http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51716
Bug #: 51716
Summary: access to private member possible
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
--- Comment #8 from kuba at et dot pl 2007-11-16 01:19 ---
i've tried to understand it but i can't. Can anyone explain me..
Why does coalesce_partitions (tree-ssa-coalesce.c) fail after unsuccessful
attempt_coalesce? what is the difference if it is abnormal edge, or not?
--
http
--- Comment #4 from kuba at et dot pl 2007-10-22 22:34 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
A regression hunt on powerpc-linux identified:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revrev=120373
r120373 | hubicka | 2007-01-03 01:12:56 + (Wed, 03 Jan 2007)
This patch causes error
--- Comment #8 from kuba at et dot pl 2007-01-28 00:02 ---
Subject: Re: incorrect warning when using
firstprivate and lastprivate clauses
I realised that maybe is just better to set
TREE_NO_WARNING (fd-v) = 1;
instead of set it (fd-v) to 0.
We are sure that fd-v won't be read
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kuba at et dot pl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30538
--- Comment #2 from kuba at et dot pl 2007-01-22 01:41 ---
int foo()
{
int a = 0, i;
#pragma omp for firstprivate(a)
for(i = 0; i 10; i++)
a += i;
return a;
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30538
--- Comment #3 from kuba at et dot pl 2007-01-22 01:41 ---
Try my patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg01755.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30538
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kuba at et dot pl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30421
--- Comment #1 from kuba at et dot pl 2007-01-10 02:49 ---
Created an attachment (id=12877)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12877action=view)
in 'expand_omp_for_static_nochunk' iterator is set before first condition.
This is my first patch for GCC. Please be lenient
--- Comment #2 from kuba at et dot pl 2007-01-10 03:08 ---
Ok, I've found that my patch doesn't work when we also you schedule clause :
I'll try to correct that, but I would like to know if my first patch is
correct.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30421
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kuba at et dot pl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30323
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kuba at et dot pl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30324
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kuba at et dot pl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30325
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kuba at et dot pl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30326
14 matches
Mail list logo
