without a binary of it first?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55984
Bug #: 55984
Summary: ICE: gfc_trans_code(): Bad statement code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55983
Bug #: 55983
Summary: ICE in find_typebound_proc_uop, at
fortran/class.c:2711
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55981
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2013-01-14
23:03:04 UTC ---
A reduced test case which shows the problem in the dump:
! { dg-do run }
! { dg-options "-fcoarray=single" }
!
! PR fortran/50981
! PR fortran/54618
!
program main
i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55982
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at redhat dot com
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55982
Bug #: 55982
Summary: __strncat_chk is buggy
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55981
--- Comment #2 from Evgeniy Stepanov
2013-01-14 22:48:08 UTC ---
Btw, the same happens if atomic is replaced with "volatile unsigned long y" -
which does not violate the standard, but may be considered undesirable by some.
I don't have a s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55981
--- Comment #1 from Evgeniy Stepanov
2013-01-14 22:45:30 UTC ---
Disassembly of the loop in ff() function:
4007c0: movl $0x2,0x2008de(%rip)# 6010a8
4007ca: movl $0x1,0x2008d8(%rip)# 6010ac
4007d4:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55981
Bug #: 55981
Summary: std::atomic store is split in two smaller stores
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17886
--- Comment #26 from Andi Kleen 2013-01-14
22:37:34 UTC ---
Sorry commented on the wrong bug. ignore.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54286
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres 2013-01-14
22:35:20 UTC ---
Additional comment from #gfortran:
AFAIU this kind of changes, they cannot cause a problem for anything that did
not triggered the ICE.
So they are basically harmles
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55966
--- Comment #9 from Andi Kleen 2013-01-14
22:34:16 UTC ---
Also i need to look more closely, but most likely the C++ atomic code should be
changed to avoid this situation. This would give much better code on x86 in any
case even without el
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17886
--- Comment #25 from Andi Kleen 2013-01-14
22:32:59 UTC ---
Also i need to look more closely, but most likely the C++ atomic code should be
changed to avoid this situation. This would give much better code on x86 in any
case even without e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55966
--- Comment #8 from Andi Kleen 2013-01-14
22:32:06 UTC ---
forbid = give warning and drop bit
It's a hint, but in a good implementation it should not be silently dropped or
code generated that has no chance to elide. It's a quality of im
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55806
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2013-01-14
22:29:37 UTC ---
Now for something harder (which is Michael Metcalf's original idiom):
if (any([a(1),a(2)]>acc) then...
This can be done by converting
[a1, a2, ...] binop scalar to [a1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55963
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54730
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55966
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55977
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler
2013-01-14 22:18:08 UTC ---
I just notice that the implementation of construct should be changed to
template
void construct(U* p, Args&&... args)
{
::new (static_cast(p)) U(std::forward(args)...);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55979
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55977
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55739
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2013-01-14 22:11:16
UTC ---
Created attachment 29165
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29165
A prototype
If as, ld and ld.so provide size info via "symbol@size", we can do
.LASAN0:
# __b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55966
--- Comment #6 from Andi Kleen 2013-01-14
22:05:38 UTC ---
Hmm that's true. x86 doesn't have xand, x_or, x_xor, only xadd
Maybe cmpxchg is the only way?
For some special cases it can be done (like and single bit-> btr, or single bit
->
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50342
--- Comment #13 from Jack Howarth 2013-01-14
21:58:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> FYI, I recently ran into this issue as well building gcc 4.7.2 on MacOS 10.7.5
> with XCode 4.1 installed.
>
> Configured via:
> ../gcc-4.7.2/con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55925
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2013-01-14 21:53:16
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I tried building several compilers (4.7.2), none of which understand the
> '-mfxsr' option. One was configured with:
True. -mfxsr option was added to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55806
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig 2013-01-14
21:50:35 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Jan 14 21:50:28 2013
New Revision: 195179
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195179
Log:
2013-01-14 Thomas Koenig
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54767
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55072
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55980
Bug #: 55980
Summary: missed optimizations with internal_pack
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55777
--- Comment #1 from Steve Ellcey 2013-01-14 21:34:09
UTC ---
gcc.target/mips/mips32-dspr2.c fails for the same reason.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig 2013-01-14
21:29:25 UTC ---
For -O0, valgrind complains about
==15263== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==15263==at 0x4F26355: _gfortran_internal_pack (in_pack_generic.c:54
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55925
--- Comment #4 from lailavrazda1979 at gmail dot com 2013-01-14 21:26:36 UTC ---
I tried building several compilers (4.7.2), none of which understand the
'-mfxsr' option. One was configured with:
../gcc-4.7.2/configure --build=x86_64-unkno
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55966
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2013-01-14 21:25:13
UTC ---
Following testcase will expand to a cmpxchg loop:
int hle_and (int *p, int v)
{
return __atomic_fetch_and_4 (p, v, __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE | __ATOMIC_HLE_ACQUIRE);
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55072
--- Comment #22 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-14 21:24:43 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon Jan 14 21:24:36 2013
New Revision: 195178
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195178
Log:
2013-01-14 Janus Weil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55966
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak 2013-01-14 21:22:35
UTC ---
The problem is, that in failed case maybe_emit_op() gets target register to
return the result to, so with after=false, it expands via
optab->mem_fetch_before.
Unfortunately, at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55979
Bug #: 55979
Summary: [C++11] std::list range construction imposes
unnecessary conversion constraints
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54767
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
Bug #: 55978
Summary: [4.8 Regression] class_optional_2.f90 -Os fails
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55977
Bug #: 55977
Summary: [C++11] vector range construction imposes unnecessary
conversion constraints
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55973
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth 2013-01-14
20:49:22 UTC ---
The change in r195150 doesn't take in account that the results from each call
to ISL_CHECK_VERSION() is cached. So the results from a failed first test of
ISL_CHECK_VERSION(0,10)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54286
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #20 from davidxl 2013-01-14 20:29:54
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> That wouldn't work, because you would then have the default (non-mv) version,
> possibly mv version with no target attribute, and then some other mv versi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-14
20:23:54 UTC ---
That wouldn't work, because you would then have the default (non-mv) version,
possibly mv version with no target attribute, and then some other mv versions
with target attribut
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #18 from davidxl 2013-01-14 20:17:45
UTC ---
All target attributes on decls not tagged with 'mv' attribute should be merged
into the default definition. Any decl tagged with 'mv' should be treated as a
new decl.
David
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55966
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29163|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55966
--- Comment #2 from Andi Kleen 2013-01-14
19:52:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 29163
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29163
preprocessed testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55153
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55976
Bug #: 55976
Summary: -Werror=return-type should error on returning a value
from a void function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50342
Matt Fago changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fago at earthlink dot net
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
--- Comment #18 from Steven Bosscher 2013-01-14
19:35:10 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Mon Jan 14 19:35:03 2013
New Revision: 195173
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195173
Log:
* ira-build.c (ira_flattening)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55193
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher 2013-01-14
19:35:10 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Mon Jan 14 19:35:03 2013
New Revision: 195173
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195173
Log:
* ira-build.c (ira_flattening):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55775
--- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher 2013-01-14
19:35:10 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Mon Jan 14 19:35:03 2013
New Revision: 195173
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195173
Log:
* ira-build.c (ira_flattening):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27338
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resoluti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
Bug #: 55975
Summary: FAIL: c-c++-common/asan/global-overflow-1.c -O0
output pattern test
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55966
--- Comment #1 from Andi Kleen 2013-01-14
19:06:02 UTC ---
Here's a test case. This requires the libstdc++ HLE patch from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00673.html
g++ -std=gnu++0x
#include
#define ACQ memory_order_a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55618
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55974
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-14
18:32:44 UTC ---
Actually, what you'd merge is everything as usually if mv attribute isn't on
either of the decls, or if mv attribute is present on either one, and both
decls have either the sa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55974
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay 2013-01-14
18:32:19 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Jan 14 18:32:05 2013
New Revision: 195170
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195170
Log:
Backport from 2013-01-14 trunk r195
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55974
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay 2013-01-14
18:28:37 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Jan 14 18:28:24 2013
New Revision: 195169
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195169
Log:
PR target/55974
* config/avr/a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-14
18:25:41 UTC ---
I guess if for multiversioning you want the two decls to be independent, like
overloaded functions with different argument types are, then IMHO the mv
attribute alternative and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55974
Bug #: 55974
Summary: [avr] Wrong suffix for built-in defines __INT24_MAX__
and __UINT24_MAX__ with -mint8
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55969
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de
2013-01-14 18:23:21 UTC ---
ian at airs dot com wrote:
>
>http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55969
>
>--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor 2013-01-14
>17:35:21 UTC ---
>Gccgo do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #15 from Sriraman Tallam 2013-01-14
18:07:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > (In reply to comment #12)
> > > (In reply to comment #10)
> > > > Either use a different name of the attribute (re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55618
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas 2013-01-14 17:59:13
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Jan 14 17:59:07 2013
New Revision: 195159
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195159
Log:
2013-01-14 Paul Thomas
PR fortra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #14 from davidxl 2013-01-14 17:49:59
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > (In reply to comment #10)
> > > Either use a different name of the attribute (replace target with
> > > mv_target or
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #13 from Sriraman Tallam 2013-01-14
17:45:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > Either use a different name of the attribute (replace target with mv_target
> > or
> > whatever), or require a new
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55973
Bug #: 55973
Summary: r195150 doesn't properly handle out of tree isl 0.11.1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55969
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor 2013-01-14 17:35:21
UTC ---
Gccgo doesn't work on Darwin anyhow. I don't think the problems are hard to
fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55970
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2013-01-14
17:34:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Maybe we should warn about these cases just like we warn for the other
unspecified behavior which causes undefined behavior (aka a+=a+1).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55971
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #12 from davidxl 2013-01-14 17:20:56
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Either use a different name of the attribute (replace target with mv_target or
> whatever), or require a new attribute (mv?) to be present for multi-versi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #11 from davidxl 2013-01-14 17:17:21
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I'd say once a target attribute appears at a declaration (non-definition) MV
> needs to be disabled. Or, the declarations target attribute and those at
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53342
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-14
16:45:11 UTC ---
Can't we then compute the final values of the bases after the peeling loop, and
add those gimplified after the peeling loop, then use them in the next loop?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55948
--- Comment #1 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-14 16:45:04 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Jan 14 16:44:55 2013
New Revision: 195155
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195155
Log:
PR target/55948
* config
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55971
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55972
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55720
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55971
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55972
Bug #: 55972
Summary: cannot access private member from lambda used in NSDMI
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55961
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2013-01-14 16:05:48 UTC ---
We run configure for the build system in a subdirectory, when build !=
host.
# auto-host.h is the file containing items generated by autoconf and is
# the fi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55971
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-01-14
15:56:02 UTC ---
I think basically the preprocessor doesn't support raw strings.
Fix that and both bugs should go away.
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
