[Bug bootstrap/50697] New: gcc compile fails when gmp is in non-standard location

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50697 Bug #: 50697 Summary: gcc compile fails when gmp is in non-standard location Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/49777] for c++ code, without -g option, cannot generate PIC *.so library.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49777 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pbrook at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug c++/50346] Function call foils VRP/jump-threading of redundant predicate on struct member

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50346 --- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-11 23:50:46 UTC --- So, is this a C++ front-end issue? tree-optimization?

[Bug c++/50594] Option -fwhole-program discards replaced new operator for std::string

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594 --- Comment #22 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-11 23:39:47 UTC --- ... because otherwise I'm not confident I'm changing cxx_init_decl_processing in the right way: I have a patchlet which fiddles with newattrs and newtype, I *think* adding the attribu

[Bug c++/50594] Option -fwhole-program discards replaced new operator for std::string

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jwakely.gcc at gmail dot

[Bug rtl-optimization/50696] [x32] Unnecessary lea

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50696 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-11 23:29:05 UTC --- This patch changes combine not to generate: (plus:DI (subreg:DI (mult:SI (reg/v:SI 85 [ i ]) (const_int 4 [0x4])) 0) (subreg:DI (reg:SI 100) 0)) and changes const_32bit_mas

[Bug rtl-optimization/50696] [x32] Unnecessary lea

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50696 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-11 22:13:47 UTC --- const_32bit_mask is incorrect since combine may optimize VAL in ADDR & VAL from 0x to 0xfffc. Even if we take this into account, we can't decompose (plus:DI (subreg:DI (mult:SI

[Bug middle-end/49629] [4.7 Regression] ICE: in df_refs_verify, at df-scan.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49629 Steven Bosscher changed: What|Removed |Added CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug target/49965] libgomp.c++/reduction-4.C and libgomp.c++/task-8.C FAIL on Solaris 11/SPARC

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49965 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug target/49965] libgomp.c++/reduction-4.C and libgomp.c++/task-8.C FAIL on Solaris 11/SPARC

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49965 --- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou 2011-10-11 21:34:48 UTC --- Author: ebotcazou Date: Tue Oct 11 21:34:42 2011 New Revision: 179829 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179829 Log: PR target/49965 * config/sparc/sparc.m

[Bug target/49965] libgomp.c++/reduction-4.C and libgomp.c++/task-8.C FAIL on Solaris 11/SPARC

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49965 --- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou 2011-10-11 21:33:28 UTC --- Author: ebotcazou Date: Tue Oct 11 21:33:24 2011 New Revision: 179827 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179827 Log: PR target/49965 * config/sparc/sparc.m

[Bug target/49965] libgomp.c++/reduction-4.C and libgomp.c++/task-8.C FAIL on Solaris 11/SPARC

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49965 --- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou 2011-10-11 21:34:01 UTC --- Author: ebotcazou Date: Tue Oct 11 21:33:57 2011 New Revision: 179828 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179828 Log: PR target/49965 * config/sparc/sparc.m

Spurious array bounds warnings from gfortran

Compiler version: (gfortran from ubuntu 11.04) $ gfortran -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=gfortran COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.5.2/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-linux-gnu Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Ubuntu/Linaro 4.5.2-8ubun

[Bug ada/50678] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: c52104y on x86_64-apple-darwin10

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678 Maxim Kuvyrkov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mkuvyrkov at gcc dot |

[Bug target/49826] [4.7 Regression] Symbols are not decorated with attribute stdcall and -mrtd

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49826 Joseph S. Myers changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2

[Bug rtl-optimization/50696] [x32] Unnecessary lea

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50696 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-11 20:11:59 UTC --- Does this patch diff --git a/gcc/combine.c b/gcc/combine.c index 6c3b17c..52259b6 100644 --- a/gcc/combine.c +++ b/gcc/combine.c @@ -5078,6 +5078,22 @@ subst (rtx x, rtx from, rtx to, int i

[Bug middle-end/49319] [4.7 regression] g++.dg/abi/thunk5.C FAILs on Tru64 UNIX

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49319 Joseph S. Myers changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug rtl-optimization/50696] [x32] Unnecessary lea

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50696 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Component|target |rtl-optimization --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2

[Bug fortran/50690] [4.7 Regression] ICE with front end optimization and OMP workshare

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50690 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #25468|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug c++/49216] [4.6 regression][C++0x] ICE on compiling new-expression with braced-init-list for arrays

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49216 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/49216] [4.6 regression][C++0x] ICE on compiling new-expression with braced-init-list for arrays

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49216 --- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-11 19:50:55 UTC --- Author: jason Date: Tue Oct 11 19:50:49 2011 New Revision: 179819 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179819 Log: PR c++/49216 * init.c (build_vec_init): Avo

[Bug c++/50618] [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Virtual inheritance segfault

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50618 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|unassigned at

[Bug c/50695] double comparison broken after computation

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50695 --- Comment #9 from rickyrockrat 2011-10-11 19:38:51 UTC --- One further note, with stdio.h, string.h and using strtod, I get the correct answer suggested by Andreas Schwab: Bug!!0.00E+00 If I put stdio.h, string.h, and stdlib.h, I get Nobug

[Bug other/39933] make clean fails in libgcc

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39933 schaiba at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||schaiba at gmail dot com --- Co

[Bug c/50695] double comparison broken after computation

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50695 --- Comment #8 from rickyrockrat 2011-10-11 19:33:47 UTC --- Created attachment 25469 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25469 stdlib.h Tar for string.h, stdlib.h, and stdio.h on the system.

[Bug c/50695] double comparison broken after computation

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50695 --- Comment #7 from rickyrockrat 2011-10-11 19:25:10 UTC --- I removed the ','at the beginning of the string (which was not there in the original test case), and I now get Bug!!4.074850E+05 In any case, it should return 0, if +1.xxE-6 is an inv

[Bug fortran/50690] [4.7 Regression] ICE with front end optimization and OMP workshare

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50690 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/50690] [4.7 Regression] ICE with front end optimization and OMP workshare

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50690 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug libstdc++/50661] std::equal should use more efficient version for arrays of pointers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661 --- Comment #24 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-11 19:10:12 UTC --- :) Sorry about the italian chattering between me and Vincenzo

[Bug c/50695] double comparison broken after computation

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50695 rickyrockrat changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug c/50695] double comparison broken after computation

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50695 --- Comment #5 from rickyrockrat 2011-10-11 19:05:28 UTC --- >+1.0E-06," does not start with a valid >floating point number and will always be parsed as 0. I don't know what 'always will be', nor who exactly is doing the parsing, but strtof

[Bug middle-end/50189] [4.5/4.6 Regression] Wrong code error in -O2 [-fstrict-enums] compile, target independent

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

[Bug libstdc++/50661] std::equal should use more efficient version for arrays of pointers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661 --- Comment #23 from pcarlini at gmail dot com 2011-10-11 19:01:02 UTC --- > > that never made to mainline > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg01560.html > what about it? Eh, bisognerebbe ricostruire, ma mi sa che è stato proprio nel

[Bug ada/50678] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: c52104y on x86_64-apple-darwin10

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678 --- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-11 18:45:39 UTC --- Created attachment 25466 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25466 test of -fstack-check a simple test program for Darwin .. .. AFAICT this DTRT under 'c' on {powerpc,

[Bug c++/49216] [4.6 regression][C++0x] ICE on compiling new-expression with braced-init-list for arrays

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49216 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||z0sh at sogetthis dot com --- Comment #8

[Bug fortran/50690] [4.7 Regression] ICE with front end optimization and OMP workshare

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50690 --- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-10-11 18:34:01 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > To me, the right strategy appears to be to mark the temporary > variable as threadprivate if we are within an OMP block. To me it sounds like the right solu

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

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50458 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug c++/49216] [4.6 regression][C++0x] ICE on compiling new-expression with braced-init-list for arrays

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49216 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug target/50447] [avr] Better support of AND, OR, XOR and PLUS with constant integers for 16- and 32-bit values

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50447 --- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay 2011-10-11 18:28:52 UTC --- Author: gjl Date: Tue Oct 11 18:28:49 2011 New Revision: 179816 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179816 Log: PR target/50447 * config/avr/avr.md (cc):

[Bug c++/49896] undefined reference to static const integral member whose address is not used, for some values of the constant

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49896 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/49855] [4.6/4.7 Regression] internal compiler error: in fold_convert_const_int_from_real

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49855 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/49855] [4.6/4.7 Regression] internal compiler error: in fold_convert_const_int_from_real

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49855 --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-11 18:18:35 UTC --- Author: jason Date: Tue Oct 11 18:18:25 2011 New Revision: 179815 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179815 Log: PR c++/49855 PR c++/49896 * call.c (per

[Bug c++/49896] undefined reference to static const integral member whose address is not used, for some values of the constant

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49896 --- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-11 18:18:35 UTC --- Author: jason Date: Tue Oct 11 18:18:25 2011 New Revision: 179815 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179815 Log: PR c++/49855 PR c++/49896 * call.c (pe

[Bug fortran/50690] [4.7 Regression] ICE with front end optimization and OMP workshare

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50690 --- Comment #1 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de 2011-10-11 18:03:56 UTC --- To me, the right strategy appears to be to mark the temporary variable as threadprivate if we are within an OMP block. Does this sound right?

[Bug target/50696] [x32] Unnecessary lea

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50696 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2011-10-11 17:59:50 UTC --- It is generated by expand_compound_operation.

[Bug c++/49896] undefined reference to static const integral member whose address is not used, for some values of the constant

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49896 --- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-11 17:53:20 UTC --- Author: jason Date: Tue Oct 11 17:53:07 2011 New Revision: 179813 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179813 Log: PR c++/49855 PR c++/49896 * cp-tree.def

[Bug c++/49855] [4.6/4.7 Regression] internal compiler error: in fold_convert_const_int_from_real

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49855 --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-11 17:53:19 UTC --- Author: jason Date: Tue Oct 11 17:53:07 2011 New Revision: 179813 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179813 Log: PR c++/49855 PR c++/49896 * cp-tree.def

[Bug target/50696] New: [x32] Unnecessary lea

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50696 Bug #: 50696 Summary: [x32] Unnecessary lea Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compon

[Bug c++/49855] [4.6/4.7 Regression] internal compiler error: in fold_convert_const_int_from_real

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49855 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|unassigned at

[Bug c++/44473] iterators already defined for std::vector when using std::decimal

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44473 --- Comment #19 from Peter Bergner 2011-10-11 17:24:39 UTC --- Author: bergner Date: Tue Oct 11 17:24:27 2011 New Revision: 179811 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179811 Log: gcc/ PR c++/44473 * mangle.c (write_type

[Bug c++/44473] iterators already defined for std::vector when using std::decimal

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44473 --- Comment #18 from Peter Bergner 2011-10-11 17:17:49 UTC --- Author: bergner Date: Tue Oct 11 17:17:43 2011 New Revision: 179810 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179810 Log: gcc/ PR c++/44473 * mangle.c (write_type

[Bug c++/44473] iterators already defined for std::vector when using std::decimal

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44473 --- Comment #17 from Peter Bergner 2011-10-11 17:02:51 UTC --- Author: bergner Date: Tue Oct 11 17:02:42 2011 New Revision: 179809 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179809 Log: gcc/ PR c++/44473 * mangle.c (write_type

[Bug c++/44473] iterators already defined for std::vector when using std::decimal

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44473 --- Comment #16 from Peter Bergner 2011-10-11 16:59:09 UTC --- Author: bergner Date: Tue Oct 11 16:58:59 2011 New Revision: 179808 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179808 Log: gcc/ PR c++/44473 * mangle.c (write_type

[Bug fortran/39427] F2003: Procedures with same name as types/type constructors

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39427 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|unassigned at

[Bug libstdc++/50661] std::equal should use more efficient version for arrays of pointers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661 --- Comment #22 from vincenzo Innocente 2011-10-11 16:12:18 UTC --- in reference to jakub comment #8 actually there was this patch proposing a "ivdep macro" (identical to INTEL's one!) that never made to mainline http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patche

[Bug tree-optimization/50693] Loop optimization restricted by GOTOs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50693 --- Comment #21 from Alex Gaynor 2011-10-11 16:02:56 UTC --- Given the concern for preserving labels for debugging, perhaps allowing the merging of basic blocks that eliminate labels could be conditional on either a new function attribute or comm

[Bug ada/50678] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: c52104y on x86_64-apple-darwin10

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678 --- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe 2011-10-11 15:57:05 UTC --- Created attachment 25465 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25465 asm for c52104y changing the number of args doesn't seem to fix the problem (off a stage3 bubble + re

[Bug middle-end/50667] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/vshuf-* on powerpc-apple-darwin9

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50667 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug libgomp/49965] libgomp.c++/reduction-4.C and libgomp.c++/task-8.C FAIL on Solaris 11/SPARC

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49965 --- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou 2011-10-11 15:37:29 UTC --- This is a fallout of the merge of the cond-optab branch in the 4.5 series.

[Bug c/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 Joseph S. Myers changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/50693] Loop optimization restricted by GOTOs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50693 --- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-10-11 14:50:51 UTC --- (In reply to comment #17) > LLVM appears to be able to recognize memset of any value, not just zero. And > apparently performs control flow simplification before attempting to recogn

[Bug ada/50678] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: c52104y on x86_64-apple-darwin10

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Component|tree-optimization |ada --- Comment #10 from vries

[Bug tree-optimization/50693] Loop optimization restricted by GOTOs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50693 --- Comment #19 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-11 14:45:22 UTC --- (In reply to comment #17) > LLVM appears to be able to recognize memset of any value, not just zero. And > apparently performs control flow simplification before attempting to rec

[Bug tree-optimization/50693] Loop optimization restricted by GOTOs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50693 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug tree-optimization/50693] Loop optimization restricted by GOTOs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50693 --- Comment #17 from David Edelsohn 2011-10-11 14:40:09 UTC --- LLVM appears to be able to recognize memset of any value, not just zero. And apparently performs control flow simplification before attempting to recognize the idiom, so it can expo

[Bug c++/27692] FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.other/init5.C execution test

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27692 --- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-11 14:38:42 UTC --- (In reply to comment #11) > what I'm suggesting is building the list of destructors dynamically for > executables and shared libraries. That sounds a lot like __cxa_atexit.

[Bug tree-optimization/50693] Loop optimization restricted by GOTOs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50693 --- Comment #16 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-11 14:35:17 UTC --- (In reply to comment #14) > A memcmp too?!? (see also the discussion part of libstdc++/50661). No, only memset with zero.

[Bug tree-optimization/50693] Loop optimization restricted by GOTOs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50693 --- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-11 14:34:47 UTC --- Note that it doesn't handle memset though, and the convoluted loop wouldn't be easy to detect either. size_t i = 0; bool loop_cond = i < n; while (loop_cond) {

[Bug c++/27692] FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.other/init5.C execution test

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27692 --- Comment #11 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-10-11 14:18:52 UTC --- On 10/11/2011 9:08 AM, jason at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27692 > > --- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-11 > 13:08:19 U

[Bug tree-optimization/50693] Loop optimization restricted by GOTOs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50693 --- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-11 14:14:24 UTC --- A memcmp too?!? (see also the discussion part of libstdc++/50661).

[Bug tree-optimization/50693] Loop optimization restricted by GOTOs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50693 --- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-11 14:13:11 UTC --- (In reply to comment #12) > Because the vectorizer analysis occurs fairly early, I guess there is not a > lot > of opportunity to clean up the control flow. > > Should GCC have a

[Bug tree-optimization/50693] Loop optimization restricted by GOTOs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50693 --- Comment #12 from David Edelsohn 2011-10-11 14:06:34 UTC --- Because the vectorizer analysis occurs fairly early, I guess there is not a lot of opportunity to clean up the control flow. Should GCC have a memset peephole pass like LLVM?

[Bug middle-end/50074] [4.7 Regression] gcc.dg/sibcall-6.c execution test on x86_64 with -fPIC

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50074 Andreas Krebbel changed: What|Removed |Added CC||krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/50611] Error reporting routines re-entered

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50611 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/50611] Error reporting routines re-entered

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50611 --- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-11 13:07:55 UTC --- Author: paolo Date: Tue Oct 11 13:07:52 2011 New Revision: 179802 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179802 Log: 2011-10-11 Paolo Carlini PR c++/

[Bug c++/50611] Error reporting routines re-entered

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50611 --- Comment #8 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-11 13:08:09 UTC --- Author: paolo Date: Tue Oct 11 13:08:05 2011 New Revision: 179803 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179803 Log: 2011-10-11 Paolo Carlini PR c++/

[Bug c++/27692] FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.other/init5.C execution test

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27692 --- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill 2011-10-11 13:08:19 UTC --- Namespace-scope objects aren't the problem; we've always handled them fine. The problem is with function-local statics, which aren't constructed until the function is called, so we c

[Bug libstdc++/50661] std::equal should use more efficient version for arrays of pointers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661 --- Comment #20 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-11 12:39:23 UTC --- Author: paolo Date: Tue Oct 11 12:39:18 2011 New Revision: 179801 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179801 Log: 2011-10-11 Emil Wojak PR c++/50

[Bug libstdc++/50661] std::equal should use more efficient version for arrays of pointers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug fortran/50273] [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] -Walign-commons no longer effective

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50273 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug fortran/50273] [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] -Walign-commons no longer effective

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50273 --- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-10-11 12:33:26 UTC --- Author: burnus Date: Tue Oct 11 12:33:22 2011 New Revision: 179800 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179800 Log: 2011-10-11 Tobias Burnus PR fortran/502

[Bug c/50695] double comparison broken after computation

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50695 --- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse 2011-10-11 12:24:18 UTC --- And anyway 10^-6 is not representable exactly as a double.

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

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375 --- Comment #118 from Markus Trippelsdorf 2011-10-11 12:18:21 UTC --- Probably a Mozilla bug. See: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=693563

[Bug libstdc++/50661] std::equal should use more efficient version for arrays of pointers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC|bernds at codesourcery dot | |com

[Bug c++/27692] FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.other/init5.C execution test

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27692 --- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-10-11 12:06:25 UTC --- On 10-Oct-11, at 5:45 PM, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote: > I honestly don't understand how such a warning would look like: like > warning > for any snippet of co

[Bug libstdc++/50661] std::equal should use more efficient version for arrays of pointers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661 Bernd Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #18

[Bug lto/50687] Missing symbols with -flto -fvisibility=hidden on 4.6.x but not on 4.7.0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50687 --- Comment #4 from Lassi Tuura 2011-10-11 12:00:47 UTC --- Right, as far as I can tell at the moment visibility option is somewhat peripheral to the issue. The main difference you see with LTO vs. no LTO appears to be whether code for the type is

[Bug tree-optimization/50204] [4.5/4.6 Regression] Missed fully redundant load found in crafty (SPEC 2k)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50204 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug tree-optimization/50204] [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Missed fully redundant load found in crafty (SPEC 2k)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50204 --- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-11 11:57:28 UTC --- Author: rguenth Date: Tue Oct 11 11:57:23 2011 New Revision: 179799 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179799 Log: 2011-10-11 Richard Guenther PR tree-o

[Bug libstdc++/50661] std::equal should use more efficient version for arrays of pointers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug debug/40713] Overlapping .debug_ranges (C++)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40713 --- Comment #6 from Paulo J. Matos 2011-10-11 11:48:08 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > As the home page says, 4.4.x is the oldest maintained branch.. Right! Sorry for the noise.

[Bug libstdc++/50661] std::equal should use more efficient version for arrays of pointers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50661 --- Comment #16 from Andreas Krebbel 2011-10-11 11:41:12 UTC --- (In reply to comment #15) > Andreas, can I have your feedback about this? Is it safe or not to compare > s390 > pointers with memcmp? On s390 with 31 bit addressing the uppermost

[Bug c++/50611] Error reporting routines re-entered

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50611 --- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-11 11:40:38 UTC --- I mean, fixes the ICE both in mainline and in 4_6-branch. Indeed, the latter seems more serious, because otherwise for the original testcase we produce no useful diagnostics at all.

[Bug c++/50611] Error reporting routines re-entered

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50611 --- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-11 11:35:42 UTC --- I see. It does, anyway.

[Bug tree-optimization/50678] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: c52104y on x86_64-apple-darwin10

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678 --- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou 2011-10-11 11:20:41 UTC --- > It would be nice to know whether this particular FAIL is the failure > of some checking mechanism or a genuine wrong-code bug. I suppose > it's the former, and for -fstack-check we

[Bug c++/50611] Error reporting routines re-entered

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50611 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-10-11 11:20:47 UTC --- The reduced testcase yes. But please try the original testcase in 4.6, whether your patch fixes it.

[Bug c++/50611] Error reporting routines re-entered

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50611 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Version|4.6.1 |4.7.0 --- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini

[Bug c++/50685] Compiler segmentation fault on AIX when constructors and destructors are implemented in the implementation file (non-inline).

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50685 --- Comment #6 from Barry Matheney 2011-10-11 11:11:22 UTC --- Thanks David for all of your insight and info. I will forward this info to our sysadmins to further investigate this assembler issue. (In reply to comment #5) > AIX 5.3 TL10 (as wel

[Bug middle-end/50638] [4.7 Regression] emulated TLS fails

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50638 Michael Matz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jojelino at gmail dot com --- Comment #14

[Bug tree-optimization/50658] [4.7 regression] SIGSEGV in tree-flow-inline.h:562

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50658 Michael Matz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

  1   2   >