http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56470
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55644
--- Comment #13 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2013-03-04 05:50:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I start to believe we should arrange for --disable-werror for any non-standard
> build config ... testing matrix is simply too large and mostly fa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56515
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2013-03-04 05:22:09 UTC ---
Created attachment 29576
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29576
Testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56515
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2013-03-04 05:20:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 29575
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29575
Bt from 4.7.3
GCC 4.8.0 20130127 (r195497) fails, too; 20130113 (r195137) - ok.
GCC 4.8
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: d.g.gorbac...@gmail.com
GCC 4.8.0 20130303 (experimental):
foo.c: In function 'foo':
foo.c:1:6: error: location
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56464
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56513
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson 2013-03-03
23:26:49 UTC ---
The wrong-code stopped for 4.8 with r188526, the introduction and enabling of
-ftree-coalesce-vars. At that point the wrong-code reappears with -O3
-fno-tree-coalesce-vars,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56514
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |minor
--- Comment #1 from Andre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56514
Bug #: 56514
Summary: Using -fdisable-rtl-ira makes gcc crash (segfault)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56513
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56477
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56477
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin 2013-03-03
19:58:53 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Sun Mar 3 19:58:49 2013
New Revision: 196417
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196417
Log:
fortran/
PR fortran/56477
* ex
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56506
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56270
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56513
--- Comment #3 from Tim Kosse 2013-03-03
18:55:20 UTC ---
Also happens with GCC 4.7.1 and 4.6.3.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56513
--- Comment #2 from Tim Kosse 2013-03-03
18:48:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 29573
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29573
Compiler output
Output of arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi-g++ -v -save-temps -O3 bug.cpp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56513
--- Comment #1 from Tim Kosse 2013-03-03
18:47:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 29572
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29572
Preprocessed file
Created using the following command:
arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi-g++ -v -save-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56513
Bug #: 56513
Summary: Wrong code generation with -O3 on ARM
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54730
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55362
--- Comment #7 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com 2013-03-03 18:09:08 UTC ---
Thanks Mikael,
I have been in the middle of one of my "no gfortran periods". I am
back in France next week and will get to this on Tuesday or Wednesday.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54730
--- Comment #13 from Mikael Morin 2013-03-03
17:52:10 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Sun Mar 3 17:52:02 2013
New Revision: 196416
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196416
Log:
fortran/
PR fortran/54730
* a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54730
--- Comment #12 from Mikael Morin 2013-03-03
17:34:48 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Sun Mar 3 17:34:42 2013
New Revision: 196414
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196414
Log:
fortran/
PR fortran/54730
* g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55343
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54343
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54500
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56512
Erik Brangs changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56512
--- Comment #2 from Erik Brangs 2013-03-03 15:41:21
UTC ---
I'm actually trying to reproduce another bug with setjmp/longjmp on PowerPC
(one that leads to the error message "longjmp causes unitialized stack frame").
Unfortunately, I haven'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52872
--- Comment #7 from Karlson2k 2013-03-03 14:57:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Yes, patch looks reasonable. Please sent it to patch ML.
> This patch is small, so it is ok, but do you have already made paper-work with
> FSF for gcc?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56512
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson 2013-03-03
14:43:40 UTC ---
This test case is full of undefined behaviour:
- you longjmp out of a frame to an older frame, and then expect to be able to
longjmp back into the younger frame; that doesn'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56512
Bug #: 56512
Summary: Memory corruption when compiling code with -O on
PowerPC when using setjmp/longjmp
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56510
--- Comment #9 from Steven Bosscher 2013-03-03
12:50:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> OT, are you sure the testcase doesn't violate aliasing just about
> everywhere?
At least -Wstrict-aliasing=2 doesn't think so, but it's certainly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56510
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-03
12:40:09 UTC ---
Reduced testcase:
struct S { unsigned long s1; void **s2[0]; };
void **a, **b, **c, **d, **e, **f;
static void **
baz (long x, long y)
{
void **s = f;
*f = (void **)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56510
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8 Regression] More |[4.7/4.8 Regression] More
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56510
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-03
12:08:19 UTC ---
Why are you marking this as 4.8 Regression, when the reporter says the same
problem is there for 4.6 already?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50728
--- Comment #5 from vincenzo Innocente
2013-03-03 12:01:23 UTC ---
crosspost with PR55266.
feel free to consolidate in a single PR
I see still problems when calling inline functions.
It seems that the code to satisfy the "calling ABI"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55266
--- Comment #4 from vincenzo Innocente
2013-03-03 11:58:24 UTC ---
I see still problems when calling inline functions.
It seems that the code to satisfy the "calling ABI" is generated anyhow.
take the example below and compare the code g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56510
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|steven at gcc dot gnu.org |aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56501
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52872
--- Comment #6 from Kai Tietz 2013-03-03 10:29:42
UTC ---
Yes, patch looks reasonable. Please sent it to patch ML.
This patch is small, so it is ok, but do you have already made paper-work with
FSF for gcc?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52872
Karlson2k changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||k2k at narod dot ru
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52872
--- Comment #4 from Karlson2k 2013-03-03 10:25:47 UTC ---
Created attachment 29569
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29569
Possible patch
41 matches
Mail list logo
