https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #35 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Now that PR61306 and the bswap-2 test issue are fixed in trunk, could you try
again a bootstrap without any of the patch you applied locally? I would like to
see if this bug is a duplicate of PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61481
--- Comment #1 from Craig Schroeder ---
The compiler used in the above compilation was:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/home/craig/new-gcc/i-trunk/bin/g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/craig/new-gcc/i-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61481
Bug ID: 61481
Summary: Poor optimization of simple small-sized matrix
routines with constant data
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19200
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jun 12 01:29:42 2014
New Revision: 211488
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211488&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-06-11 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/19200
* parser.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61300
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61300
--- Comment #10 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Wed Jun 11 23:50:16 2014
New Revision: 211483
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211483&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/61300
* doc/tm.texi.in (INCOMING_REG_PARM_STACK_SPACE): Do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61300
--- Comment #9 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Wed Jun 11 23:49:49 2014
New Revision: 211482
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211482&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/61300
* doc/tm.texi.in (INCOMING_REG_PARM_STACK_SPACE): Doc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38260
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61186
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61382
--- Comment #7 from Johannes Steinmetz ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #6)
> Fixed on trunk for now.
Ohh great. Thank You!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61423
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #10 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38260
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61047
--- Comment #8 from Bernd Edlinger ---
> expmed.c.214r.reload:
>
> ;; Function long unsigned int choose_multiplier(long unsigned int, int, int,
> long unsigned int*, int*, int*) (_Z17choose_multipliermiiPmPiS0_,
> funcdef_no=1085, decl_uid=47659
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61408
--- Comment #10 from Georg Koppen ---
Okay. LLVM/Clang trunk does not cope with the packaging step either. Sending
the crash through asan_symbolize.py gives:
Executing
/home/gk/asan/mozilla-esr24/obj-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/dist/bin/xpcshell -g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61479
--- Comment #2 from Ryan Mansfield ---
Right, thanks for pointing this out. Sorry for the noise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53725
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
Related to PR49377
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60402
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60439
--- Comment #12 from Gary Funck ---
I submitted Bug #61480 documenting the interaction between Var() and Init().
The test case that I posted is abstracted from actual code. As far as which
switches should be default and/or enabled by -Wall, tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60439
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61480
Bug ID: 61480
Summary: GCC options processing: Init() requires Var() for
'no-' to work as expected
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60265
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60265
--- Comment #1 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Jun 11 17:28:14 2014
New Revision: 211479
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211479&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-06-11 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/60265
* parser.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61479
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60439
--- Comment #10 from Gary Funck ---
The following test case when compiled against a recent trunk revision (211365
2014-06-08) generates a warning, as intended by the patch described in comment
8.
int a, x;
int
main ()
{
switch (!x)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58043
Bill Sacks changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sacks at ucar dot edu
--- Comment #4 from B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61479
Bug ID: 61479
Summary: wrong code gen with fstack-protector-all for variadic
function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61296
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Comments for DATA_ALIGNMENT
One use of this macro is to increase alignment of medium-size
data to make it all fit in fewer cache lines. Another is to
cause character arrays to be word-aligned so that `st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19200
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61423
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61478
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61446
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
This pr has been exposed by revision r211321 and breaks bootstrap on all
targets configured for Core* (including darwin which is configured by default
for Core2, see pr61477).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61478
Bug ID: 61478
Summary: wrong handling of variable scopes inside for loop
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19200
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Jun 11 15:16:45 2014
New Revision: 211467
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211467&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-06-11 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/19200
* parser.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61477
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61062
--- Comment #6 from christophe.lyon at st dot com ---
It looks OK now, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61477
--- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 32925
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32925&action=edit
config.log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61477
Bug ID: 61477
Summary: ICE [4.10 regression?] at regcprop.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61343
--- Comment #4 from tejohnson at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tejohnson
Date: Wed Jun 11 13:45:00 2014
New Revision: 211466
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211466&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r211386 from gcc-4_9 (r211284 from trunk).
Goog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61476
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61476
Bug ID: 61476
Summary: GCC is not aware of glibc extensions for format
strings
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61475
--- Comment #4 from Georg Koppen ---
Created attachment 32924
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32924&action=edit
.mozconfig for building Firefox ESR 24 with ASan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61475
--- Comment #3 from Georg Koppen ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #1)
> Please
> 1. try building with -static-libasan
I'll do that once I am done with investigating bug 61408.
> 2. provide full reproduction steps
1) Take an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61475
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||y.gribov at samsung dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61475
--- Comment #1 from Kostya Serebryany ---
Please
1. try building with -static-libasan
2. provide full reproduction steps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61408
--- Comment #9 from Georg Koppen ---
(In reply to Georg Koppen from comment #8)
> Not sure about the problem in comment 3 yet which is
> probably better tracked in a different bug. I'll open one as soon as my
> build machine is not occupied anymo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61475
Bug ID: 61475
Summary: Building Firefox with ASan is broken in the packaging
step
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61474
Bug ID: 61474
Summary: ICE (segfault) in preprocessor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61473
Bug ID: 61473
Summary: register sized memmove not inlined
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61473
--- Comment #1 from Julian Taylor ---
I am using glibc 2.19-0ubuntu6 from the ubuntu 14.04 trusty repository
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59093
--- Comment #6 from Matt Thompson ---
Has there been any work/success on this bug? It's still affecting our ability
to compile this code with gfortran.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61469
--- Comment #5 from nick87720z at gmail dot com ---
I remember case, when bigger size, than from int, was needed - it was 64-bit
integer, used as flag container. Program, using it, is not my. When i decided
to reimplement it as enum, author explai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61470
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61472
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I messed up my test for this too - we only diagnose it if you try to use the
default argument, so it seems to be ignored on the redeclaration.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61471
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oops, I messed up my test - we don't diagnose this even at instantiation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61452
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.10.0, 4.9.1
Summary|[4.8/4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61452
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 11 11:18:14 2014
New Revision: 211451
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211451&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-11 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/61452
* tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61472
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
As with PR 61471 we diagnose this if the template is instantiated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61452
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 11 11:17:21 2014
New Revision: 211450
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211450&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-11 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/61452
* tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61471
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61472
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61472
--- Comment #2 from Filip Roséen ---
Sorry Jonathan, I completely forgot, I'll add the version to this (and those
other newly posted bug reports where it is missing).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61472
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(Please set the version field to make it clear you're not reporting bugs
against GCC 4.4 or something ancient and unmaintained)
This is very likely to be the same issue as PR 61471
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61472
Bug ID: 61472
Summary: added default-argument in later declaration of
function template not caught
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61471
--- Comment #1 from Filip Roséen ---
Created attachment 32922
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32922&action=edit
testcase-real.cpp
The previously attached `testcase.cpp` contains a code snippet for a related,
but different, b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52180
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61471
Bug ID: 61471
Summary: redeclaration of default-argument in function template
declaration not caught
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61469
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61470
Bug ID: 61470
Summary: ill-formed friend declaration(s) with
default-arguments not caught
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34049
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Jun 11 10:24:55 2014
New Revision: 211445
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211445&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-11 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/34049
* g++.dg/parse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34049
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61469
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You're confusing two separate things, that's a "scoped enumeration" which is
orthogonal to defining a fixed underlying type for an enumeration.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34049
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org|
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61469
--- Comment #2 from nick87720z at gmail dot com ---
Didn't know about this form. What i mentioned, i found othere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_type#C.2B.2B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61306
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|4.9.0 |4.10.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61457
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini ---
At the moment I can't find the Bug # but we certainly have other issues opened
about C++11 ODR. We should probably link all together in a meta-bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61306
--- Comment #6 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Jun 11 10:04:33 2014
New Revision: 211444
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211444&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-11 Thomas Preud'homme
gcc/
PR tree-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61469
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to nick87720z from comment #0)
> Unlike C++, where type is specified as "enum class type ..."
That's not how C++ does it, the correct syntax is:
enum foo_type : int { foo, bar, baz };
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61469
Bug ID: 61469
Summary: language feature: Support for enum underlying type
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54364
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61456
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61456
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 11 09:29:11 2014
New Revision: 211442
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211442&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-11 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/61456
* tree-ssa-al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52252
--- Comment #6 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Wed Jun 11 08:37:53 2014
New Revision: 211439
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211439&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
* tree-vect-data-refs.c (vect_grouped_store_supported): New
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61467
--- Comment #2 from 1zeeky at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 32919
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32919&action=edit
Makefile
make init16.elf generates an ELF-file that can be examined with objdump
-mi8086.
make floppy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61467
Bug ID: 61467
Summary: -m16/.code16gcc invalid code for passing parameters on
stack
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61467
--- Comment #1 from 1zeeky at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 32918
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32918&action=edit
linker script
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61462
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |ipa
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61437
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61437
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 11 07:35:36 2014
New Revision: 211436
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211436&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-11 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/61437
Revert
201
88 matches
Mail list logo
