http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57131
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57097
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Kn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57132
Bug #: 57132
Summary: spurious warning: division by zero [-Wdiv-by-zero] in
if (m) res %=m;
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57092
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57132
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
superaxioma at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||superaxioma at hotmail do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57132
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2013-05-01
09:55:23 UTC ---
I meant PR11856, of course ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55372
--- Comment #1 from stevenbaker94 at rocketmail dot com 2013-05-01 10:16:56 UTC
---
This version handles negative numbers as well:
static inline float _fpos(const float f)
{
union {
float f;
uint
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57133
Bug #: 57133
Summary: false const qualifier warning typedef
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57133
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson 2013-05-01
11:37:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> typedef char *type;
>
> void f(const type t)
> {
This doesn't do what you think it does. t is now a const variable of type
char*, not a va
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52282
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2013-05-01
11:48:38 UTC ---
With the fix for c++/57092 the ICEs are gone.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57133
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
ollowing testcase passes on a ppc64 4.7.2 build but fails on a 4.9.0
20130501 build:
# gcc -m64 -O2 -S -mstrict-align testcase.c
testcase.c: In function 'rb_remove_pages':
testcase.c:16:2: internal compiler error: in expand_asm_operands, at stmt.c:910
__asm__ __volatile__("# %
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57133
--- Comment #3 from grpintar at gmail dot com 2013-05-01 12:43:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > typedef char *type;
> >
> > void f(const type t)
> > {
>
> This doesn't do what you think it does. t is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57135
Bug #: 57135
Summary: Missing buld intructions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57134
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57136
Bug #: 57136
Summary: Should redeclaration of class template with function
pointer rather than function be an error?
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57137
Bug #: 57137
Summary: spurious "format string is not literal" when the
format string is marked with __attribute__((format))
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57137
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
2013-05-01 16:20:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 29988
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29988
preprocessed example
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57137
--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
2013-05-01 16:22:08 UTC ---
Forgot to specify gcc version:
gcc-4.8.0-2.fc19.x86_64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57137
--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
2013-05-01 16:24:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 29989
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29989
minimal example
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57129
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56732
--- Comment #6 from gretay at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-05-01 17:32:14 UTC ---
Thanks for the small testcase! There is indeed a problem with rtl epilogue
generated for naked functions. Here is a fix, testing in progress.
diff --git a/gcc/config
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49146
Ariel Burton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.4.6 |4.8.0
--- Comment #3 from Ariel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56864
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57135
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57137
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2013-05-01
18:00:31 UTC ---
What options are you using when calling gcc?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57138
Bug #: 57138
Summary: ICE in instantiate_class_template with variadic
templates, using declarations, save-temps and
precompiled header
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57138
--- Comment #1 from Jacob Metcalfe 2013-05-01
18:08:28 UTC ---
Note test.hpp is empty, as mentioned in the previous post. Can't upload it
because of this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57042
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57042
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57139
Bug #: 57139
Summary: std::tuple conversion constructor does the wrong
checks
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57042
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE/Segfault with |[4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
--- Comment #21 from Jason Merrill 2013-05-01
19:13:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> I wrote some code which compiled perfectly using gcc 4.7. However, now I am
> using gcc 4.8 and I am encountering exactly the problem mentioned by P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57132
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57042
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig 2013-05-01
19:45:13 UTC ---
Other functions returning characters have a bogus
typespec:
ig25@linux-fd1f:~/Krempel/Dump> cat b.f90
program main
print *,adjustl(" a")
end
ig25@linux-fd1f:~/Krempel/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56864
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Schwab 2013-05-01 20:07:45
UTC ---
Still failing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56864
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt 2013-05-01
20:13:35 UTC ---
If possible, please check whether this began failing with r196872. That commit
looks suspicious for at least one other test. I'm stabbing in the dark since I
can't reproduce th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57139
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-05-01
21:52:19 UTC ---
That's what the Requires: clause says, but see also:
Remark: This constructor shall not participate in overload resolution unless
const Ui& is implicitly convertible to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54742
--- Comment #9 from Steve Ellcey 2013-05-02 00:11:52
UTC ---
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-05/msg9.html for a dynamically loadable
pass to do this optimization. It is not a finished product but it seems to
work for coremark.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57121
--- Comment #3 from Netra
2013-05-02 01:31:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 29991
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29991
Makefile
Andew,
Please find the makefile atttached.
Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57121
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2013-05-02
01:33:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Created attachment 29991 [details]
This tells me nothing about the link command.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57121
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2013-05-02
01:35:16 UTC ---
Simple work around is to use -fprofile-generate instead of -lgcov and GCC knows
what it should be linking against then.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57121
--- Comment #6 from Netra
2013-05-02 01:40:13 UTC ---
If I understand ur previous comments, instead of -lgcov i need to use
-fprofile-generate in the following lines :
LDFLAGS = $(DEBUGOPT) $(GCOV_CFLAGS) -fprofile-generate -fPIC -m32 -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57121
--- Comment #7 from Netra
2013-05-02 01:54:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 29992
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29992
Makefile
Andrew,
I am still getting those errors after modifying the makefile. Please find the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57137
--- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
2013-05-02 02:02:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> What options are you using when calling gcc?
Ah, I had it copied but forgot to paste...
gcc -pipe -Wall -Wextra -Wno-inline -Wundef -Wformat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57121
--- Comment #8 from Netra
2013-05-02 02:20:37 UTC ---
I have a question,
are both the flags -fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage required for the code
coverage?
or is this -ftest-coverage flag enough for code coverage?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57131
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57097
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57131
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57097
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ishiura-compiler at ml dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57139
--- Comment #2 from vpozdyayev at gmail dot com 2013-05-02 05:22:57 UTC ---
Good point. Sadly, is_convertible is not equivalent to implicit convertibility
exactly due to that additional requirement (not sure if the latter is
intentional, or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57097
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57130
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-05-02
06:58:38 UTC ---
Slightly more reduced testcase:
struct S { int a, b, c, d; } s[2] = { { 6, 8, -8, -5 }, { 0, 2, -1, 2 } };
__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void
foo (struct S r)
{
stat
55 matches
Mail list logo
