http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55561
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56159
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56159
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54601
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29311|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54601
--- Comment #10 from Perry Smith 2013-01-31 05:50:00
UTC ---
Can you keep the libraries like you have them with the functions and private
structures for the functions coming from the library but just put the
definition of __dso_handle in c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54601
--- Comment #9 from David Edelsohn 2013-01-31 04:52:51
UTC ---
This is going to be more difficult because __dso_handle needs to be provided by
a new crt file supplied by GCC, not by the libraries. That is the way that
every module ends up
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56159
Bug #: 56159
Summary: config/linux/ptrlock.c lacks acquire barrier
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54122
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Targe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54122
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #22 from Jack Howarth 2013-01-30
23:40:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
The proposed patch reduces the number of unexpected failures in the g++
testsuite when using...
make -k check-g++ RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56158
Bug #: 56158
Summary: bad enum values computed by operator~ in ios_base.h
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47409
--- Comment #12 from John Regehr 2013-01-30
23:24:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> As said previously I think that volatile struct members are ill-defined.
As far as the C standard goes, I believe the situation is clear: a volatile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53728
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak 2013-01-30 23:09:05
UTC ---
Can you try to build from latest 4.6 branch SVN?
The bootstrap works for me with:
CC="gcc -m32" ~/gcc-svn/branches/gcc-4_6-branch/configure
--host=i686-pc-linux-gnu --build=i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55146
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56131
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Pettersson 2013-01-30
22:20:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> A more structured version of the patch:
After fixing the obvious syntax error
> + If the label is not marked with a bb, assume it's t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56149
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54601
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29307|0 |1
is obsolete|
-gnu
Configured with:
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-4.8.0_beta20130130/work/gcc-4.8-20130130/configure
--prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.8.0-beta20130130
--includedir=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.8.0-beta20130130/include
--datadir=/usr/share/gcc-data/x86_64-pc-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55939
--- Comment #20 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2013-01-30 21:11:31 UTC ---
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Perhaps -fexcess-precision=standard might fix this too (and be less
> expensive).
Note that -fexces
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19165
--- Comment #17 from Teodor Petrov 2013-01-30
20:34:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
>
> If you have some developer power to spare, it may be worthwhile to try to
> tackle this yourself. Otherwise I am afraid this will never be imple
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56152
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54122
--- Comment #2 from Giel de Nijs 2013-01-30
20:05:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 29310
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29310
Another reproduction
Minimal test case based on actual code that's compiling correctly with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56149
--- Comment #2 from Paul Laidler 2013-01-30
19:58:27 UTC ---
Hi
Many thanks for your reply and interest.
The ClearWin+ function winio@ (winio$ in gFortran) emulates the C function
printf that takes a format string then a variable numb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54122
--- Comment #1 from Giel de Nijs 2013-01-30
19:53:35 UTC ---
We hit this bug when trying to compile one of our new projects. I've created a
minimal test case very similar to the one in the report. The bug doesn't hit on
4.6.3 nor on Visual
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56153
d.daniel at propharma dot ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
R
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56155
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2013-01-30
19:16:12 UTC ---
I think I thought that Jason's work to completely fix c++/53524 had fixed this
too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56153
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56155
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2013-01-30
19:00:29 UTC ---
Weird I thought we fixed this, we should find the relevant old PRs and see why
we are mishandling this specific case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56144
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19165
--- Comment #16 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2013-01-30
18:18:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> I'm speaking as one of Code::Blocks' developers:
> If you implement this we'll for sure use it, because we have many complaints
> similar to the one
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55374
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-30
18:06:09 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 30 18:05:53 2013
New Revision: 195585
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195585
Log:
PR sanitizer/55374
* gcc.c (LI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #44 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-30
18:04:49 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 30 18:04:34 2013
New Revision: 195584
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195584
Log:
PR c++/55742
* config/i386/i38
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52306
--- Comment #16 from Mikael Pettersson 2013-01-30
17:50:07 UTC ---
Sorry I quoted the wrong fragment from 175r.fwprop, the correct fragment is:
(insn 288 287 289 41 (set (reg/f:SI 124 [ D.1812 ])
(mem/f:SI (reg:SI 145 [ ivtmp.80
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56156
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Reject INTERFACE blocks in |Reject calls to external
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56155
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52306
--- Comment #15 from Mikael Pettersson 2013-01-30
17:34:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> The bug, duplicated by compiling attachment 26150 [details], from bug 43437
> comment 16,
> with a cross-compiler to m68k-elf with -O -c, expose
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #21 from Alexander Potapenko 2013-01-30
17:30:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 29309
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29309
Dummy patch that reverses the order of the constructors
Attached is a hacky POC patc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56153
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56154
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56144
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov 2013-01-30
17:20:47 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Jan 30 17:20:39 2013
New Revision: 195582
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195582
Log:
2013-01-30 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56061
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka 2013-01-30 17:16:25 UTC
---
> They are useful. It should be technically possible to support -O1 vs. -O0,
> and if not, we have means to forcefully enable -O1 at link-time (which we
> should do then).
I per
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56154
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-30
17:16:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 29308
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29308
gcc48-pr56154.patch
Untested fix, together with guality testcases that show the issue. On
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #20 from Alexander Potapenko 2013-01-30
17:07:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Well, if somebody does the work and in a clean way that won't penalize targets
> with sane linkers and object formats, I'm not objecting, I ju
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39064
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54601
--- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn 2013-01-30 16:59:13
UTC ---
Created attachment 29307
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29307
cxa_atexit implementation in libgcc
This version of the patch implements __cxa_atexit and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39064
--- Comment #7 from Kai Tietz 2013-01-30 16:58:22
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Jan 30 16:58:10 2013
New Revision: 195581
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195581
Log:
PR other/54620
PR target/39064
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54620
--- Comment #4 from Kai Tietz 2013-01-30 16:58:24
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Jan 30 16:58:10 2013
New Revision: 195581
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195581
Log:
PR other/54620
PR target/39064
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39064
--- Comment #6 from Kai Tietz 2013-01-30 16:56:50
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Jan 30 16:56:36 2013
New Revision: 195580
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195580
Log:
2013-01-30 Kai Tietz
PR other/546
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54620
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz 2013-01-30 16:56:50
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Jan 30 16:56:36 2013
New Revision: 195580
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195580
Log:
2013-01-30 Kai Tietz
PR other/546
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52623
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pedzsan at gmail dot com
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55105
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39064
--- Comment #5 from Kai Tietz 2013-01-30 16:51:03
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Jan 30 16:50:49 2013
New Revision: 195579
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195579
Log:
PR other/54620
PR target/39064
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54620
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz 2013-01-30 16:51:03
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Jan 30 16:50:49 2013
New Revision: 195579
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195579
Log:
PR other/54620
PR target/39064
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-30
16:43:03 UTC ---
Well, if somebody does the work and in a clean way that won't penalize targets
with sane linkers and object formats, I'm not objecting, I just am not going to
spend time on thi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56156
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #18 from Kostya Serebryany 2013-01-30
16:36:01 UTC ---
Yea... We don't have interest in supporting gcc-asan-darwin, sorry.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56144
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov 2013-01-30
16:33:20 UTC ---
I am working on it. The fix will be ready today.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56156
Bug #: 56156
Summary: Reject INTERFACE blocks in procedures which import
local nonseq. TYPE decls
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-30
16:32:11 UTC ---
Solaris doesn't support Asan in gcc, and perhaps it is time to admit that
Darwin doesn't either.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #16 from Jack Howarth 2013-01-30
16:31:14 UTC ---
This limitation all exists for clang on darwin...
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=12556
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56155
Bug #: 56155
Summary: [C++0X] enumeration with fixed underlying type - enum
literals have wrong type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Statu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #15 from Jack Howarth 2013-01-30
16:28:17 UTC ---
It also seems that Solaris 2 will suffer from this issue when not using Gold...
#ifndef USE_GLD
/* The Solaris linker doesn't understand constructor priorities. */
#undef SU
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56149
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56153
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab 2013-01-30 16:16:15
UTC ---
foo->num is unsigned, -1 is signed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56151
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #14 from Jack Howarth 2013-01-30
15:57:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
See in gcc/config/darwin.h...
/* The Apple assembler and linker do not support constructor priorities. */
#undef SUPPORTS_INIT_PRIORITY
#define
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56150
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56154
Bug #: 56154
Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bad .debug_loc generated for some
code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56153
Bug #: 56153
Summary: False warning about signed and unsigned type in
conditional expression
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener 2013-01-30
15:40:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> The following (old!?) idea helps though:
>
> Index: gcc/tree-ssa-loop-manip.c
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56128
Dmitry Vyukov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dvyukov at google dot com
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56152
Bug #: 56152
Summary: explicit template instantiation of protected template
function redeclared as public fails
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56151
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev 2013-01-30
15:20:07 UTC ---
Created attachment 29306
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29306
testcase to reproduce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56151
Bug #: 56151
Summary: Performance degradation after r194054 on x86 Atom.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54107
--- Comment #31 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-30 15:02:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #30)
> > ToDo: The test case in comment 4 still fails (cf. also comment 23 - 27).
>
> Note that after revision 195562, the test in comment #4 an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56150
--- Comment #1 from Francesco Zappa Nardelli 2013-01-30 14:44:45 UTC ---
Sorry, forgot to specify:
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: francesco.zappa.narde...@gmail.com
The program below makes
gcc version 4.8.0 20130130 (experimental) (GCC)
crash (ICE) at optimisation level -O2 and -O3:
$ gcc -O2 5-min.c
5-min.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-30
14:41:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> This one is a necessary one.
> asan_finish_file inserts __asan_init into the array of constructors (aka
> __mod_init_func section). But for some re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener 2013-01-30
14:38:29 UTC ---
The following (old!?) idea helps though:
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-loop-manip.c
===
--- gcc/tree-ssa-loop-manip.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #12 from Alexander Potapenko 2013-01-30
14:32:54 UTC ---
> The question is why does...
>
> if (builtin_decl_implicit_p (BUILT_IN_ASAN_INIT))
> return;
>
> in initialize_sanitizer_builtins() not emit a __asan_init whi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #11 from Jack Howarth 2013-01-30
14:23:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> I suppose this isn't important. __mod_term_func are destructors, and they even
> aren't called in the crashing program.
The question is why does..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56149
Bug #: 56149
Summary: 64 bit gFortran-C interop hidden character argument
length passed as 32 bit value
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener 2013-01-30
13:50:04 UTC ---
All of the tree SSA incremental time is spent in computing the IDFs. With
a patch to cache IDF on def-blocks nothing is gained.
Unpatched, n = 1:
tree SSA incremental
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56138
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|FIXE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56061
--- Comment #7 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2013-01-30 13:39:37 UTC ---
> The other way around, compiling and installing with
> -O2 but then at link time use -O0 -g to get a debug
> build is more questionable
> However, I still don't see the p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54107
--- Comment #30 from Dominique d'Humieres
2013-01-30 13:34:31 UTC ---
> ToDo: The test case in comment 4 still fails (cf. also comment 23 - 27).
Note that after revision 195562, the test in comment #4 and its subsequent
modifications are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55959
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2013-01-30
13:28:58 UTC ---
The behavior of the test in comment #0 modified with the following patch
--- pr55959.f902013-01-13 12:23:04.0 +0100
+++ pr55959_0_db.f902013-01-13 12:43
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56138
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2013-01-30
13:05:48 UTC ---
Compiling the test in comment #0 still gives the same ICE with revision 195570.
The tests in comment #1 and gfortran.dg/allocatable_function_6.f90 compile and
execute wit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Potapenko 2013-01-30
12:29:00 UTC ---
I suppose this isn't important. __mod_term_func are destructors, and they even
aren't called in the crashing program.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19165
Teodor Petrov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fuscated at gmail dot com
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56148
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
Ta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56148
Bug #: 56148
Summary: [4.8 Regression] inline asm matching constraint with
different mode
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56141
--- Comment #5 from jarausch at igpm dot rwth-aachen.de 2013-01-30 11:54:14 UTC
---
Many thanks for your help,
Helmut.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53609
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47409
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-30
11:43:38 UTC ---
Or the FE should expand the structure assignment in that case to some other
stmts based on what the right semantics is (using loops for larger objects
etc.) and only keep aggre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56141
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener 2013-01-30
11:40:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > If you're doing a non-default build (e.g. using cloog) you need to say
> > exactly
> > what you're doing and provide t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56147
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56147
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener 2013-01-30
11:39:28 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 30 11:39:19 2013
New Revision: 195575
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195575
Log:
2013-01-30 Richard Biener
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47409
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener 2013-01-30
11:38:30 UTC ---
struct s2 {
volatile int x;
};
struct s2 s;
void foo (void) {
s = s;
}
As said previously I think that volatile struct members are ill-defined.
The only way fo
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
