http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53792
Bug #: 53792
Summary: [C++11][constexpr] improving compiler-time constexpr
evaluation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53777
--- Comment #2 from vincenzo Innocente
2012-06-28 05:07:57 UTC ---
I fully agree that combining code sections to be optimized differently is not
well defined in particular when optimization works looking at a broader scope.
In principle one can i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53785
--- Comment #2 from vincenzo Innocente
2012-06-28 04:43:27 UTC ---
I think that no one can rely on the way statics are initialized to tune side
effects.
The only things to guarantee are that is guarded and, I think, that the order
is preserved (b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35308
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22586
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53791
Bug #: 53791
Summary: Branches not re-ordered using profile-information
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45891
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53679
Mike Frysinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||toolchain at gentoo dot org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53525
--- Comment #14 from jimis 2012-06-27 22:58:50 UTC ---
Ping? Can someone review my last patch? I think it's clean enough to be applied
(minus the TODO notes) and extra fixes can come separately later.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53788
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53786
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32120
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53778
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Orgis 2012-06-27
21:34:43 UTC ---
Eh, it must have been -finit-real=nan ... so only wrong in one way;-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53790
--- Comment #4 from Samuel Jacob 2012-06-27
21:31:25 UTC ---
Also this doesnt happen with extern structures and variables.
ie
typedef struct u u_t; or typedef int u_t;
is not causing the ICE.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53778
Thomas Orgis changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53749
--- Comment #5 from Richard Henderson 2012-06-27
21:30:45 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Wed Jun 27 21:30:41 2012
New Revision: 189026
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189026
Log:
i386: Fix logic error in r188785
PR target/53749
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53790
Samuel Jacob changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.3
--- Comment #3 from Samuel Jacob 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53790
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-06-27
21:19:47 UTC ---
I think this could should be rejected as "extern u_t extern_var;" is declaring
a variable with an unknown size.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53790
--- Comment #1 from Samuel Jacob 2012-06-27
21:18:03 UTC ---
Adding back trace just in case if it is needed..
(gdb) bt
#0 0x005b999e in expand_expr_real_1 (exp=0x770b9580,
target=, tmode=VOIDmode, modifier=EXPAND_NORMAL,
alt_rtl=)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53790
Bug #: 53790
Summary: ICE on dereferencing a extern union in asm statement
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53789
Bug #: 53789
Summary: ICE in gen_reg_rtx, at emit-rtl.c:864/865 when
compiling GNU MPFR on parisc
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.1
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53706
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53787
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53563
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53563
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2012-06-27
19:19:14 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jun 27 19:19:09 2012
New Revision: 189024
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189024
Log:
PR c++/53563
* parser.c (cp_parser_template
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53616
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53788
Bug #: 53788
Summary: C++11 decltype sfinae static member function check
(4.7.1)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
--- Comment #10 from Matt Hargett 2012-06-27 18:26:55 UTC
---
Is there a fix targeted for 4.7.2? I can apply the patch and do some testing,
if that helps. Let me know what I can do, if anything, so we can make 4.7
deployable for us.
Thanks for t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41951
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53787
--- Comment #2 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-06-27
17:56:48 UTC ---
The testcase was reduced from some real app. No inlining happened there.
Do you think this testcase is bad?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41951
--- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-27 17:54:29 UTC ---
Comment 12 is fixed with r189022, but comment 11 is still accepted without
error.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51214
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49591
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53787
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-06-27
17:39:23 UTC ---
AFAICT the subroutine is inlined with '-O3 -fwhole-program' or '-O3
-fwhole-program -flto' for 4.6.3, 4.7.1, and trunk. Indeed the inlining does
not occurs with the addition of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49591
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-27 17:38:11 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Jun 27 17:38:00 2012
New Revision: 189022
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189022
Log:
2012-06-27 Janus Weil
PR fortran/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41951
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-27 17:38:11 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Jun 27 17:38:00 2012
New Revision: 189022
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189022
Log:
2012-06-27 Janus Weil
PR fortran/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51214
--- Comment #6 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-27 17:36:56 UTC ---
Author: fabien
Date: Wed Jun 27 17:36:50 2012
New Revision: 189021
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189021
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2012-06-27 Fab
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53787
Bug #: 53787
Summary: Possible lto improvement
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35040
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2012-06-27
16:17:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Answer (see link): All these are wrong per answer to an interpretation
> request
For completeness, that is Fortran 95's "90" at
ftp://ftp.nag.co.uk/sc22
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50176
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-06-27
15:28:52 UTC ---
Ah, the i386.md part doesn't apply on the trunk, since
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184891
which seems to have fixed this issue for the case where the load and zer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53778
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2012-06-27
15:27:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> However if I add '-finit-real=snan -ffpe-trap=invalid,zero,overflow' to the\
> flags, the line
[...]
For me it fails with:
#3 0x419D2B in __datafield_MOD
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37215
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37215
--- Comment #15 from Kai Tietz 2012-06-27 15:06:21
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Jun 27 15:06:16 2012
New Revision: 189019
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189019
Log:
Merged from trunk
PR preprocessor/372
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53786
Bug #: 53786
Summary: [C++11] alias template causes g++ segfault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51033
--- Comment #28 from Ramana Radhakrishnan
2012-06-27 14:19:25 UTC ---
Author: ramana
Date: Wed Jun 27 14:19:17 2012
New Revision: 189017
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189017
Log:
2012-06-27 Ramana Radhakrishnan
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37215
--- Comment #14 from Kai Tietz 2012-06-27 14:03:13
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Jun 27 14:03:08 2012
New Revision: 189016
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189016
Log:
PR preprocessor/37215
* c-ppoutput.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50176
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-06-27
13:56:48 UTC ---
Created attachment 27711
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27711
gcc48-pr50176.patch
Here is an untested patch (hacked up on 4.7 branch, as the problem on this
test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53778
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-06-27
13:44:43 UTC ---
I have played a little with the attached test (I had to comment out 'use
textdata' and 'use lapack'. On x86_64-apple-darwin10, I do not get any NaN with
4.6.3, 4.7.1, or trunk w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33190
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-06-27 13:30:31 UTC ---
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> SYSROOT_HEADERS_SUFFIX_SPEC (cppdefault.c gcc.c doc/tm.texi.in)
This is of use with configurations with both g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38292
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.3, 4.8.0
Summary|[4.7/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.3, 4.8.0
Summary|[4.7/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-27
11:32:34 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 27 11:32:30 2012
New Revision: 189013
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189013
Log:
2012-06-27 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53774
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53774
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53774
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-27
11:29:08 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 27 11:29:04 2012
New Revision: 189012
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189012
Log:
2012-06-27 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53766
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-27
10:32:53 UTC ---
I am testing
Index: gcc/cfgloop.c
===
*** gcc/cfgloop.c (revision 188987)
--- gcc/cfgloop.c (working cop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28811
--- Comment #19 from __vic 2012-06-27 10:27:14 UTC ---
I'm sorry, compiler version was 4.6.1 in previous example.
Output for 4.7.1:
$ g++ -shared -fPIC -static-libgcc -static-libstdc++ -o 1.so 1.cpp
/usr/bin/ld:
/opt/gcc-4.7.1/lib/gcc/x86_64-unkn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28811
--- Comment #18 from __vic 2012-06-27 10:19:18 UTC ---
GCC 4.7.1 still fails to link .so against static libstdc++.a in 64-bit mode:
$ g++ -shared -fPIC -static-libgcc -static-libstdc++ -o 1.so 1.cpp
/usr/bin/ld:
/opt/gcc-4.6.1/lib/gcc/x86_64-unkn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53783
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52543
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53778
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Orgis 2012-06-27
09:03:25 UTC ---
... and not to forget profiles.f90 ... that module links the perturbation in
dat_init_density() to the wind in dat_init_wind(). Changes in there along with
moving perturb to using those
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53706
--- Comment #20 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-06-27 09:00:52 UTC ---
> --- Comment #19 from Alexandre Oliva 2012-06-27
> 06:30:05 UTC ---
> Alas, it doesn't work on i686 or x86_64: the free_alloc_pool in vt_finalize
> has
> to be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53778
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Orgis 2012-06-27
08:58:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 27710
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27710
tarball with complete source to reproduce the issue
Ok, then, I feared as much. After taking too much
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53645
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53774
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-06-27 08:28:27 UTC ---
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53774
>
> --- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt
> 2012-06-26 18:42
67 matches
Mail list logo