http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55388
--- Comment #12 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-23 07:55:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Richard, did you already start to investigate seriously? If no, I can take it
> over if you want, it's SPARC and I have a big share in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53071
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak 2012-11-23 07:49:41
UTC ---
Resulting asm is quite different w/ current mainline:
_Z4testU8__vectorxS_S_:
vmovdqa%xmm2, -24(%rsp)
vpsrlq$32, %xmm0, %xmm3
vpmuldq%xmm1, %xmm0, %xmm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52910
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak 2012-11-23 07:42:38
UTC ---
Current mainline compiles f13 to:
f13:
vpxor%xmm0, %xmm0, %xmm0
xorl%eax, %eax
.L36:
vmovdqac2(%rax), %xmm2
addq$16, %rax
vpmacsdqh%
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55354
--- Comment #23 from Dmitry Vyukov 2012-11-23
07:27:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> (In reply to comment #20)
> > What I see is that it also affect code generation (register allocation). Do
> > we
> > need to file a bug on that?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55354
--- Comment #22 from Dmitry Vyukov 2012-11-23
07:16:14 UTC ---
> > For dynamic libraries that are loaded into a non-instrumented executable
> > (e.g.
> > swig so preloaded into python process), we statically link the tsan runtime
> > into
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55445
Bug #: 55445
Summary: Always defined __SEH__ when build from trunk
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55430
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-11-23
01:29:13 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Nov 23 01:29:07 2012
New Revision: 193742
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193742
Log:
2012-11-22 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55438
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8 Regression]: |[4.8 Regression]:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55198
--- Comment #5 from John David Anglin 2012-11-23
00:40:06 UTC ---
Created attachment 28764
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28764
Patch
Testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55198
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin 2012-11-23
00:39:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 28763
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28763
Testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55444
Bug #: 55444
Summary: Rejects valid code with USE ISO_C_BINDING in BLOCK
DATA
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54895
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|4.4.0, 4.5.0, 4.6.0, 4.7.0, |
|4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54895
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-22
19:14:03 UTC ---
I don't know, I'm still finding the "Known to work" field pretty weird, to be
honest.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54895
--- Comment #9 from Kai Tietz 2012-11-22 19:11:12
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> So it works everywhere? ;)
Well, it doesn't work for all targets providing different calling-conventions
for functions. Eg functions with regparm, std
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54895
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-22
19:08:14 UTC ---
So it works everywhere? ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55443
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54895
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |c++
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55014
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever Confirmed|1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55014
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54895
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54895
--- Comment #5 from niXman 2012-11-22 18:37:55 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> This is most likely a duplicate of already fixed PR/55268.
I checked upon the 193725 revision.
The first test gives the same result. The second test now g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55388
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou 2012-11-22
18:26:05 UTC ---
In fact the miscompilation is already eliminated by replacing the call to
adjust_address with adjust_bitfield_address in store_bit_field. Not clear what
I was thinking when I
nls --disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20121122 (experimental) (GCC)
---
The command line was:
c++ -std=c++0x noexcept_operator_constexpr.ice.ii
That triggers the fol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55388
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55442
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55442
Bug #: 55442
Summary: G++ uses up all my RAM when compiling a constexpr with
exponential call graph
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55137
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55379
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55379
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55379
--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-22
15:17:26 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Nov 22 15:17:21 2012
New Revision: 193728
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193728
Log:
Issue an error for -static with f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-22
15:04:23 UTC ---
Still, you reported the issue as fixed in 4_7-branch, thus unless you think
it's a regression, it seems highly unlikely that it will be fixed in that
branch too, unless you vol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
Richard Perrin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55137
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill 2012-11-22
14:42:06 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 22 14:42:00 2012
New Revision: 193727
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193727
Log:
PR c++/55137
* semantics.c (ve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55313
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|WAITING
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785
--- Comment #38 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-22
13:05:38 UTC ---
yet another variant...
void
f (int i, long *a, long *b)
{
int sum = 0;
for (; --i >= 0; a++, b++)
{
b[i] = 0;
#define PART(I) if (t()) sum+=100+I;
PART (1);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55436
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid, wrong-code
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55436
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55437
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55429
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-11-22
12:27:58 UTC ---
> Me: I very often run the testsuite serially on Linux.
Does this mean that you have run a serial testsuite of libstdc++-v3 after
r193542 and you did not get the UNRESO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54895
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55379
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55379
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-22
11:14:18 UTC ---
For -static one could perhaps use --wrap ld option to wrap various symbols, but
we'd need special libasan_static.a for that. Not worth it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55388
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou 2012-11-22
11:02:43 UTC ---
Richard, did you already start to investigate seriously? If no, I can take it
over if you want, it's SPARC and I have a big share in the problematic patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55418
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-22
10:46:31 UTC ---
The issue seems indeed trivial, but note that we are already assigning false to
trivial_p in the conditional, thus I guess we should remove the latter. Maybe
also move the decla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #49 from Alexander Potapenko 2012-11-22
10:43:03 UTC ---
The new interposition library should work on 10.6.
But ASan itself doesn't work on 10.5, at least I remember some problems with
its compilation. We're not really interest
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55432
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55432
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-22 10:23:07 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Nov 22 10:23:03 2012
New Revision: 193723
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193723
Log:
2012-11-22 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55429
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-22
10:06:05 UTC ---
Me: I very often run the testsuite serially on Linux.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54222
--- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-11-22
10:00:24 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Thu Nov 22 10:00:13 2012
New Revision: 193721
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193721
Log:
libgcc/
Adjust decimal point of si
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55434
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-22
09:57:02 UTC ---
Note that in any case patches should be posted to gcc-patches.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55432
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-22
09:54:07 UTC ---
It is, in mainline and 4.7.2. To be safe, I'm adding the testcase and then will
close the PR.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55313
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou 2012-11-22
09:08:57 UTC ---
OK, the problem is that we change the prefix at installation time (by setting
the "prefix" variable on the make install command line).
This works fine for all other libraries,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55388
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
55 matches
Mail list logo
