https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61833
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42734
Damien Buhl (daminetreg) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||damien.buhl at lecbna dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51840
--- Comment #11 from Adam Warner ---
Thank you for the fixed example! Just for the record only toy VM examples can
be implemented using this technique.
GCC documentation used to say that that the extended asm 30 operand limit might
be lifted in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61838
Bug ID: 61838
Summary: ICE on Windows with ctors defined outside class
definitions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61837
Bug ID: 61837
Summary: missed loop invariant expression optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #9 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I added the test case which is at least freed from a lot of docu and the heavy
autotools/libtool setup. The makefile compiles the code and creates a binary
seg_prod. Run this as ./seg_prod input.txt to produc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61776
--- Comment #7 from davidxl ---
(In reply to wmi from comment #6)
> (In reply to davidxl from comment #5)
> > (In reply to wmi from comment #4)
> > > Can we move the pure/const resetting loop to an earlier place: inside
> > > branch_prob , after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #8 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 33138
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33138&action=edit
Test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61776
--- Comment #6 from wmi at google dot com ---
(In reply to davidxl from comment #5)
> (In reply to wmi from comment #4)
> > Can we move the pure/const resetting loop to an earlier place: inside
> > branch_prob , after instrument_edges and before g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61833
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61268
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61776
--- Comment #5 from davidxl ---
(In reply to wmi from comment #4)
> Can we move the pure/const resetting loop to an earlier place: inside
> branch_prob , after instrument_edges and before gsi_commit_edge_inserts
> (where stmt_ends_bb_p is checke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61776
--- Comment #4 from wmi at google dot com ---
Can we move the pure/const resetting loop to an earlier place: inside
branch_prob , after instrument_edges and before gsi_commit_edge_inserts (where
stmt_ends_bb_p is checked), so that gsi_commit_edge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61825
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-pc-solaris2.11,|i386-pc-solaris2.11,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61776
davidxl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xinliangli at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59432
--- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Re: comment #5. This bug report is about Solaris/x86 and is specific to
Solaris. If you want to report a bug on any other target, please open a
different bug. Thanks.
In your case I suspect you need to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #5)
> > Confirmed with 4.9.1 revision r212339. AFAICT revision r210749 is OK.
> > I suspect r211405 for 4.10 and r212329 for 4.9. Can you revert r212329
> > and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Confirmed with 4.9.1 revision r212339. AFAICT revision r210749 is OK.
> I suspect r211405 for 4.10 and r212329 for 4.9. Can you revert r212329
> and see if the error disappear?
I am afraid that I am
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61836
Bug ID: 61836
Summary: Incorrect template argument deduction/substitution
failure?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 07:14:19PM +, juergen.reuter at desy dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
>
> --- Comment #2 from J??rgen Reuter ---
> > Can you rebuild your code wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61835
Bug ID: 61835
Summary: Invalid comment on pretty printers breaks gdb
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #55 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On July 17, 2014 6:13:14 PM CEST, "thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
>
>--- Comment #53 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
>(In reply to th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #54 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On July 17, 2014 5:50:44 PM CEST, "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
>
>--- Comment #51 from Eric Botcazou ---
>> Ah, we also expand one fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> Can you rebuild your code with compile with the -fcheck=all option?
I did. This does not change anything. And it does not give any further
information.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61834
Bug ID: 61834
Summary: __attribute__((may_alias)) causes compilation error
with forward-declared constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61723
--- Comment #8 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
Filed PR61833
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61833
Bug ID: 61833
Summary: [4.9] ICE in fold_comparison
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59765
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61832
Bug ID: 61832
Summary: r212638 breaks building ncurses
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59765
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61766
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59765
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carlos.a.cruz at nasa dot gov
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60529
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||damian at sourceryinstitute
dot o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50961
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50961
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jul 17 16:22:19 2014
New Revision: 212760
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212760&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-07-17 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/50961
* call.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #53 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to thopre01 from comment #52)
> (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #51)
> >
> > TARGET_MEM_REF is supposed to be a valid memory access for the target though
> > and, by definitio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #52 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #51)
>
> TARGET_MEM_REF is supposed to be a valid memory access for the target though
> and, by definition, an unaligned access is not valid for a strict
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
Bug ID: 61831
Summary: [4.9.1 regression] runtime error: pointer being freed
was not allocated
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #51 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Ah, we also expand one from a TARGET_MEM_REF:
>
> ;; basic block 76, loop depth 2
> ;;pred: 79
> load_dst_215 = MEM[base: ptr_110, offset: 0B];
>
> and TARGET_MEM_REF only handles the movmi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Note that the original test of pr54784 now gives the same ICE and the change of
behavior is in the range given in comment 6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The following PRs give an ICE at the same place: pr54784, pr59765, pr60529, and
pr61766.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61830
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61829
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61830
--- Comment #1 from Salvatore Filippone ---
Created attachment 33133
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33133&action=edit
workaround
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61830
Bug ID: 61830
Summary: Memory leak with assignment to array of derived types
with allocatable components
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61829
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61829
Bug ID: 61829
Summary: SEGV in fold_binary_loc for
gcc.dg/graphite/isl-codegen-loop-dumping.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61827
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-pc-solaris2.11,|i386-pc-solaris2.11,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61828
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61828
Bug ID: 61828
Summary: gcc.dg/strlenopt-8.c XPASSes
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61827
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61827
Bug ID: 61827
Summary: gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-xmm.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|thopre01 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61826
Bug ID: 61826
Summary: [4.10 regression] gcc.dg/pr44024.c UNRESOLVED
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61826
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #49 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #48)
>
> From what Thomas says in comment #46 it looks like for some unknown
> reason a HI load from a 1-byte aligned address is emitted:
Yep that's it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60922
--- Comment #4 from Salvatore Filippone ---
Looking at the original code of PR 61819, it is quite possible that the real
culprit are CLASS() ALLOCATABLE components, not necessarily the result itself
(being allocatable).
Salvatore
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
--- Comment #7 from Salvatore Filippone ---
The original code leaks memory like a sieve, and looks suspiciously similar to
PR55603. It is just possible that the whole area of function results needs to
be reviewed (I guess that would be no small t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61825
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61825
Bug ID: 61825
Summary: [4.10 regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #48 from Richard Biener ---
Please provide preprocessed source for jcf-parse.c and instructions on how
to configure a cross compiler from x86_64-linux. Please also provide
disassembly around the failing place with enough context to s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #47 from Rainer Orth ---
Thomas,
any progress on this one? SPARC bootstrap has been broken for almost two
months
now (yes, there's an out-of-tree workaround, but still).
Thanks.
Rainer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61268
--- Comment #8 from Rainer Orth ---
Richard,
from my POV, the patch is good to go.
Thanks.
Rainer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42616
--- Comment #15 from Varvara Rainchik ---
Created attachment 33131
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33131&action=edit
Correct patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42616
--- Comment #14 from Varvara Rainchik ---
Created attachment 33130
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33130&action=edit
Modified patch
I will send this patch to gcc patches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42616
Varvara Rainchik changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||varvara.s.rainchik at gmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
--- Comment #5 from Salvatore Filippone ---
Code works with 4.8.3, so this is a regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
Salvatore Filippone changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33127|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61807
--- Comment #2 from Rajesh ---
Hi,
The default genautomata.c in the gcc-4.9.0 package doesn't have the explicit
conversions at two places. I have made this change and have been able to get
past this error. But I am just curious, if this change
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
__vic changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Binary code bloat with |[4.9 Regression] Binary
|std::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61823
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
> /* If this is a global variable with an initializer and we are in
> IPA mode generate constraints for it. */
> if (DECL_INITIAL (decl)
> && vnode->definition)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61822
--- Comment #2 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
It looks like
/* { dg-require-effective-target vect_condition } */
directive was missed in vect-cond-reduc-1.c test.
I will fix it asap.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61823
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61804
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61804
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jul 17 08:32:18 2014
New Revision: 212743
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212743&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-07-17 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/61804
* parser.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61085
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Can you open a new bug for that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61741
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61741
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jul 17 07:57:30 2014
New Revision: 212742
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212742&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-07-17 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2014-07-10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61779
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jul 17 07:53:16 2014
New Revision: 212741
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212741&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-07-17 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2014-07-14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61779
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61801
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jul 17 07:49:44 2014
New Revision: 212740
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212740&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-07-17 Richard Biener
PR rtl-optimization/61801
* sche
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61801
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61801
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jul 17 07:48:49 2014
New Revision: 212739
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212739&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-07-17 Richard Biener
PR rtl-optimization/61801
* sche
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61801
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jul 17 07:47:19 2014
New Revision: 212738
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212738&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-07-17 Richard Biener
PR rtl-optimization/61801
* sched
92 matches
Mail list logo
