http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
--- Comment #30 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-23 07:13:13 UTC ---
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
>
> --- Comment #29 from stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com com> 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-23 07:29:04 UTC ---
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
>
> Steven Bosscher changed:
>
>What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-23 07:36:46 UTC ---
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
>
> --- Comment #9 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-22
> 21:33:18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54354
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #12 from stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com 2012-08-23 07:56:13 UTC ---
> The patch is of couse a "big hammer" because it has a cost, but IMHO
> it still makes sense.
I'm not convinced. GCC has always detected this kind of loop (even the
ol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-23 08:07:18 UTC ---
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
>
> --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de
> 2012-08-23
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-23 08:10:15 UTC ---
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
>
> --- Comment #12 from stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com com> 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54354
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-23
08:37:24 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Aug 23 08:37:19 2012
New Revision: 190616
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190616
Log:
PR libstdc++/54354
* doc/xml/manual/status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #15 from stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com 2012-08-23 08:49:32 UTC ---
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:07 AM, rguenther at suse dot de
wrote:
> Already the input to tracer is "wrong" in that we have "lost"
> a loop, the one with abnormal path f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #16 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-23
08:53:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Makes me wonder why the loop isn't recognized in the original test case...
Ah, maybe because bb3 has an abnormal predecessor and is therefore ignored as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-23 09:19:04 UTC ---
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
>
> --- Comment #16 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-23
> 08:53:04
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-23 09:22:54 UTC ---
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
>
> --- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de
> 2012-08-23
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52939
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor 2012-08-23
09:31:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Is the fix for this in a released version of GCC?
If I understand our web ViewCVS correctly, the 4.7.1 release was based
on revision 188597 and I have comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54354
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20420
--- Comment #9 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-23 09:44:12 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Aug 23 09:44:08 2012
New Revision: 190618
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190618
Log:
/cp
2012-08-23 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #19 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-23
09:44:18 UTC ---
FWIW, applying the transformation tracer performs on the test case by hand:
void
foo (const void * * p)
{
void *labs[] = { &&l1, &&l2, &&l3 };
void *gotovar;
long unsigned i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49244
Michał Górny changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mgorny at gentoo dot org
--- Comment #3 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54355
Bug #: 54355
Summary: ICE on invalid code in switch statement
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20420
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10200
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-23 11:00:29 UTC ---
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
>
> --- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de
> 2012-08-23
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54355
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-23 11:22:19 UTC ---
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
>
> Btw, another idea would be to make labels that are target of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54355
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54356
Bug #: 54356
Summary: ICE in output_pic_addr_const
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
--- Comment #31 from Richard Guenther 2012-08-23
11:41:50 UTC ---
Btw, I have experimented with
Index: tree-into-ssa.c
===
--- tree-into-ssa.c (revision 190594)
+++ tree-into-ss
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54357
Bug #: 54357
Summary: ICE in output_pic_addr_const
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54357
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54358
Bug #: 54358
Summary: ICE in output_pic_addr_const
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54356
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2012-08-23
11:44:48 UTC ---
*** Bug 54357 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54358
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Adam 2012-08-23 11:46:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 28072
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28072
original source file with comments
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54356
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54358
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-08-23
11:47:46 UTC ---
*** Bug 54356 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54358
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-08-23
11:54:12 UTC ---
Btw, I think this is invalid asm:
int ICE_func ( void)
{
void *returnaddr = &&retaddr;/* need the label address, works with
* function address
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54355
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28068|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18747
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54358
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54335
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-23
13:37:16 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Aug 23 13:37:11 2012
New Revision: 190621
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190621
Log:
Add -da and remove -dm in GCC manual
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54359
Bug #: 54359
Summary: [C++0x][N3282] decltype in member function's trailing
return type when defined outside of class
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
--- Comment #32 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-23
13:44:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #31)
> which helps reducing the time spent in computing dominance frontiers. But
> as we no longer have bitmaps but bitmap_heads in dfs it's hard to verify
> w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54358
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Adam 2012-08-23 13:49:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Yes, definitely invalid. With PIC p is not correct constraint for any code
> label, address of a variable etc., all that requires adding some offset to the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54342
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-23 13:58:15
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I believe that OImode is currently handled inconsistently in the compiler, and
> should be handled exactly in the way TImode is handled for xmm registers.
>
> The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54358
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-08-23
14:10:30 UTC ---
If inline-asm is not involved, sure. But inline asm is a low level interface,
where it is user responsibility to supply correct constraints, we have some
quick measures, like a segfau
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42612
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to fai
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50749
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54342
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-23 14:26:53
UTC ---
There are
/* We implement the move patterns for all vector modes into and
out of SSE registers, even when no operation instructions
are available. OImode move is av
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54087
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27927|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54360
Bug #: 54360
Summary: missed optimalization: unnecessary indirect call
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54360
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50461
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-23
15:26:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> This is fixed on trunk and 4.7.1
Where's the patch that fixed it on the 4.7 branch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54087
--- Comment #8 from Ulrich Drepper 2012-08-23
15:41:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Check to see if it solves the problem as well.
I tested it. Seems to work in all cases and does not disturb other
optimizations like comparisons with zer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50461
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54349
Ondrej Bilka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54149
--- Comment #1 from Francesco Zappa Nardelli 2012-08-23 16:34:38 UTC ---
Here is another C program that hits a similar write-introduction problem:
int g_7, g_372;
char func_10 () {
for (; g_7 < 0; ++g_7) {
}
return 0;
}
void main () {
i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54342
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-23 17
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
--- Comment #16 from Matt Hargett 2012-08-23 18:01:08 UTC
---
Back/forward-porting of the "trivial" restoration of the old behavior is
acceptable to me, as it would remove a major barrier to our adoption of 4.7.x.
That being said, if there's mult
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47440
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Yakovlev 2012-08-23
19:15:58 UTC ---
As recomended Uros, I splitted up the patch by two part. First, middle end part
is here
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg01590.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54317
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54065
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-23 23:09:07
UTC ---
On rev 190580 I've tried out replacing the sh_legitimize_address function with
the following one:
sh_legitimize_address (rtx x, rtx oldx, enum machine_mode mode)
{
if (flag_pic)
x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53911
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-23 23:11:21
UTC ---
A related paper from 2004:
http://www.netgull.com/gcc/summit/2004/Addressing%20Mode%20Selection.pdf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54361
Bug #: 54361
Summary: Compiling for c++11 gives a warning on scanf() with
%as format specifier
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54361
--- Comment #1 from Nick Strikos 2012-08-23
23:35:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 28075
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28075
Testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54361
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54361
strikosn at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54359
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2012-08-24
00:29:39 UTC ---
I'm wondering if we shouldn't just have a metabug for decltype and one for
lambdas... looking for volunteers (Daniel? ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54362
Bug #: 54362
Summary: COND_EXPR not understood by either alias or ITM
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54363
Bug #: 54363
Summary: ICE when compiling malformed struct initializers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
67 matches
Mail list logo
