http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56167
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-05
08:08:33 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 5 08:08:27 2013
New Revision: 195748
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195748
Log:
PR middle-end/56167
* c-common.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56167
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55374
--- Comment #23 from Eric Botcazou 2013-02-05
09:08:19 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Feb 5 09:08:09 2013
New Revision: 195749
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195749
Log:
PR sanitizer/55374
* confi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55789
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka 2013-02-05
09:13:59 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Feb 5 09:13:48 2013
New Revision: 195751
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195751
Log:
PR tree-optimization/55789
* g+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56210
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56208
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56206
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.3
Summary|[4.7.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56200
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309
--- Comment #6 from Kostya Serebryany 2013-02-05
09:21:59 UTC ---
I am slightly confused. Are we discussing compile time or test-run-time?
I've just built SPEC 2006 with -fsanitize=address -O2
gcc: r195706
clang: r174324
Measured on Int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56205
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309
--- Comment #7 from Kostya Serebryany 2013-02-05
09:43:11 UTC ---
If we are talking about compile time, I observe 2x difference in favor of
clang:
building 483.xalancbmk
gcc+asan+O2: 564 seconds
clang+asan+O2: 243 second
gcc is bui
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56200
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56208
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2013-02-05
09:50:11 UTC ---
Thanks Daniel. Next, we have to figure out which commit broke such lookups. I
can work on that today (if nobody beats me)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-05
09:56:17 UTC ---
"464.h264ref with gcc loops forever, I did not investigate why."
is PR53073 , you can use -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations to workaround the
invalid code in SPEC.
As for runt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56210
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener 2013-02-05
10:04:53 UTC ---
I have a fix for the points-to analysis, but the IPA reference bug is hard
to fix as puts may recurse back into the current unit and it may use/clobber
all global vars (of whic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53363
--- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth 2013-02-05 10:24:28 UTC
---
Created attachment 29353
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29353
proposed patch
I've now looked a bit closer and came up with the attached patch: it restricts
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53363
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56210
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309
--- Comment #9 from Kostya Serebryany 2013-02-05
10:30:16 UTC ---
> And, for compile time, you want to be testing with --enable-checking=release
Thanks!
With --enable-checking=release gcc's compile time drops to 374 seconds.
That's much
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309
--- Comment #10 from Kostya Serebryany 2013-02-05
10:41:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> "464.h264ref with gcc loops forever, I did not investigate why."
> is PR53073 , you can use -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations to workaround the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56205
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-05
10:42:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 29354
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29354
gcc48-pr56205.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-05
10:54:46 UTC ---
I really don't like the blacklist hack, such changes belong to the source, not
outside of it. If you want to disable instrumentation of SATD, I think
modification of the sourc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309
--- Comment #12 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2013-02-05 11:17:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> > And, for compile time, you want to be testing with --enable-checking=release
> Thanks!
> With --enable-checking=release gcc's compile time
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-05
11:24:23 UTC ---
Please, let's not make this PR into a general gcc vs. clang compile time
comparison (see e.g. Vlad Makarov's mails on this topic, if you care more about
compile time than runti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56208
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2013-02-05
11:25:46 UTC ---
Narrowed to r190095 - r190842 so far.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-05
11:26:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> bug in SPEC, it would be much better to just report it to SPEC and hope they
> fix it up. Though given http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/Docs/faq.html#Ru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56208
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56211
Allan McRae changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53342
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|mat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek 2013-02-05
12:16:08 UTC ---
So, what happens here is that tracer performs tail-duplication. That is per se
of course fine, but when we're re-scanning bodies in fix_loop_structure, we
correctly mark BBs in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek 2013-02-05
12:22:28 UTC ---
Hopefully it'll be somewhat clearer with a picture:
http://people.redhat.com/mpolacek/src/pr56181.png
the BB 4 is the one that is first marked as residing in loop 2 (because it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309
--- Comment #15 from Kostya Serebryany 2013-02-05
12:22:56 UTC ---
Well, I of course can change the SPEC code
464.h264ref, 1271.00,1879.00,1.47
As for Dodji's patch: can someone attach it here?
Let me benc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56212
Bug #: 56212
Summary: Does not fold unsigned (b - a) + a
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25967
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Kobets 2013-02-05
12:51:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> A quick question here. Why not use a .s file instead?
Quick answer. CC optimizes code better, especialy for instruction sheduling.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54767
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener 2013-02-05
12:54:17 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 5 12:54:12 2013
New Revision: 195754
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195754
Log:
2013-02-05 Richard Biener
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54767
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55107
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener 2013-02-05
12:56:56 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 5 12:56:51 2013
New Revision: 195755
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195755
Log:
2013-02-05 Richard Biener
B
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55107
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-05
13:01:25 UTC ---
Ah, since PR53383 you can actually use -mno-sse -mpreferred-stack-boundary=3
on x86_64, but only with -mno-sse. Of course it is an ABI incompatible change,
so you need to rebu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53342
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29355|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56184
mgretton at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mgretton at gcc dot g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56184
--- Comment #2 from mgretton at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05 13:11:33 UTC ---
Created attachment 29357
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29357
RTL dump from IRA phase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56184
--- Comment #3 from mgretton at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05 13:12:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 29358
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29358
RTL dump from reload phase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53342
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres
2013-02-05 13:35:51 UTC ---
After an incremental update of r195753 with the patch in comment #10, compiling
rnflow.f90 with '-O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops' gives an executable which
segfault.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51376
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra 2013-02-05 13:40:35
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Feb 5 13:40:25 2013
New Revision: 195756
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195756
Log:
PR libgomp/51376
PR libgomp/56073
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56073
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra 2013-02-05 13:40:39
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Feb 5 13:40:25 2013
New Revision: 195756
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195756
Log:
PR libgomp/51376
PR libgomp/56073
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56073
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56184
Ulrich Weigand changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53342
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29356|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56195
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-05
13:56:56 UTC ---
Seems this is heavily related to the uninitialized uses, in
(insn 90 87 91 22 (set (reg:CCGC 17 flags)
(compare:CCGC (reg:SI 118 [ D.1797 ])
(mem:SI (reg/v/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56213
Bug #: 56213
Summary: strided load vectorization is unnecessarily restricted
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: mi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55789
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka 2013-02-05
15:24:03 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Feb 5 15:23:56 2013
New Revision: 195758
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195758
Log:
PR tree-optimization/55789
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53185
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener 2013-02-05
15:33:48 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 5 15:33:35 2013
New Revision: 195759
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195759
Log:
2013-02-05 Richard Biener
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53342
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener 2013-02-05
15:33:51 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 5 15:33:35 2013
New Revision: 195759
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195759
Log:
2013-02-05 Richard Biener
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #71 from simon at pushface dot org 2013-02-05 15:33:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 29360
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29360
Patch to suppress register swap on Darwin >= 12
(In reply to comment #69)
> O
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53342
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek 2013-02-05
15:53:44 UTC ---
Or maybe tracer shouldn't duplicate BB between headers, i.e. BB whose successor
and predecessor is a header. Testing a patch for that...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56205
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-05
15:54:49 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 5 15:54:39 2013
New Revision: 195760
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195760
Log:
PR tree-optimization/56205
* tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55374
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-05
15:55:41 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 5 15:55:31 2013
New Revision: 195761
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195761
Log:
PR sanitizer/55374
* config/gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55022
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56205
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener 2013-02-05
15:58:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Or maybe tracer shouldn't duplicate BB between headers, i.e. BB whose
> successor
> and predecessor is a header. Testing a patch for that...
Not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55022
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2013-02-05
16:00:21 UTC ---
> I'll take a peek.
Great!-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55022
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Grosser 2013-02-05
16:10:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I'll take a peek.
Wonderful, feel free to CC me if you have any questions!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45170
I M changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||infinity.probability at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek 2013-02-05
16:33:45 UTC ---
Hmm, maybe I should have put it this way: we don't want to duplicate a BB,
which may be a preheader. Does it sound sane? Thus, something like
--- a/gcc/tracer.c
+++ b/gcc/t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45170
--- Comment #41 from I M 2013-02-05
16:36:41 UTC ---
With version 4.7.2 this bug still exists. Is there any timeline to fix it?
The following code
module thing
implicit none
character(len=:), allocatable :: array_of_chars(:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56195
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-05
16:40:17 UTC ---
I'd say the bug is in get_reload_reg.
Changing pseudo 118 in operand 0 of insn 90 on equiv 0
Changing address in insn 90 r59:DI -- no change
Changing pseudo 59 in address of in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56210
--- Comment #5 from jim at meyering dot net 2013-02-05 17:00:47 UTC ---
Hi Jakub,
Exactly. The lack of const there was a bug, and I fixed that before reporting
the gcc behavior that had surprised me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #18 from Alexander Kobets 2013-02-05
18:36:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
Well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56208
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56208
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Krügler
2013-02-05 19:09:15 UTC ---
Further data about the root of the problem: It seems actually to be an access
problem, the requirements for reproducing seem to be:
1) Some class B derives *privately* from a base c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56185
Daniel Starke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.3
--- Comment #3 from Danie
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56177
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45170
--- Comment #42 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05 20:22:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #41)
> With version 4.7.2 this bug still exists. Is there any timeline to fix it?
>
> [...]
>
> Both allocates triggers the bug. If the same
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54107
--- Comment #33 from Dominique d'Humieres
2013-02-05 20:24:37 UTC ---
Anything missing before this PR can be closed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05 21:25:09 UTC ---
Here is a further reduced test case, based on comment 1 and 3 (which are
basically identical):
program main
implicit none
integer, pointer :: y(:)
y =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54107
--- Comment #34 from Mikael Morin 2013-02-05
21:31:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #33)
> Anything missing before this PR can be closed?
Unburying the patch for comment #4, testing it, committing it.
:-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56178
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou 2013-02-05
21:41:30 UTC ---
ureal.adb:UR_Add is miscompiled with profile feedback and this is yet another
instance of the infamous webizer bug:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01259.html
bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56017
--- Comment #2 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05
22:22:25 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Tue Feb 5 22:22:17 2013
New Revision: 195766
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195766
Log:
PR go/56017
libgo: Use DejaG
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56017
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05 22:26:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> program main
> implicit none
>
> integer, pointer :: y(:)
>
> y => null()
> call a4t2(y)
>
> contains
>
> subroutine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55091
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
--- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05 22:31:06 UTC ---
Draft patch:
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/trans-array.c(revision 195644)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55969
--- Comment #5 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05
22:36:31 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Tue Feb 5 22:36:20 2013
New Revision: 195768
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195768
Log:
PR go/55969
* configure.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
simon at pushface dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29360|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55969
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46986
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
--- Comment #15 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-05
22:46:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> + if (fsym && fsym->attr.optional && sym && sym->attr.pointer)
Shouldn't you use something like
gfc_expr_attr(expr).pointer
Otherwise, I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42679
--- Comment #22 from Michael Truog 2013-02-05
23:47:08 UTC ---
I believe this bug is resolved and was just a problem with my build setup. I
am unable to confirm that this is the solution, just due to changes in versions
and software, but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56200
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||areg.melikadamyan at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55022
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56172
--- Comment #3 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-05
23:59:28 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Tue Feb 5 23:59:24 2013
New Revision: 195774
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195774
Log:
PR go/56172
runtime: Fix arg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56214
Bug #: 56214
Summary: [4.8 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.c-torture/execute/20050121-1.c compilation, ICE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55644
--- Comment #5 from Matt Hargett 2013-02-06 01:23:02 UTC
---
the latest failure, with current trunk:
/work/mhargett/gcc-trunk-obj/./prev-gcc/xg++
-B/work/mhargett/gcc-trunk-obj/./prev-gcc/
-B/u/mhargett/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/ -no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53040
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53040
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra 2013-02-06 02:46:24
UTC ---
Author: amodra
Date: Wed Feb 6 02:46:13 2013
New Revision: 195778
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195778
Log:
PR target/53040
* config/rs6000/r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53038
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56208
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill 2013-02-06
03:33:52 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 6 03:33:45 2013
New Revision: 195779
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195779
Log:
PR c++/56208
* pt.c (fn_type_u
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo