http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58319
Bug ID: 58319
Summary: explicit cast doesn't disable -Wconversion warning.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58317
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58318
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58311
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52303
Olivier Grisel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olivier.grisel at ensta dot org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58320
Bug ID: 58320
Summary: [4.7 / 4.8 / 4.9 Regression] code used in autoconf
test fails with -O2, works with -O0
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52303
--- Comment #5 from Olivier Grisel ---
The second option is basically was is being asked for at the end of this
section:
http://bisqwit.iki.fi/story/howto/openmp/#OpenmpAndFork
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58319
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58320
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47762
--- Comment #24 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> AFAICT the failures have disappeared on powerpc-apple-darwin9 between
> revisions 186224 and 186440.
Unfortunately they have reappeared between revisions 197010 (OK) and 197531
(FAIL).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58321
Bug ID: 58321
Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/memcpy-strategy-3.c
scan-assembler-times memcpy 2 on x86_64-apple-darwin*
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58319
--- Comment #2 from Pawel Sikora ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #1)
> Your cast does nothing, because your typeof (or decltype) is just unsigned
> int. Given that, the warning makes sense to me and certainly is well known.
so how can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58319
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You can ensure the value is not too large for the target:
X x = { .field = ( u & (-1u >> 1) ) };
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58322
Bug ID: 58322
Summary: similar simple code produces different (nd
non-optimal) result
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58323
Bug ID: 58323
Summary: [-Wall] No warning when uninitialized integer
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58242
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
Should be fixed now by r202274
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58324
Bug ID: 58324
Summary: Incorrect iostat while reading SEQUENTIAL file
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58320
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
Casting to uintptr_t should probably make this work as intented.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58065
--- Comment #9 from clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: clyon
Date: Thu Sep 5 12:27:56 2013
New Revision: 202276
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202276&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-09-05 Christophe Lyon
Backport from trunk r201589.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57431
--- Comment #3 from clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: clyon
Date: Thu Sep 5 12:31:03 2013
New Revision: 202277
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202277&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-09-05 Christophe Lyon
Backport from trunk r201599.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56315
--- Comment #2 from clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: clyon
Date: Thu Sep 5 12:38:03 2013
New Revision: 202280
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202280&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2013-09-05 Christophe Lyon
Backport from trunk r19952
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58137
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Sep 5 12:45:20 2013
New Revision: 202282
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202282&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-09-05 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/58137
* tree-v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58137
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58320
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Well, until the compiler comes along and inlines 'inner'.
This is really a GIGO test.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58139
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24702
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org|
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55706
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to roger pack from comment #4)
> (as a note, appears mingw-w64 2.0.8 is not sufficient you need something
> newer...)
It should be. 2.0.8 is from r5746 which is new enough.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55706
roger pack changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rogerdpack at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58300
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|cmtice at goo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24702
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The standard says:
When considering an associated namespace, the lookup is the same as the lookup
performed when the associated namespace is used as a qualifier (3.4.3.2) except
that:
- [...]
- [...]
- All
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58139
--- Comment #4 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Thu Sep 5 14:09:07 2013
New Revision: 202286
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202286&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/58139
* reginfo.c (choose_hard_reg_mode): Scan through a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55706
--- Comment #6 from roger pack ---
Yeah I was getting the same error message with 2.0.8 and pinged them about it.
Apparently the crt they bundled with 2.0.8 wasn't new enough or something like
that, and they plan on releasing a new release soon..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24702
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55342
--- Comment #8 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 30751
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30751&action=edit
modified test-case
Modified test-case to reproduce sub-optimal register allocation.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24702
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini ---
Thanks Jon!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to tocarip.intel from comment #6)
> -|| (TARGET_SSE && SSE_REGNO_P (regno) &&
> Those changes are not needed. If TARGET_64BIT is fasle all sse registers
> except xmm0-xmm7 should be fi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58325
Bug ID: 58325
Summary: Spurious unused-but-set-variable warning on delete[]
of volatile pointer
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58326
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28107
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58326
--- Comment #2 from Zhendong Su ---
For additional info, please find below a variant that fails only at -O3:
-
int a, b, c, d;
void foo ()
{
int e;
lbl:
for (c = 0; c < 2; c++)
{
e = d;
for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58252
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58139
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> New Revision: 202286
This seems to break bootstrap on *86*-*-*, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2013-09/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58326
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milesto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40075
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58327
Bug ID: 58327
Summary: Problem of quadmath in connection with SDL2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libqua
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58250
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Prefetching generally increases code size, so I think we shouldn't do it, at
> least not by default. So I'd say for !optimize_size -fprofile-use should just
> not add -fprefetch-loop-arrays.
Yep, I think -fp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58096
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
It was fixed by
2013-08-29 Jan Hubicka
* cgraph.c (cgraph_function_body_availability): Handle weakref
correctly.
* passes.def: Remove pass_fixup_cfg.
* ipa-inline.c (ipa_inlin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28831
--- Comment #22 from Chip Salzenberg ---
Anyone? Bueller?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58328
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini ---
I suspect the error isn't bogus, current clang++ also rejects it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58328
--- Comment #2 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #1)
> I suspect the error isn't bogus, current clang++ also rejects it.
Hmm, perhaps you are correct. The original test that is *not* rejected by clang
was:
struct A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58139
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> FWIW, I was able to bootstrap subversion id 202295 on my x86_68 laptop
> running RHEL 6.4, building c, c++, fortran languages, and using
> --enable-lto --without-ppl --without-cloog.
The failure is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58300
--- Comment #6 from Caroline Tice ---
When the preinit flag is used, the vtable verification constructor
initialization function was getting written to the assembly file before
cgraph_process_new_functions was being called (to process the new func
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43452
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org|
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58139
--- Comment #10 from Peter Bergner ---
Reading the comments above and pr58269, does this mean my patch just exposed a
latent bug? ...and the supplied patches fix the latent bug?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58300
--- Comment #7 from Caroline Tice ---
Created attachment 30752
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30752&action=edit
Reorder two function calls to prevent an ICE.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58300
--- Comment #8 from Caroline Tice ---
I have added the patch as an attachment, and also submitted it to the
gcc-patches list for review.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55342
--- Comment #9 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
The issue still exists in 4.9 compiler but we got another 30% degradation after
r202165 fix. It can be reproduced with modified test-case which as attached
with any 4.9 compiler, namely code produced for inn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55706
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah I see. Thanks for the info.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
tocarip.intel at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tocarip.intel at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58139
--- Comment #7 from Michael Meissner ---
FWIW, I was able to bootstrap subversion id 202295 on my x86_68 laptop running
RHEL 6.4, building c, c++, fortran languages, and using --enable-lto
--without-ppl --without-cloog.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58328
Bug ID: 58328
Summary: [C++11] bogus: error: constructor required before
non-static data member for
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58329
Bug ID: 58329
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ld: Invalid symbol type for plabel
(.libs/libstdc++.lax/libc++11convenience.a/system_erro
r.o, std::error_category::default_error_condition(int)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58139
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Boostrap with obj* completed successfully with r202295 reverted. I start again
with the patch in comment#9.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58329
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Symbol has type data which is wrong for procedure label:
>
> Symbols from system_error.o:
>
> ValueInfo Type Scope ck HQIRCDSKLN xl reloc Name
>
> Data Unsat 0 .. 3 000
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58329
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 5-Sep-13, at 7:31 PM, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58329
>
> --- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
>> Symbol has type data which is wrong for proce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58201
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #195 from Jan Hubicka ---
Today there was two fixes for bugs that produce undefined symbols like one you
see.
Does the problem still exist on current mainline? Are you using profile
feedback?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56726
--- Comment #7 from Chip Salzenberg ---
Should this ticket have status CONFIRMED ? Also I suspect it's been fixed in
trunk...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58318
--- Comment #2 from Zhendong Su ---
> did you compare trunk with --enable-checking=release?
Richard, you are right. Below is my 4.8 config:
$ gcc-4.8 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc-4.8
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/gcc-4.8/libexec/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58139
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
You can try this:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index a8d70bc..ab4dc6c 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@ -34466,7 +34466,7 @@ ix86_hard_regno_mode_ok
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58201
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Sep 5 23:04:11 2013
New Revision: 202298
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202298&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/58201
* cgraphunit.c (analyze_functions): Clear AUX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54585
--- Comment #1 from Chip Salzenberg ---
I'd like to suggest this ticket be at least CONFIRMED what with the code
samples in the ticket.
What will it take to fix this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58328
Richard Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24702
--- Comment #9 from Mark Phillips ---
Thanks Jonathan for the information on the updated standard and the rationale
behind restricting Koenig to actual functions and function templates.
In one way it is a bit of a pity - it does make functors sec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28107
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, this is invalid, a member definition such as "union B b;" does not declare
a nested type, that would be:
struct A {
union B;
B b;
};
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54585
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
,lto
--with-gmp=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --with-mpfr=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--with-mpc=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --with-cloog=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130905 (experimental) [trunk revision 202269] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -O1 -c small.c
$ gcc-4.8 -O2 -c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58242
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58325
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58330
Bug ID: 58330
Summary: powerpc64 atomic store split in two
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58330
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64*-linux
Status|UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58330
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58331
Bug ID: 58331
Summary: [OOP] Bogus rank checking with explicit-/assumed-size
arrays and CLASS
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-v
83 matches
Mail list logo
