[Bug bootstrap/58304] gcc dev branch compilation Failed at libstdc++-v3 (used gcc 4.7.3 to compile)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58304 Harsha changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED --- Comment #8 from Harsha --- As Paolo

[Bug rtl-optimization/58365] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] likely wrong code bug

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58365 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug rtl-optimization/58365] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] likely wrong code bug

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58365 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.8.2 |4.7.4

[Bug middle-end/57748] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE when expanding assignment to unaligned zero-sized array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748 --- Comment #34 from Bernd Edlinger --- Hmm, this was looking like a working example ((if it is valid C at all)), but after some thougt, I saw now it exposes a data store race: #include #include typedef long long V __attribute__ ((vector_siz

[Bug tree-optimization/58364] [4.8/4.9 Regression] likely wrong code bug

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58364 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milesto

stl_list undefined error in compiling mysql

All, Got the following error in compiling the latest version of mysql (mysql-5.6.13). I'm not sure if this is a gcc problem or a mysql problem, but it looked very standard library related, so I thought I'd point it out here. I look at the stl_list.h file and see it is in an #if block, with #if _

[Bug c++/58366] invocation of thread_local class containing bound function leads to : "Illegal instruction: 4"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58366 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/58300] ICE: in decide_is_symbol_needed, at cgraphunit.c:233 with -fvtable-verify=preinit on invalid code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58300 Caroline Tice changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/58300] ICE: in decide_is_symbol_needed, at cgraphunit.c:233 with -fvtable-verify=preinit on invalid code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58300 --- Comment #9 from ctice at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: ctice Date: Sun Sep 8 21:58:07 2013 New Revision: 202371 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202371&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Fix PR 58300: Re-order events with -fvtable-verify=preinit flag,

[Bug c++/58366] New: thread_local class containing bound function leads to : "Illegal instruction: 4"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58366 Bug ID: 58366 Summary: thread_local class containing bound function leads to : "Illegal instruction: 4" Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severit

[Bug tree-optimization/58364] [4.8/4.9 Regression] likely wrong code bug

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58364 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/58365] likely wrong code bug

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58365 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/58358] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] search_n has a Complexity violation for random access iterator

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58358 --- Comment #14 from Chris Jefferson --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #12) > Chris, did you consider applying this optimized code to bidirectional > iterators and not just random access iterators? We may end up doing a few > more ++/-- th

[Bug libstdc++/58358] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] search_n has a Complexity violation for random access iterator

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58358 --- Comment #13 from Chris Jefferson --- Created attachment 30767 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30767&action=edit Bug patch Patch attached. This features: 1) As well as checking backwards when we find a match, check forwar

[Bug c/58365] New: likely wrong code bug

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58365 Bug ID: 58365 Summary: likely wrong code bug Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: unassi

[Bug c/58364] New: likely wrong code bug

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58364 Bug ID: 58364 Summary: likely wrong code bug Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: unassi

[Bug libstdc++/58358] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] search_n has a Complexity violation for random access iterator

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58358 --- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse --- Chris, did you consider applying this optimized code to bidirectional iterators and not just random access iterators? We may end up doing a few more ++/-- than necessary, but not by more than a factor 2 I belie

[Bug c++/58363] New: Confusing error message for uncalled explicit destructor in expression

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58363 Bug ID: 58363 Summary: Confusing error message for uncalled explicit destructor in expression Product: gcc Version: 4.8.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor

[Bug c++/58362] Wrong column number for unused parameter

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58362 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at ucw dot cz --- Comment #8 from

[Bug c++/58362] Wrong column number for unused parameter

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58362 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/58331] [OOP] Bogus rank checking with explicit-/assumed-size arrays and CLASS

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58331 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code --- Comment #2 from Tobias Bur

[Bug c++/58362] Wrong column number for unused parameter

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58362 --- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #4) > The damage happens at error.c:3435. Yes, location_of replaces the declaration of the argument with that of the function :-( > Should we just use "%qD", no '+' ? I

[Bug bootstrap/58340] [4.9 regression] gcc/cp/pt.c:7064:1: internal compiler error: in propagate_threaded_block_debug_into, at tree-ssa-threadedge.c:623

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340 --- Comment #16 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Jan's patch papers over the problem of incorrect initialization of "found". I expect to be able to run through the formalities necessary to install the fix tonight. Reverting until I take care of things

[Bug c++/58362] Wrong column number for unused parameter

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58362 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/58362] Wrong column number for unused parameter

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58362 --- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini --- The damage happens at error.c:3435. Should we just use "%qD", no '+' ?

[Bug libstdc++/58358] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] search_n has a Complexity violation for random access iterator

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58358 --- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #9) > Shouldn't the library be able to use the new diamond operators > (specializations in void) that use perfect forwarding for both arguments and > result? User-code c

[Bug bootstrap/58340] [4.9 regression] gcc/cp/pt.c:7064:1: internal compiler error: in propagate_threaded_block_debug_into, at tree-ssa-threadedge.c:623

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340 --- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini --- Thanks Honza, I simply reverted Jeff' commit in my tree.

[Bug c++/54941] do not print line/column numbers for :0:0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54941 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/54941] do not print line/column numbers for :0:0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54941 --- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Sun Sep 8 14:30:27 2013 New Revision: 202366 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202366&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2013-09-08 Paolo Carlini PR c++/54941 * diagnostic.c

[Bug libstdc++/58358] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] search_n has a Complexity violation for random access iterator

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58358 --- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini --- Daniel, please send your comment to the mailing list, Francois wants to know. In any case, note that we want to have something for C++98 too, otherwise we can't really remove the duplicates. Or maybe those ar

[Bug bootstrap/58340] [4.9 regression] gcc/cp/pt.c:7064:1: internal compiler error: in propagate_threaded_block_debug_into, at tree-ssa-threadedge.c:623

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340 --- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka --- I use the following workaround for time being. Honza Index: tree-ssa-threadedge.c === --- tree-ssa-threadedge.c(revision 202364) +++ tree-ss

[Bug libstdc++/58358] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] search_n has a Complexity violation for random access iterator

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58358 --- Comment #9 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #8) > About the duplication, you may want to review what Francois posted to the > mailing list a few days ago and send your comments. Personally, I agree it > would be

[Bug c++/58362] Wrong column number for unused parameter

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58362 --- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini --- Oh I see, but that should be rather easy to track down.

[Bug bootstrap/58340] [4.9 regression] gcc/cp/pt.c:7064:1: internal compiler error: in propagate_threaded_block_debug_into, at tree-ssa-threadedge.c:623

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340 --- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini --- Yeah Honza, all of us :(

[Bug libstdc++/58358] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] search_n has a Complexity violation for random access iterator

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58358 --- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini --- About the duplication, you may want to review what Francois posted to the mailing list a few days ago and send your comments. Personally, I agree it would be very nice to avoid the duplication, but at the same

[Bug bootstrap/58340] [4.9 regression] gcc/cp/pt.c:7064:1: internal compiler error: in propagate_threaded_block_debug_into, at tree-ssa-threadedge.c:623

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #12

[Bug libstdc++/58358] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] search_n has a Complexity violation for random access iterator

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58358 --- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini --- Yes, bootstrap is known to be broken, you can do: update -r202295 tree-ssa-threadedge.c

[Bug c++/58362] Wrong column number for unused parameter

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58362 --- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #1) > Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand what -ignored- means in this > context, could you please explain? It means that the diagnostic machinery takes the column

[Bug libstdc++/58358] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] search_n has a Complexity violation for random access iterator

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58358 --- Comment #6 from Chris Jefferson --- I have a patch I believe fixes this, but trunk doesn't currently build on my machine (Bug 58340). I'll wait for that to get fixed. It is annoying there is still separate predicate and non-predicate copies o

[Bug c++/58362] Wrong column number for unused parameter

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58362 --- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini --- Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand what -ignored- means in this context, could you please explain?

[Bug c++/58362] New: Wrong column number for unused parameter

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58362 Bug ID: 58362 Summary: Wrong column number for unused parameter Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: normal Priority: P

[Bug c++/54941] do not print line/column numbers for :0:0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54941 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/58361] New: Wrong floating point code generated for ARM target

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58361 Bug ID: 58361 Summary: Wrong floating point code generated for ARM target Product: gcc Version: 4.7.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug libstdc++/58358] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] search_n has a Complexity violation for random access iterator

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58358 --- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini --- Great, thanks Chris.

[Bug libstdc++/58358] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] search_n has a Complexity violation for random access iterator

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58358 --- Comment #4 from Chris Jefferson --- Just to say I see this, and fortunately it's not hard to keep the optimisation and meet the complexity requirements. Expect patch later today.

[Bug c++/57472] internal compiler error: in finish_member_declaration, at cp/semantics.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57472 tim blechmann changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #30227|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug c++/58360] gcc crashes on boost::adaptors::transformed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58360 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug c++/58360] New: gcc crashes on boost::adaptors::transformed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58360 Bug ID: 58360 Summary: gcc crashes on boost::adaptors::transformed Product: gcc Version: 4.7.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug libstdc++/58358] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] search_n has a Complexity violation for random access iterator

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58358 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|search_n has a Complexity |[4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression]

[Bug libstdc++/58358] search_n has a Complexity violation for random access iterator

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58358 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chris at bubblescope dot net --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/58359] New: __builtin_unreachable prevents vectorization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58359 Bug ID: 58359 Summary: __builtin_unreachable prevents vectorization Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal

[Bug ipa/58346] ICE with SIGFPE at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu (affecting trunk, 4.8, 4.7, and 4.6)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58346 Mikael Pettersson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se --- Comment #1

[Bug middle-end/50385] missed-optimization: jump to __builtin_unreachable() not removed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50385 --- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse --- This seems to work on current trunk. Can you confirm, and if so close the PR? (well, we may want to add the testcases)

[Bug ipa/58345] ICE with SIGFPE at -O1 on x86_64-linux-gnu (affecting trunk and 4.8)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58345 Mikael Pettersson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se --- Comment #1

[Bug ipa/58329] [4.9 Regression] ld: Invalid symbol type for plabel (.libs/libstdc++.lax/libc++11convenience.a/system_error.o, std::error_category::default_error_condition(int) const [clone .localalia

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58329 --- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka --- OK, I made similar patch on trip to Pisa. I think correct is to return NULL and make callers handle it - it does not make sense to consider non-local label to be local alias. I will test it and commit Honza