http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58038
Matthew Lai changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m at matthewlai dot ca
--- Comment #7 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60360
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
When you call sizeof on a type T, by definition, it tells you how far 2
consecutive elements are in an array of T (obviously that needs to be a
multiple of the alignment). When you call it on a variable like thi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60306
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 32231
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32231&action=edit
WIP patch
Hi,
I actually had code around to detect type known from function call, so it is
easy to plug it in and s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60306
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, I am re-considering my decision to not assign this to Martin.
The problem is the following. We have call:
struct Box x;
...
x = edges_connecting_to_node (1); [return slot optimization]
...
_19 = OBJ_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60169
--- Comment #2 from Joey Ye ---
A fix is available here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg01306.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51513
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kvanberendonck at gmail dot com
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60363
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Created attachment 32230
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32230&action=edit
ssa-dom-thread-4.c.078t.dom1 for cris-elf.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60363
Bug ID: 60363
Summary: [4.9 Regression]: logical_op_short_circuit,
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-thread-4.c
scan-tree-dump-times dom1 "Threaded" 4
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60306
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60362
Bug ID: 60362
Summary: Failure to optimize away bounds check on switch when
range outside bounds is unreachable
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60306
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59176
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|hubicka at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598
Denis Kolesnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60253
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60359
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:47:13PM +, antony at cosmologist dot info wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60359
>
> --- Comment #2 from Antony Lewis ---
> This was reduced already, but actu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60361
Bug ID: 60361
Summary: unexpected 'use of parameter outside function body'
error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60147
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60147
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Feb 27 23:24:20 2014
New Revision: 208209
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208209&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-28 Tobias Burnus
PR middle-end/60147
* tree-pre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60360
--- Comment #4 from DaBler ---
I see no reason why should not another variable be padded after struct as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60359
--- Comment #2 from Antony Lewis ---
This was reduced already, but actually wasn't too hard to find something much
simpler- just this:
module IO
implicit none
contains
subroutine FWRite(S)
class(*) :: S
end subroutine F
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60253
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Feb 27 23:15:20 2014
New Revision: 208208
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208208&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-02-27 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/60253
* call.c (c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60147
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:26:13PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> FIXED on the trunk.
>
> Thanks, Steve, for the report and sorry for the breakage!
>
Thanks. I don't use namelists. I stumbled acr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60357
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Draft patch:
Index: gcc/fortran/array.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/array.c(revision 208207)
+++ gcc/fortran/array.c(working copy)
@@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #21 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #12)
> It is a bit alarming that gcc, clang and clang++ use one ABI and g++ uses a
> different (inferior) one (the incompatibility with clang++ should affect
> some stand
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60357
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Statu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #20 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> Can someone try this on non-x86 targets?
gcc110 (ppc64) from the compile farm:
[uros@gcc1-power7 ~]$ gcc -c fun.i
[uros@gcc1-power7 ~]$ gcc -c x.ii
[uros@gcc1-power7 ~
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60231
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mvondomaros at gmail dot com
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60356
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60359
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=52319
--- Comment #1 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
Found in 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52714
--- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Feb 27 19:28:40 2014
New Revision: 208204
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208204&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/52714
* combine.c (try_combine): When splitting
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32181
--- Comment #9 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
4.9.0 20140218 (experimental) [trunk revision 207856] (x86_64-linux-gnu)
Program_Error exp_disp.adb:8456 explicit raise
Error detected at test1.adb:21:4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
--- Comment #36 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Feb 27 19:02:18 2014
New Revision: 208203
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208203&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/49847
* cse.c (fold_rtx) Handle case where cc0 s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31417
--- Comment #3 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
Found in 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31416
--- Comment #3 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
Fixed in 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18762
--- Comment #3 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
Found in 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18765
--- Comment #3 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
Found in 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18454
--- Comment #3 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
Found in 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18453
--- Comment #3 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
Found in 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18221
--- Comment #4 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
Found in 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18205
--- Comment #4 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
Found in 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17954
--- Comment #3 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
Found in 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17953
--- Comment #3 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
Found in 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16094
--- Comment #4 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
found in 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17321
--- Comment #3 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
Found in 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17320
--- Comment #3 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
Found in 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16214
--- Comment #3 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
Found in 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16212
--- Comment #5 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
4.9.0 20140218 (experimental) [trunk rev 207856] (x86_64-linux-gnu) GCC error:
in Case_Statement_to_gnu, at ada/gcc-interface/trans.c:2345
Error detected at test_106.adb:4:9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #19 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 32228
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32228&action=edit
HJ's test in dejagnu form
Here's HJ's testcase in a form that can be dropped into g++.dg/abi.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16097
--- Comment #3 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
Found in 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16096
--- Comment #3 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
found in 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16095
--- Comment #6 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
found in 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60360
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16083
--- Comment #3 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
found in 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16081
--- Comment #3 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
confirmed with 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58610
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #18 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #17)
> classify_argument has an early exit:
>
> /* Zero sized arrays or structures are NO_CLASS. We return 0 to
>signalize memory class, so handle it as s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58610
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60360
--- Comment #2 from DaBler ---
The output of gcc -v:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.6.3/gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.6.3/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured wi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59222
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60360
--- Comment #1 from DaBler ---
Created attachment 32227
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32227&action=edit
he preprocessed file that triggers the bug
Output:
64 64
64 64
4 64
4 64
4 64
Expected output:
4 64
4 64
4 64
4 64
4 6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60360
Bug ID: 60360
Summary: __attribute((aligned(...))) changes sizeof(...) of
struct
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60347
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
I did add a testcase, which is not significantly different from the one in
comment #3.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58648
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Feb 27 17:06:35 2014
New Revision: 208202
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208202&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/58648
* g++.dg/cpp0x/variadic153.C: New.
Added:
trunk/gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58648
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59222
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Feb 27 17:06:02 2014
New Revision: 208201
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208201&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-27 Vladimir Makarov
PR target/59222
* lra.c (lra_e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60182
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alexandre.hamez at gmail dot
com
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59066
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60353
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60359
Bug ID: 60359
Summary: Assembler messages symbol
`__io_MOD___copy_character_1' is already defined
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55877
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Feb 27 16:20:59 2014
New Revision: 208200
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208200&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60353
PR c++/55877
* decl2.c (tentative_decl_linkage): D
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60353
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Feb 27 16:20:59 2014
New Revision: 208200
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208200&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60353
PR c++/55877
* decl2.c (tentative_decl_linkage): Do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #17 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #15)
> That only documents that sizeof is different for C and C++, the calling
> convention should be the same. And it seems like classify_argument should
> already be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60348
--- Comment #17 from Nach ---
I just tried my above test case on RHEL6 without an up to date libstdc++ but
with glibc 2.12, and the binary runs just fine.
I double checked my old build system which does not produce these symbols, and
I see it use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60358
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60348
--- Comment #16 from Andreas Schwab ---
If you want to build for old systems you need to use the old tools from those
old systems and the output will still work on newer systems (backward
compatiblity). New tools are using new features as they ar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #16 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60348
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Nach from comment #14)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> > If you want to target old dynamic linkers then you have to disable support
> > for GCC features that exploit features o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60348
--- Comment #14 from Nach ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> If you want to target old dynamic linkers then you have to disable support
> for GCC features that exploit features of new dynamic linkers. You
> need to rebuild GCC to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60348
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Nach from comment #12)
> Isn't the whole point of -static-libstdc++ is to remove the dependency of
> libstdc++ from the binary? Even without the option, it does indeed work fine
> on the system
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60348
--- Comment #12 from Nach ---
Isn't the whole point of -static-libstdc++ is to remove the dependency of
libstdc++ from the binary? Even without the option, it does indeed work fine on
the system it was compiled on. However, -static-libstdc++ curre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60358
--- Comment #1 from Alexander von Gluck ---
Created attachment 32225
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32225&action=edit
rev2
an additional resolution path. This one may be better, however driver-arm.c
would need additional cha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60358
Bug ID: 60358
Summary: [patch] ARM support broken for Haiku
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59487
--- Comment #9 from GGanesh ---
Other options are -Ofast -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60348
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Nach from comment #10)
> While you may be marking this as invalid, isn't there a serious issue here?
> Shouldn't -static-libstdc++ work without any special flags?
But it works, doesn't it? Tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60348
Nach changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60357
Bug ID: 60357
Summary: structure constructor with unspecified values for
allocatable components
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16077
--- Comment #4 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
confirmed 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16076
--- Comment #4 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
confirm 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16075
--- Comment #4 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
confirm 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> No this testcase is not valid at all. See
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.2/gcc/Empty-Structures.html#Empty-
> Structures where it is documented it is no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15917
--- Comment #6 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
4.9.0 20140218 (experimental) [trunk rev 207856] (x86_64-linux-gnu) GCC error
in gnat_to_gnu_entity, at ada/gcc-interface/decl.c:568
Error detected at test_70.adb:18:9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60348
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15845
--- Comment #4 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
confirm 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15844
--- Comment #4 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
confirm 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15843
--- Comment #6 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
confirm 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15840
--- Comment #5 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
confirm 4.9-20140218
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15800
--- Comment #6 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
confirm 4.9-20140218
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
