http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56712
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger
2013-03-26 06:15:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 29724
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29724
backport of the above mentioned fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56712
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger
2013-03-26 06:13:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Works for me with 4.7/4.8/4.9, and 4.5 and older, but fails with 4.6.
> The bug was fixed for 4.7.0 by r180700; that change has no BZ PR entry, but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56733
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56733
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 |hppa*-*-*
Host
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49880
--- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima 2013-03-26
01:32:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> OK to close this PR?
OK with me.
sion 4.9.0 20130325 (experimental) [trunk revision 197072] (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56725
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2013-03-25
23:03:42 UTC ---
Note that there are a fair amount of calls like these in the C++ FE, and the
use is inconsistent. I guess the indentation predates the use of inform, and
this is why there are s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56725
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2013-03-25
23:07:00 UTC ---
BTW, in this case, I find the output of g++ much better than that of clang++
test.cc:7:10: error: no matching function for call to 'callf'
return callf (23, 72,
^~~~
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49880
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-25 23:02:04
UTC ---
Although it doesn't show up here, I've also backported the fix to the 4.7
branch and committed it as rev. 197071.
OK to close this PR?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56725
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56732
Bug #: 56732
Summary: ICE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
As
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56726
--- Comment #4 from Chip Salzenberg 2013-03-25 22:35:57
UTC ---
If I'm reading that correctly, it seems to agree with my patch.
It looks like MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT of POINTER_SIZE*2 is always either correct
or smaller than necessary, but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
Diego Novillo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50243
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56726
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2013-03-25 22:07:18
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I'm a bit skeptical of that. Glibc malloc alignment is 2 * sizeof(void*), and
> void* in X32 is 32 bits. Unless X32 code uses the x86_64 libc, I am confus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
roland at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roland at gnu dot org
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56726
--- Comment #2 from Chip Salzenberg 2013-03-25 21:35:19
UTC ---
I'm a bit skeptical of that. Glibc malloc alignment is 2 * sizeof(void*), and
void* in X32 is 32 bits. Unless X32 code uses the x86_64 libc, I am confused.
PS: Hi, HJ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56731
Bug #: 56731
Summary: [Fortran 4.7] ICE on (wrongly) referencing polymorphic
array in select type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56699
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56730
Bug #: 56730
Summary: [Fortran 4.6, 4.7] ICE on (wrongly) referencing
polymorphic array in allocate
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56729
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc*-*-*
Status
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: d...@gcc.gnu.org
/tmp/20130325/gcc/xgcc -B/tmp/20130325/gcc/
/nasfarm/dje/src/src/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/torture/vshuf-v2di.c
-fno-diagnostics-show-caret -O1 -S -o vshuf-v2di.s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38607
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56728
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54100
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56722
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52014
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56728
Bug #: 56728
Summary: ICE using constexpr initialization and arrays
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52512
Tilo Schwarz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@tilo-schwarz.de
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56726
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56727
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56727
Bug #: 56727
Summary: [4.7/4.8] [missed-optimization] Recursive call goes
through the PLT unnecessarily
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56434
--- Comment #12 from Chip Salzenberg 2013-03-25
19:15:10 UTC ---
Thank you. I've filed #56726 with a patch to update MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT on
i386.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56726
Bug #: 56726
Summary: i386: MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT is too small (usually)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724
--- Comment #3 from Tom Tromey 2013-03-25 18:46:47
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Though it does say the 3rd argument though.
Sure, it is just nicer if the compiler counts commas instead of me doing it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56723
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2013-03-25
18:45:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> t.c: In function ‘docall’:
> t.c:8:3: warning: passing argument 3 of ‘callf’ from incompatible pointer type
> [enabled by default]
> If you have many param
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724
--- Comment #1 from Tom Tromey 2013-03-25 18:44:37
UTC ---
This affects g++ as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56725
Bug #: 56725
Summary: extra spaces in error message
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56724
Bug #: 56724
Summary: sub-optimal location in error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56723
Bug #: 56723
Summary: wrong location in error message
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #14 from Josue Andrade Gomes
2013-03-25 18:30:40 UTC ---
Not fixed. Still reproducible with final 4.8.0
See also http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56644
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56722
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38536
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55343
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55444
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52426
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49023
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54263
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39288
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39288
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2013-03-25
17:50:29 UTC ---
FIXED on the 4.9 trunk.
(Actually, most cases worked before.)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50269
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38894
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40963
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38813
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50612
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47034
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56722
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56722
Bug #: 56722
Summary: C++11: syntax error in for loop ends in SEGV
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56719
--- Comment #7 from felix-gcc at fefe dot de 2013-03-25 16:01:14 UTC ---
I filed this bug because I was under the impression that gcc was already
supposed to optimize this out as part of the value range optimizations.
You probably know bet
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45824
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2013-03-25
15:54:49 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Mar 25 15:40:26 2013
New Revision: 197053
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197053&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-03-25 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56378
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55343
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56079
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55574
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2013-03-25
15:54:31 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Mar 25 15:40:26 2013
New Revision: 197053
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197053&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-03-25 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55444
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52426
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49023
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54263
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38536
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39288
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50269
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38894
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40963
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
K
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38813
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50612
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47034
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56719
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-25
15:25:53 UTC ---
This actually isn't about optimizing away the first compare, but about merging
the two conditions into one that is equivalent to those two ored together.
The first condition is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56719
--- Comment #5 from felix-gcc at fefe dot de 2013-03-25 15:06:02 UTC ---
Yes. However I'd hope that fixing this case would mean that gcc also catches
the case where it is split to multiple if statements.
I think this statement came about
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56719
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener 2013-03-25
14:55:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> @comment 2: I extracted this code from a piece of commercial production
> software compiled with gcc. Not sure where you draw the line but to me tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56694
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56719
--- Comment #3 from felix-gcc at fefe dot de 2013-03-25 14:41:10 UTC ---
@comment 1: maybe it's me but that does not make any sense. 3fff is wrong and
the correct value is 3fff? Huh?
@comment 2: I extracted this code from a piece of comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56721
--- Comment #2 from Jack Howarth 2013-03-25
14:24:55 UTC ---
Will http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg00853.html go into both gcc
4.9 and 4.8.1?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33415
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-03-25
14:15:17 UTC ---
And please don't use Bugzilla for questions about using GCC, use the gcc-help
mailing list, thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33415
--- Comment #9 from Wolfgang Bangerth 2013-03-25
13:50:00 UTC ---
Vikas: This was fixed in GCC in 2008. The version of GCC you are using (3.4.6)
was released in 2006 and the entire 3.4.x tree is in fact from 2004. It is time
for you to upg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54563
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56689
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35308
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.9.0
--- Comment #5 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56721
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener 2013-03-25
12:53:09 UTC ---
Kind of. The default install target should not install libffi. See the
patch posted by Matthias Klose.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56721
Bug #: 56721
Summary: libffi.info installed in share/info collides with that
from libffi itself
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56694
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener 2013-03-25
12:49:34 UTC ---
It's the lower RESX pass that causes the location to appear. And likely
bogus locations in the EH on-the-side info:
x = gimple_build_call (fn, 0);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56694
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener 2013-03-25
12:28:55 UTC ---
Reduced testcase:
class GException {
public:
class vector_mismatch {
public:
vector_mismatch(int size1, int size2);
};
};
class GVector{
public:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56720
--- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-25 12:23:25 UTC ---
Created attachment 29721
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29721
Patch to fix ICE on trunk
Patch fixing bug on trunk.
Will test to ensure it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56719
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56720
Bug #: 56720
Summary: ICE when expanding vcond with floating point unordered
comparisons
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56719
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56719
Bug #: 56719
Summary: missed optimization: i > 0x || i*4 > 0x
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
