Dear Jonathan,
Thank you for posting my report to the bugzilla. Is it only a mistype that
the bug's subject writes string::append, or really the bug is in that
function?
Thanks,
Kojedzinszky Richard
Euronet Magyarorszag Informatikai Zrt.
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Date:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54400
Bug #: 54400
Summary: recognize haddpd
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54395
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54102
--- Comment #3 from Benjamin Kosnik 2012-08-29
04:44:19 UTC ---
Author: bkoz
Date: Wed Aug 29 04:44:10 2012
New Revision: 190771
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190771
Log:
2012-08-28 Benjamin Kosnik
PR libstdc++/54
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54102
--- Comment #2 from Benjamin Kosnik 2012-08-29
01:37:23 UTC ---
Author: bkoz
Date: Wed Aug 29 01:37:16 2012
New Revision: 190768
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190768
Log:
2012-08-28 Benjamin Kosnik
PR libstdc++/54
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54399
Bug #: 54399
Summary: Invalid partial change from dynamic to static
initialization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14526
--- Comment #4 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-29
00:46:40 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Aug 29 00:46:36 2012
New Revision: 190766
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190766
Log:
Replace alloca with xmalloc/free
PR bin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54398
Bug #: 54398
Summary: Incorrect ARM assembly when building with
-fno-omit-frame-pointer -O2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.4
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54397
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-29 00:03:08 UTC ---
*** Bug 54396 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54396
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54397
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-29 00:00:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 28095
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28095
gfortran.log fail produced by the testsuite
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54397
Bug #: 54397
Summary: [regression] gfortran.dg/guality/pr41558.f90
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54396
Bug #: 54396
Summary: [regression] gfortran.dg/guality/pr41558.f90
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54395
--- Comment #4 from Rich Felker 2012-08-28 23:52:24
UTC ---
Would you care to elaborate on how it would break anything? They're already
easily removable with -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -fno-unwind-tables. The
problem is just that it's imposs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54395
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2012-08-28
23:40:11 UTC ---
Also these tables are part of the ABI so removing them will cause a break.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54395
--- Comment #2 from Rich Felker 2012-08-28 23:38:49
UTC ---
I can see the argument that some users would want/need that, and perhaps even
that you want backtrace() to be available in the default configuration, but I
still think there should be a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54395
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-08-28
23:28:00 UTC ---
You need then also at runtime for doing a backtrace() which is why you need
then at runtime.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54290
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54395
Bug #: 54395
Summary: DWARF tables should go in non-mapped section unless
exceptions are enabled
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54290
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||sparc*-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
--- Comment #11 from Steve Ellcey 2012-08-28 23:07:25
UTC ---
I think the problem is the use of INSN_P instead of NONDEBUG_INSN_P in
build_insn_chain (ira.c). Changing this fixes the small test case and I will
do a full bootstrap build and test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54394
Bug #: 54394
Summary: fatigue2 -flto run time regression
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54005
--- Comment #12 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-08-28
21:59:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Andrew I'll revert
Then please set the object pointer to NULL in the __atomic_is_lock_free
call.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54388
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Krügler
2012-08-28 20:34:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> > Replace
> >
> > return __n < _Nm ?
> >_M_instance[__n] : throw out_of_range(__N("array::at"));
> >
> > by
> >
> > return __n < _Nm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54393
--- Comment #3 from Adhemerval Zanella
2012-08-28 18:49:42 UTC ---
The default algorithm used on both std::string and __gnu_cxx::__vstring appends
data char by char. However, std::string also provides an template
specialization for both char and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54393
--- Comment #2 from Adhemerval Zanella
2012-08-28 18:44:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 28094
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28094
__gnu_ext::__vstring getline optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54389
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2012-08-28
18:18:15 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Aug 28 18:18:11 2012
New Revision: 190757
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190757
Log:
2012-08-28 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/54
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54393
--- Comment #1 from Peter Bergner 2012-08-28
18:11:39 UTC ---
Created attachment 28093
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28093
Test case as an attachment
Adding test case as an attachment.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54392
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-28
18:10:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> It is caused by revision 148850:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-06/msg00833.html
That patch fixed a race condition, and it *is* correct to preven
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54005
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54393
Bug #: 54393
Summary: std::getline is almost 10x slower when working on a
vstring versus std::string
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54392
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54388
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46254
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46254
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-28 17:22:18 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Aug 28 17:22:13 2012
New Revision: 190754
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190754
Log:
Backport from mainline
2012-08-27 U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54382
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #71 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-08-28 14:54:54 UTC ---
The -O3 compile is 3h later still running and needs >20Gb of RAM. The issue
seems now to be variable_tracking_main
#0 0x00b7b8ce in dataflow_set_preserve_mem_locs(void*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54384
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus 2012-08-28
14:51:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> * match_data_constant (mbdx.f90, comment 5)
> * aermod.f90:
> by 0x5D8C0D: traverse_data_var(gfc_data_variable*, locus*) (resolve.c:13426)
These two are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54382
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2012-08-28
14:50:03 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Aug 28 14:49:55 2012
New Revision: 190752
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190752
Log:
2012-08-28 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/54
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54384
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2012-08-28
14:49:19 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Aug 28 14:49:15 2012
New Revision: 190751
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190751
Log:
2012-08-28 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/54
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54388
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler
2012-08-28 14:07:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> The paper does have implementation experience, and experience shows we got it
> wrong ;)
We implemented it wrong is a different message than "we couldn't i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54388
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-28
13:55:36 UTC ---
The paper does have implementation experience, and experience shows we got it
wrong ;)
We could do:
return __n < _Nm ? _M_instance[__n]
: (std::__throw out_of_range(__N(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54388
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler
2012-08-28 13:53:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > The fix is to remove the constexpr from array::at, which isn't required by
> > the
> > standard anyway:
>
> It's not required
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54388
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler
2012-08-28 13:43:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The fix is to remove the constexpr from array::at, which isn't required by the
> standard anyway:
It's not required, but I would like to encourage you to k
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54392
Bug #: 54392
Summary: [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] std::string::append() fails
to update length
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54390
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-28 13:21:29
UTC ---
Without AVX, we got
xorps%xmm4, %xmm4
shufps$0xe4, %xmm4, %xmm0
movlhps%xmm1, %xmm0
movaps%xmm4, %xmm1
movaps%xmm2, %xmm4
shufps$0xe4, %xmm1,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54391
Bug #: 54391
Summary: transparent_union typedef'ing inconsistent
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
Re: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2012-08/msg01843.html
Hi, the gcc-bugs mailing list is for automated mails from our bug
database, http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
To ensure a response you should either file a bug in the bugzilla
database to it can be tracked and found by the interested parties, or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54252
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Raman
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40735
--- Comment #21 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-28
11:29:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> > ~/bin/maxmem2.sh gcc-4.7 -S -o /dev/null t.i -v -std=gnu99 -Os -fPIE
> > -fstack-protector -g --param ggc-min-expand=100 --param
> > ggc-min-heapsize
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #70 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-08-28 11:28:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #69)
> Is there still a problem here?
for current trunk and the original testcase, timings are reasonable at -O0 -O1
-O2, but very long at -O3 (>60min):
re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40735
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
AssignedTo|steven at gcc do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40735
--- Comment #19 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-28
09:34:10 UTC ---
With r190665, compile time is mostly spent in:
loop doloop : 130.15 ( 8%) usr
variable tracking : 990.72 (60%) usr
var-tracking dataflow : 76.34 ( 5%) usr
S
Dear All,
I've a strange bug, I've attached a small source which shows my issue.
So, I am trying to assign a string containing an embedded \0 in it. You
will find that in test() I use std::string::assign to do this, but in two
cases the results are different.
Please see the output of the att
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40735
--- Comment #18 from Alexander Monakov 2012-08-28
08:48:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
>
> richi, can you share this maxmem2 script?
It's available on the wiki: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/PerformanceTesting
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40735
--- Comment #17 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-28
08:43:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> ~/bin/maxmem2.sh gcc-4.4 -S -o /dev/null -g
> -fstack-protector -fPIE -Os test_node.i -std=gnu99
> total: 744108 kB
richi, can you share this maxmem2 scr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54389
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|WAITING
--- Comment #69 from Steven Bos
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54390
Bug #: 54390
Summary: [AVX] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/no-tree-sra-bb-slp-pr50730.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54388
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-28
08:21:21 UTC ---
The fix is to remove the constexpr from array::at, which isn't required by the
standard anyway:
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/array b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/array
index 58
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40735
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54388
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12850
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54389
Bug #: 54389
Summary: [F2003/F2008 difference] PURE functions and pointer
dummy arguments
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53395
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski 2012-08-28
07:04:52 UTC ---
While working on this, I noticed that sometimes we don't produce what the x86
back-end calls IEEE MIN/MAX either but that is a different issue all together
and I have a fix for that (I
66 matches
Mail list logo
