[Bug c++/50134] -Wmissing-prototypes doesn't work for C++

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50134 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug fortran/50570] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Incorrect error for assignment to intent(in) pointer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50570 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords|

[Bug inline-asm/50571] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Undesirable folding in "m" constrained asm operands

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50571 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-09-30 06:03:43 UTC --- Created attachment 25387 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25387 gcc47-pr50571.patch Fix.

[Bug inline-asm/50571] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Undesirable folding in "m" constrained asm operands

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50571 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug ada/50571] New: [4.6/4.7 Regression] Undesirable folding in "m" constrained asm operands

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50571 Bug #: 50571 Summary: [4.6/4.7 Regression] Undesirable folding in "m" constrained asm operands Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.1 Status: UNCONF

[Bug fortran/50564] [4.7 Regression] Front-end optimization - ICE with FORALL

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50564 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p |

[Bug c++/50134] -Wmissing-prototypes doesn't work for C++

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50134 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/39164] [C++0x] defaulted dtor redefinition not caught

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39164 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org | Summary|defaulted dtor redefi

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #30 from Andi Kleen 2011-09-29 23:33:52 UTC --- Okay. Can you post the patch then?

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #29 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 23:31:13 UTC --- (In reply to comment #28) > I don't understand which overflow you refer to. Can you please clarify? > > afaik a - b is the standard way to write these comparison functions. lto_splay_comp

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #28 from Andi Kleen 2011-09-29 23:22:17 UTC --- I don't understand which overflow you refer to. Can you please clarify? afaik a - b is the standard way to write these comparison functions.

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #27 from Andi Kleen 2011-09-29 23:21:12 UTC --- Hmm is that just for efficiency or did you fix another bug? (not worrying about efficiency too much because this tree has only one entry per input file)

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #26 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 23:19:49 UTC --- (In reply to comment #24) > Thanks. Does it work with this change? I posted a different patch to avoid indirect reference on 64bit host and avoid overflow in static int lto_splay_compare_

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 23:16:20 UTC --- Created attachment 25386 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25386 A better patch

[Bug c++/29859] reference-compatible is defined too narrowly in [decl.int.ref]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29859 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |daniel.kruegler at |

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #24 from Andi Kleen 2011-09-29 23:06:35 UTC --- Thanks. Does it work with this change?

[Bug c++/36464] Segfault when using precompiled headers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36464 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|gcc-bugs at g

[Bug c++/39045] uninitialized reference in struct with operator new is not erroring out

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39045 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|gcc-bugs at g

[Bug c++/39319] sigsegv occurs when an exception handler rethrows an excpetion and tries to return from the catch

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39319 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|gcc-bugs at g

[Bug target/44940] XMEGA RAMPZ Initialization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44940 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 22:26:34 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > Created attachment 25381 [details] > Use long long in lto-plugin > > Can you please test this patch? > You missed: /* Find hash table of sub module id */ -

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 22:23:53 UTC --- (In reply to comment #18) > Created attachment 25384 [details] > fix + splay tree > > I have some unrelated trouble with a 32bit bootstrap currently. > > This patch should fix all the pro

[Bug web/50297] Bugzilla suffers a taint issue when viewing bug 48333 while being logged out

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50297 Frédéric Buclin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug web/50297] Bugzilla suffers a taint issue when viewing bug 48333 while being logged out

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50297 Frédéric Buclin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|unassigned

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #21 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 22:20:02 UTC --- (In reply to comment #20) > HOST_WIDE_INT may not be 64bit on 32bit host. > But long long is 64bit. I don't think it is > correct to use HOST_WIDE_INT in lto. It may not be a problem sinc

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #20 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 22:14:28 UTC --- HOST_WIDE_INT may not be 64bit on 32bit host. But long long is 64bit. I don't think it is correct to use HOST_WIDE_INT in lto.

[Bug c++/40202] warning about passing non-POD objects through �...� should include name and location of declaration being called

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40202 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug middle-end/50569] Wrong code error: memcpy eliminated when it is needed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50569 --- Comment #5 from Paul Koning 2011-09-29 20:55:15 UTC --- If the memcpy actually happens, that is the expected result. The issue in the MIPS case is that the memcpy is optimized away, and the source data accessed instead, which would be ok if

[Bug c++/40202] warning about passing non-POD objects through �...� should include name and location of declaration being called

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40202 --- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-09-29 20:54:46 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > Manuel, do you have an opinion about this rather old issue? In the meanwhile, > the warning became an hard error, when it applies. Thus the original te

[Bug middle-end/50569] Wrong code error: memcpy eliminated when it is needed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50569 --- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-09-29 20:47:09 UTC --- The updated test case caused no alignment exceptions on armv5tel-linux-gnueabi with gcc 4.6-20110923 or 4.7-20110924. I'll check it on sparc64-linux tomorrow evening.

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 20:44:44 UTC --- (In reply to comment #18) > Created attachment 25384 [details] > fix + splay tree > > I have some unrelated trouble with a 32bit bootstrap currently. > > This patch should fix all the pro

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #18 from Andi Kleen 2011-09-29 20:36:50 UTC --- Created attachment 25384 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25384 fix + splay tree I have some unrelated trouble with a 32bit bootstrap currently. This patch should fi

[Bug middle-end/50569] Wrong code error: memcpy eliminated when it is needed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50569 --- Comment #3 from Paul Koning 2011-09-29 19:52:47 UTC --- Created attachment 25383 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25383 Test case with main() Here is an updated testcase. This one runs to completion with 4.5.1, aborts wit

[Bug c++/50258] [C++0x] -std=gnu++0x should allow in-class initialization of static const floating types without constexpr

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50258 --- Comment #11 from Carlos Becker 2011-09-29 19:27:39 UTC --- Thanks for the quick reply. I understand the implications of having a compiler flag for each deprecated feature, but that would be the best option from the developer's point of view (

[Bug middle-end/50569] Wrong code error: memcpy eliminated when it is needed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50569 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |middle-end --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pin

[Bug c/50569] Wrong code error: memcpy eliminated when it is needed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50569 Mikael Pettersson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se --- Comment #1

[Bug fortran/50570] New: Incorrect error for assignment to intent(in) pointer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50570 Bug #: 50570 Summary: Incorrect error for assignment to intent(in) pointer Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/50569] Wrong code error: memcpy eliminated when it is needed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50569 Paul Koning changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1

[Bug c/50569] New: Wrong code error: memcpy eliminated when it is needed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50569 Bug #: 50569 Summary: Wrong code error: memcpy eliminated when it is needed Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 18:34:38 UTC --- Also I don't believe it is 100% safe to use %x for printf/scanf on 64bit integer even on 64bit hosts. I think 64bit random seed change should be reverted for now.

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||34835 --- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #15 from Andi Kleen 2011-09-29 18:28:18 UTC --- Hmm good point. Maybe the splay tree can be fixed. Otherwise have to use 32bit ids on 32bit, but then the risk of collisions is higher again.

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #14 from Andi Kleen 2011-09-29 18:27:11 UTC --- But that's what I did? % diffstat plugin-fix lto-plugin.c | 11 ++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) I don't see why long long cannot be used on the platfo

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 18:26:06 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) > Created attachment 25380 [details] > A patch > > This patch works for me. But I don't think it is correct. > We need a way to specify HOST_WIDE_INT for lto plug

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 18:21:17 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > Created attachment 25381 [details] > Use long long in lto-plugin > > Can you please test this patch? > It won't work since you also need to update lto-plugin/l

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 18:19:30 UTC --- HOST_WIDE_INT is needed for gcc, libcpp and plug-in. We should have a central host-wide-int.m4 to define all HOST_WIDE_INT related macros.

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #10 from Andi Kleen 2011-09-29 18:19:02 UTC --- I did the same patch (with long long) I think using long long here is ok because lto-plugin only builds on modern and non weird hosts and they should all have long long anyways. uint6

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #9 from Andi Kleen 2011-09-29 18:17:08 UTC --- Created attachment 25381 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25381 Use long long in lto-plugin Can you please test this patch? Thanks.

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 18:16:03 UTC --- Created attachment 25380 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25380 A patch This patch works for me. But I don't think it is correct. We need a way to specify HOST_WIDE_INT

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 18:11:50 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > I don't see the problem on a 64bit bootstrap-lto. > > I guess i must have written some 32bit unsafe code. We can't use 64bit random seed when LTO expects 32bit v

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #6 from Andi Kleen 2011-09-29 18:03:21 UTC --- I don't see the problem on a 64bit bootstrap-lto. I guess i must have written some 32bit unsafe code.

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 17:56:25 UTC --- The problem is in Breakpoint 2, process_symtab (data=0xccc0, name=0x82041fe ".gnu.lto_.symtab.f1d7150d3f9de9cb", offset=1325, length=56) at /export/gnu/import/git/gcc/lto-plugi

[Bug c++/44620] gcc -fvisibility-ms-compat crash when throwing const char*

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44620 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|gcc-bugs at g

[Bug c++/47987] ICE on legal code (when attempting to inline non-implicitly instantiated template member function)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47987 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/48867] Using the compilation flag -mfpmath=sse breaks Snes9x build.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48867 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/40202] warning about passing non-POD objects through �...� should include name and location of declaration being called

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40202 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-29 17:26:57 UTC --- To the OP, you've probably fixed it by now, but you must have a varargs function with ... somewhere, or you wouldn't get the error. You could add a conflicting declaration which woul

[Bug c++/40202] warning about passing non-POD objects through �...� should include name and location of declaration being called

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40202 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org | --- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-

[Bug middle-end/50565] [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] initializer element is not computable at load time

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50565 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-09-29 17:03:28 UTC --- Anyreason Why "((int)( ((void *)&(nmsgbuf.payload.part.ball.pos[0])) - ((void *)&(nmsgbuf)) ))" is being used instead of offsetof ?

[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-29 16:53:28 UTC --- Arguably no more confusing than seeing it in the CC list on some bugs and not others

[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813 --- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-09-29 16:51:28 UTC --- Thanks for the explanation. I don't think you need to do anything since the mails still get through - but seeing the address removed from the CC list is certainly co

[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813 --- Comment #7 from Frédéric Buclin 2011-09-29 16:46:08 UTC --- Our code doesn't CC gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org by default. This is useless as it already gets bugmails for all bugs in the gcc product thanks to our Bugzilla extension (was so since we upg

[Bug fortran/35831] [F95] Shape mismatch check missing for dummy procedure argument

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35831 --- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-29 16:41:13 UTC --- Here's a link to a c.l.f. thread where I asked about this: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/ae6a44043a3b1a95

[Bug target/50566] [avr]: Add support for better logging similar to -mdeb

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50566 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug target/50566] [avr]: Add support for better logging similar to -mdeb

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50566 --- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-09-29 16:25:09 UTC --- Author: gjl Date: Thu Sep 29 16:24:57 2011 New Revision: 179359 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179359 Log: PR target/50566 * config/avr/avr-log.c (av

[Bug lto/45375] [meta-bug] Issues with building Mozilla with LTO

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375 --- Comment #113 from Jan Hubicka 2011-09-29 16:24:56 UTC --- Even with PR47247 solved, -fprofile-generate -flto build fails at libbrowsercomps.so.ltrans23.ltrans.o:libbrowsercomps.so.ltrans23.o:function _ZTV17gfxUnknownSurface.local.706.2371: e

[Bug c++/40202] warning about passing non-POD objects through �...� should include name and location of declaration being called

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40202 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-29 16:16:48 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > In the meanwhile, > the warning became an hard error, when it applies. It went from "undefined" to "conditionally-supported" behaviour in C++11 > ICC war

[Bug c++/40202] warning about passing non-POD objects through �...� should include name and location of declaration being called

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40202 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 fr

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 1

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-29 15:59:54 UTC --- I got lto1: internal compiler error: resolution sub id not in object file^M Please submit a full bug report,^M with preprocessed source if appropriate.^M See

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 --- Comment #2 from Andi Kleen 2011-09-29 15:58:26 UTC --- Looking...

[Bug middle-end/50448] [4.3/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed optimization accessing struct component with integer address

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50448 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Component|target |middle-end Known to work|

[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813 --- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-29 15:49:47 UTC --- (and as you can see, this PR now is missing the CC, and all the messages we are exchanging are sent to the gcc-bugs mailing list, no problem at all)

[Bug lto/50568] [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot |

[Bug fortran/47023] [4.6/4.7 regression] C_Sizeof: Rejects valid code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023 --- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2011-09-29 15:49:32 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) > This patch itself doesn't do anything wrong AFAICS, it rather seems to expose > an underlying bug: Either we need to set the 'is_c_interop' flag correctly or

[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813 --- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-09-29 15:48:40 UTC --- Something is strange ... messages sent to bugs from which gcc-bugs was removed do in fact still go to gcc-bugs anyway. So maybe there is no real problem with message

[Bug lto/50568] New: [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50568 Bug #: 50568 Summary: [4.7 Regression] Massive LTO failures Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

Re: [Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition

Something is strange ... messages sent to bugs from which gcc-bugs was removed do in fact still go to gcc-bugs anyway. So maybe there is no real problem with messages not going to gcc-bugs - but an apparent removal of gcc-bugs should not appear in messages reporting a change that presumably di

[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813 --- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-29 15:45:44 UTC --- Are you aware that *all* the new bugs do *not* have it? Please explain that, if we want me to restore those CC (which I assumed were just bogus/legacy stuff)

[Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813 --- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-09-29 15:40:19 UTC --- On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813 > > Paolo Carlini changed: > >What|R

Re: [Bug c++/39813] [feature request] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ addition

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39813 > > Paolo Carlini changed: > >What|Removed |Added > >

[Bug c++/48914] #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wc++0x-compat" doesn't work

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48914 --- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-29 15:31:03 UTC --- It seems, the warning is emitted *before* the pragma is actually processed in diagnostic_classify_diagnostic...

[Bug c++/49949] wrong sign for product of complex and double with -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49949 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug rtl-optimization/50567] Reload pass generates sub-optimal spill code for registers in presence of a vec_concat insn

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50567 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/49949] wrong sign for product of complex and double with -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49949 --- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-29 15:26:30 UTC --- Doesn't seem to make much sense, but thanks, anyway.

[Bug rtl-optimization/50567] Reload pass generates sub-optimal spill code for registers in presence of a vec_concat insn

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50567 --- Comment #2 from Siddhesh Poyarekar 2011-09-29 15:24:52 UTC --- Thanks, that eliminated the spill to stack. The extra xmm1 to xmm0 move still remains: process: .LFB0: .cfi_startproc movq(%rdi), %rax cmpq%rsi, %

[Bug rtl-optimization/50567] Reload pass generates sub-optimal spill code for registers in presence of a vec_concat insn

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50567 --- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-29 15:11:55 UTC --- I think this is because we prefer to do GR-sse register moves throuhg memory. -mtune=core2 should avoid this I think.

[Bug rtl-optimization/50567] New: Reload pass generates sub-optimal spill code for registers in presence of a vec_concat insn

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50567 Bug #: 50567 Summary: Reload pass generates sub-optimal spill code for registers in presence of a vec_concat insn Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0

[Bug c++/40793] "Error: no matching function for call to XYZ" doesn't display function-template-arguments

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40793 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug target/43723] Some ARMs support unaligned

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43723 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/40793] "Error: no matching function for call to XYZ" doesn't display function-template-arguments

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40793 --- Comment #17 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-09-29 14:35:14 UTC --- (In reply to comment #16) > Thanks. Now in mainline we say this: > > 40793.C: In function ‘void f()’: > 40793.C:5:31: error: no matching function for call to ‘staticPrint()’ >

[Bug c++/46715] template constructor - Compiler Bus error under -O2/-Os

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46715 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/50183] ICE in verify_ssa for 416.gamess when optimizing using profile data

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50183 William J. Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug debug/50279] [4.7 Regression] ICE while building the go front-end with LTO enabled

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50279 --- Comment #4 from Jack Howarth 2011-09-29 13:47:12 UTC --- (In reply to comment #0) Peter, can you retest the failing lto-bootstrap building the go compiler under current gcc trunk? I believe honza's recent ipa-related fixes may have fixed thi

[Bug middle-end/48660] [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] ARM ICE in expand_expr_real_1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48660 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.5.4

[Bug tree-optimization/50389] [4.7 Regression] ICE: in execute_todo, at passes.c:1730 with -O -freorder-blocks -ftracer and __builtin___memcpy_chk()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50389 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0

[Bug java/50045] [4.7 regression] ICE in gcc/java/lang.c:427 with -ftree-dump-all

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50045 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.4.7 |4.7.0

[Bug fortran/47023] [4.6/4.7 regression] C_Sizeof: Rejects valid code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.6.2 |--- --- Comment #8 from janus a

[Bug libgomp/50386] [4.7 Regression] libgomp.h:87:5: error: unnamed struct/union that defines no instances

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50386 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/50458] [4.6 Regression] ICE when using brace-initializer for new array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50458 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.6.2

  1   2   >