http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58007
Bug ID: 58007
Summary: ICE -- free_pi_tree(): Unresolved fixup, depends on
order of module inclusion
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56888
Rich Felker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugdal at aerifal dot cx
--- Comment #19 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57914
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.2
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57993
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
More complete fix submitted as
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg01326.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57945
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58006
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Summary|ICE regression compi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58006
--- Comment #3 from ermo.gcc.gnu.org at spammesenseless dot net ---
@Paolo:
*sigh* -- I suspected that it wasn't ever going to be as simple as describing
what I did to trigger the ICE. Sorry for polluting bugzilla with an incomplete
bug-report.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58005
--- Comment #4 from Evgeniy Dushistov ---
>Such an optimization can increase code size
>if the same format string is used with
>many different arguments,
may be then two fputs calls?
fputs(__PRETTY_FUNCTION__, stdout);
fputs("%s: test1\n" + 2/*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58006
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58006
--- Comment #2 from ermo.gcc.gnu.org at spammesenseless dot net ---
Created attachment 30564
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30564&action=edit
preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57921
Doug Gilmore changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dgilmore at mips dot com
--- Comment #6 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58003
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Chris Gilbreth from comment #0)
> (Is this valid Fortran?)
First, it is definitely a bug - internal compiler errors are always a bug.
Regarding the validity: The number z'0F00F0008001' = 108
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58006
Bug ID: 58006
Summary: ICE regression compiling VegaStrike on f19 with
-ffast-math and -ftree-parallelize-loops=2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57994
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini ---
About testing, it would be just matter of extending/updating what Kaveh Ghazi
set up when mpfr/mpc came in.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57994
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #7)
> An example of MPC not following all the Annex G special cases is that
> catanh (1 + i0) is specified in Annex G to return Inf + i0 with
> divide-by-zero
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57994
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini ---
About sin(Inf): I checked that with / without the real_isfinite the expression
evaluated in every case the same, -nan, if I remember correctly. I don't have
more details at the moment. My general point, again,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58005
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Such an optimization can increase code size (well, the total size of
string constants in the program) if the same format string is used with
many different arguments, so it may not always be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57994
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #5)
> Today I was thinking that given that, per docs and testsuite (double checked
> yesterday) the mpfr functions are able to cope with +-Inf arguments to the
> mathemati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57994
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
An example of MPC not following all the Annex G special cases is that
catanh (1 + i0) is specified in Annex G to return Inf + i0 with
divide-by-zero exception, but at least with my MPC insta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58005
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58005
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58003
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57994
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini ---
Today I was thinking that given that, per docs and testsuite (double checked
yesterday) the mpfr functions are able to cope with +-Inf arguments to the
mathematical functions and evaluate correctly, gating the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58005
Bug ID: 58005
Summary: missed optimization printf constant string
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58004
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52844
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lin90162 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #62 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Laurent Aflonsi from comment #61)
>
> More generally, I'm surprised to see that optimization at mapping level,
> isn't this a generic problematic that should be handled at rtl dead code
> eliminatio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58004
Bug ID: 58004
Summary: Internal compiler error in unify_one_argument, at
cp/pt.c:15445
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57954
--- Comment #5 from vincenzo Innocente ---
confirmed that the patch fixes the issue
c++ -O2 -march=corei7-avx polyAVX.cpp
time ./a.out
10358474048
2.965u 0.001s 0:02.97 99.6%0+0k 0+0io 146pf+0w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54961
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |WAITING
--- Comment #9 from Domini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58003
Bug ID: 58003
Summary: internal compiler error: in convert_mpz_to_unsigned,
at fortran/simplify.c:165
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54633
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14741
--- Comment #27 from Evgeniy Dushistov ---
Created attachment 30563
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30563&action=edit
icc -c -Ofast -march=native objdump
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14741
--- Comment #26 from Evgeniy Dushistov ---
I try such simple C++ function, compiled in separate object file(-march=native
-Ofast):
void mult(const double * const __restrict__ A, const double * const
__restrict__ B, double * const __restrict__ C,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58000
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58001
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57991
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57991
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Jul 27 14:17:01 2013
New Revision: 201286
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=201286&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-07-27 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/57991
* interface.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57285
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57285
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31016
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #6)
> Working on it a little bit.
I believe that the middle end prefers the use of ARRAY_RANGE_REF to the use of
memcpy. The reason is that with ARRAY_RANGE_REF it know
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #25 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31016
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58002
Bug ID: 58002
Summary: [IR tracking] Pointer function results in non pointer
context: Shall use a temporary
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58001
Bug ID: 58001
Summary: Make it possible to silence "Extension: Tab character
in format" warning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnos
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58000
Bug ID: 58000
Summary: Accept OPEN( ... NAME=) with -std=legacy
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57285
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57285
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Why the hell do we disable the dimension check for CLASS variables?
Index: gcc/fortran/check.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/check.c(revisi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57999
Bug ID: 57999
Summary: Missed constant propagation into trampolines
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57994
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
The MPFR documentation does claim that it strictly conforms to annex F (with an
explanation on how to emulate subnormals), though it isn't clear if that claim
only concerns +-*/sqrt or everything.
(In reply to
50 matches
Mail list logo
