http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #16 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-12
15:16:17 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 12 15:16:14 2011
New Revision: 179857
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179857
Log:
2011-10-12 Paul Koning
PR tree-optimi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-12
15:13:04 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 12 15:12:58 2011
New Revision: 179856
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179856
Log:
2011-10-12 Paul Koning
PR tree-optimi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-10-12 14:21:48 UTC ---
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
>
> --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de
> 2011-10-12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-10-12 14:15:56 UTC ---
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
>
> --- Comment #12 from Paul Koning 2011-10-12
> 14:04:30 UT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #12 from Paul Koning 2011-10-12
14:04:30 UTC ---
You said "GCC treats types compatible when they have the same precision".
That's where the problem lies, because enums with -fstrict-enums have their
precision set to just enough bits
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #10 from Paul Koning 2011-10-11
19:03:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 25467
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25467
Tentative patch against 4.6.1
I chased the issue for a while, using 4.6.1 as the test version.
The p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-11
09:09:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Re comment 5, does "works by luck" mean that I should not look in trunk for a
> fix to backport because nothing was actually fixed?
The bug is quite hard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-11
09:05:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I saw the note that PR/49911 is fixed and thought that might mean this one is
> fixed also. Unfortunately testing shows that is not the case, at least no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #7 from Paul Koning 2011-10-10
20:41:35 UTC ---
Re comment 5, does "works by luck" mean that I should not look in trunk for a
fix to backport because nothing was actually fixed?
Should I just avoid all versions of GCC newer than 4.4?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
--- Comment #6 from Paul Koning 2011-09-09
19:11:01 UTC ---
I saw the note that PR/49911 is fixed and thought that might mean this one is
fixed also. Unfortunately testing shows that is not the case, at least not in
4_5_branch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|4.6.1 |4.7.0
Summary|[4.5 Regressi
12 matches
Mail list logo
