http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57421
--- Comment #10 from Jürgen Reuter ---
After I completely recompiled the trunk version (r199585) the problem is gone.
So most probably it resulted from an incomplete update and recompilation of the
code,
or was in an intermediate step of the devel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56564
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jun 11 06:03:46 2013
New Revision: 199934
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=199934&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/56564
* varasm.c (get_variable_align): Move #endif to the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52332
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57581
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
Try using a newer demangler.
$ ./cxxfilt
_ZNSt3setIiSt4lessIiESaIiEE5eraseB5cxx11ESt23_Rb_tree_const_iteratorIiES5_
std::set, std::allocator
>::erase[abi:cxx11](std::_Rb_tree_const_iterator,
std::_Rb_tree_co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57581
Bug ID: 57581
Summary: abi_tag vs. demangler
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37132
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
New draft patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg00534.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57579
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|federico.carminati at cern dot ch |
Component|c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57551
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jason at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57580
Bug ID: 57580
Summary: Repeated _Pragma message directives in macro causes
problems
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57575
Anass Lasram changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57379
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57579
Bug ID: 57579
Summary: Problem with vectorization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48163
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57539
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 30286
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30286&action=edit
Proposed fix
I'm currently bootstrapping and testing this patch to fix the issue. I'll give
one more thought to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53957
--- Comment #13 from Anthony Falzone ---
My previous post needs a correction. Comparing gfortran O3 to Intel Fortran O3
I see a 60% speed improvement in favor of the Intel Fortran compiler. There is
a 40% improvement over past releases of PROP_D
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47680
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50539
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49397
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48939
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47680
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Per comment #3, this PR should probably be closed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57578
Bug ID: 57578
Summary: SPE detection broken on Linux (bits/predefs.h: No such
file or directory)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52440
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41725
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|SUSPENDED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41725
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56564
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52440
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini ---
Fixed in 4.7.3. I'm adding the testcase and closing the bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52371
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54207
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ai.azuma at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57569
--- Comment #2 from Michael Matz ---
My guess is that it's again somewhere using the wrong predicate
to test directed rw/wr/ww dependencies.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57541
--- Comment #9 from Anna ---
Issue that is very alike to issue mentioned in Comment 7:
int A[10];
int main () {
int a;
a = __sec_reduce (1);
}
$ gcc -fcilkplus 1.c
1.c: In function 'main':
1.c:6:1: internal compiler error: tree check: acces
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57541
--- Comment #8 from Anna ---
Thing from Comment 1 is still reproducible with this case:
int A[10];
int main () {
int a;
a = __sec_reduce_add (1);
}
$ gcc -fcilkplus 1.c
1.c: In function 'main':
1.c:5:5: internal compiler error: in gimplify_v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57541
--- Comment #7 from Anna ---
(In reply to Anna from comment #6)
> Created attachment 30285 [details]
> Another test case reproducing the original thing
And another issue in slightly changed test case from this attachment:
int A[10];
int main ()
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57541
--- Comment #6 from Anna ---
Created attachment 30285
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30285&action=edit
Another test case reproducing the original thing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57541
--- Comment #5 from Anna ---
(In reply to Balaji V. Iyer from comment #4)
> Hello,
> This issue should be fixed in trunk revision 199837. Please let me know
> otherwise.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Balaji V. Iyer.
Hi Balaji,
I still can reproduce segfa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57577
--- Comment #1 from Anna ---
Also, when I change "A[:] = foo (B[:][:]);" to "A[0] = foo (B[:][:]);"
compilation hangs.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57577
Bug ID: 57577
Summary: internal compiler error: tree check: expected class
'expression', have 'constant' (integer_cst) in
tree_operand_check, at tree.h:4123
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57524
--- Comment #10 from James Michael DuPont ---
I have reported the problem in the code to boost, they have fixed it.
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/8651#comment:1
The problem is having to do with underspecifed namespace selection. They
ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57482
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Christophe from comment #3)
> Reading target.def is really instructive, but I still do not understand
> (yet) how the optimizations list is built, and how options are
> overwritten... All th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57575
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57576
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57576
Bug ID: 57576
Summary: Using declaration hides template for purposes of
explicit instantiation
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56987
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||avr
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57501
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|attiny24a |avr
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57390
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||avr
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41725
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
Do we have DR # for this issue?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57558
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57559
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
Summary|S/390: ICE with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57567
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57571
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56038
--- Comment #6 from Kai Koehne ---
The issue is still there with 4.8.1 . It understand that the discussion on Kai
Tietz' original patch has stalled ... Any suggestion on how we can move this
forward?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57482
--- Comment #3 from Christophe ---
> 2) -f[no-]short-enums is not an optimization option;
Hum, I do not really agree although it is strongly related to ABI, no doubt.
Anyway, it is a very special option as I can see in opts.c :
/* Set this to a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55308
Anton Shterenlikht changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53964
Anton Shterenlikht changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
53 matches
Mail list logo
