[Bug c/54006] __atomic_always_lock_free inconsistent with __GCC_ATOMIC_INT_LOCK_FREE et al.

2017-07-28 Thread hp at bitrange dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54006 --- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson --- On Fri, 28 Jul 2017, egallager at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > Testcase compiles, runs, and exits with 0 for me on i386-apple-darwin9.8.0. I'm not sure how that target is relevant? (I forgot to set a targe

[Bug testsuite/62250] FAIL: gfortran.dg/coarray/alloc_comp_1.f90 -fcoarray=lib -O2 -lcaf_single

2015-01-09 Thread hp at bitrange dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62250 --- Comment #13 from Hans-Peter Nilsson --- On Fri, 9 Jan 2015, dje at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62250 > > David Edelsohn changed: > >What|Removed |Added >

[Bug middle-end/36177] [4.4 Regression] g++.dg/opt/pr23714.C ICEs with 135041 -> 135057

2008-05-08 Thread hp at bitrange dot com
--- Comment #6 from hp at bitrange dot com 2008-05-09 03:49 --- Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] g++.dg/opt/pr23714.C ICEs with 135041 -> 135057 On Thu, 8 May 2008, zadeck at naturalbridge dot com wrote: > I am testing this patch on x86. But hp needs to test it on the cris >

[Bug middle-end/24750] [4.1 regression] global-alloc (reload) trips over own confusion for unexpected addressing modes

2005-11-10 Thread hp at bitrange dot com
--- Comment #9 from hp at bitrange dot com 2005-11-11 01:06 --- Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] global-alloc (reload) trips over own confusion for unexpected addressing modes On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, janis at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Comment #8 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot

[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

2005-11-09 Thread hp at bitrange dot com
--- Comment #7 from hp at bitrange dot com 2005-11-09 10:24 --- Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot

[Bug libfortran/24342] [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe

2005-11-08 Thread hp at bitrange dot com
--- Comment #5 from hp at bitrange dot com 2005-11-09 01:08 --- Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] testsuite failure:gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exe On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot

[Bug tree-optimization/21638] [4.1 regression] ADDR_EXPR invariancy not recomputed

2005-05-19 Thread hp at bitrange dot com
--- Additional Comments From hp at bitrange dot com 2005-05-19 14:07 --- Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] ADDR_EXPR invariancy not recomputed On Thu, 19 May 2005, giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote: > --- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-05-19 >

[Bug target/18701] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware gcc.c-torture/execute failures: 20010224-1.c, 20020216-1.c, 20040218-1.c, 20040709-2.c

2004-12-19 Thread hp at bitrange dot com
--- Additional Comments From hp at bitrange dot com 2004-12-20 01:00 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware gcc.c-torture/execute failures: 20010224-1.c, 20020216-1.c, 20040218-1.c, 20040709-2.c On Sun, 20 Dec 2004, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote

[Bug target/18347] [3.4/4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: gcc.dg/uninit-C.c

2004-11-12 Thread hp at bitrange dot com
--- Additional Comments From hp at bitrange dot com 2004-11-13 05:36 --- Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: gcc.dg/uninit-C.c On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc d

[Bug target/18347] [3.4/4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: gcc.dg/uninit-C.c

2004-11-12 Thread hp at bitrange dot com
--- Additional Comments From hp at bitrange dot com 2004-11-13 01:25 --- Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: gcc.dg/uninit-C.c On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc d