http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
--- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 30967
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30967&action=edit
Y
Ah, thanks, I can see where the failing sched_getaffinity calls are coming
from, hopefully this patch should f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
--- Comment #30 from vincenzo Innocente ---
better: as usual nastier bugs are in the tests!
[innocent@olsnba04 parallel]$ strace ./affinity-1.exe | & grep affin
execve("./affinity-1.exe", ["./affinity-1.exe"], [/* 61 vars */]) = 0
sched_getaffinit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58662
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58423
--- Comment #2 from xuepeng guo ---
Author: xguo
Date: Tue Oct 8 07:58:08 2013
New Revision: 203267
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203267&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-08 Zhenqiang Chen
PR target/58423
* config/arm/arm.c (arm_e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
> What if both bit fields have different DECL_BIT_FIELD_REPRESENTATIVE?
>
> Then they can't possibly overlap?
Probably, yes, that could be a nice enhancement.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58662
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58619
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Tue Oct 8 08:34:28 2013
New Revision: 203269
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203269&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/58619
2013-10-08 Dehao Chen
* tree-inl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58660
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Please post patches to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org and x-ref this PR.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58661
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54300
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58645
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54300
--- Comment #11 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #10)
> > and regcprop substitues d19 for d18 in insn 27, missing the fact that insn
> > 73 is swapping the two values (thus clobbering the old d19 value).
>
> It's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58480
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Tue Oct 8 10:39:49 2013
New Revision: 203271
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203271&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-08 Marc Glisse
PR tree-optimization/58480
gcc/
* tree-vrp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58480
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58483
Bug 58483 depends on bug 58480, which changed state.
Bug 58480 Summary: Use attribute((nonnull)) to optimize callers
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58480
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54300
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Hmm, interesting. Perhaps single_set should not do this if the dead set
> clobbers an input.
Yes, that seems to be a sensible proposal, but single_set is an old thing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58662
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Actually, I think it's the uncprop:
--- Q.c.139t.crited22013-10-08 13:03:04.169955615 +0200
+++ Q.c.141t.uncprop12013-10-08 13:03:04.169955615 +0200
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@
_13 = (int) _8;
:
- # ift
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58659
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Oct 8 12:33:37 2013
New Revision: 203274
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203274&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/58659
* include/bits/shared_ptr_base.h (__shared_count
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.9.0 20131008 (experimental)
<1><5b4>: Abbrev Number: 5 (DW_TAG_subprogr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42118
Lionel GUEZ changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebay.20.tedlap@spamgourmet.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58659
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Oct 8 13:38:21 2013
New Revision: 203277
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203277&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/58659
* include/bits/shared_ptr_base.h (__shared_count
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58659
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57850
--- Comment #12 from Dima ---
Is this going to be applied for 4.9 & 4.8 series?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58663
--- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil ---
#include
int main(void) {
char *p=malloc(1);
p[1]=1;
return 0;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58542
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The problem actually starts in expand_atomic_compare_and_swap, in:
(gdb) list
7339 create_convert_operand_to (&ops[3], expected, mode, true);
7340 create_convert_operand_to (&ops[4], desired,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58619
--- Comment #5 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dehao
Date: Tue Oct 8 16:22:57 2013
New Revision: 203284
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203284&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport r203269.
PR tree-optimization/58619
2013-10-08 Dehao C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42118
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42118
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #7)
> By the way, the Fortran committee is considering to deprecate FORALL in the
> next standard (Fortran 2015) because it considers FORALL superior in nearly
> all asp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58619
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Eric,
there is one more thing to consider for your proposed patch,
that is the damned -fstrict-volatile-bitfields:
if strict_volatile_bitfields>0 and the BIT_FIELD access
is _volatile_ it does not respect t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58633
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
> there is one more thing to consider for your proposed patch,
> that is the damned -fstrict-volatile-bitfields:
>
> if strict_volatile_bitfields>0 and the BIT_FIELD access
> is _volatile_ it does not respec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
--- Comment #11 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #10)
> > there is one more thing to consider for your proposed patch,
> > that is the damned -fstrict-volatile-bitfields:
> >
> > if strict_volatile_bitfields>0 and t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58542
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58542
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression]|[4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58542
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
> No. You only assume an alias if _both_ fields are bit fields.
> But in my example only one "a" is a volatile bit field the other
> is a normal member "b".
Then they won't be affected by the bug, see my exp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58664
Bug ID: 58664
Summary: [c++11] ICE initializing array of incomplete type
within union
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58664
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58665
Bug ID: 58665
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE with using incomplete struct
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58665
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58665
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Oct 8 21:54:06 2013
New Revision: 203288
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203288&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2013-10-08 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58665
Revert:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58448
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Oct 8 21:54:06 2013
New Revision: 203288
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203288&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2013-10-08 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58665
Revert:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58665
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58448
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58568
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Oct 8 21:58:58 2013
New Revision: 203289
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203289&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2013-10-08 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58568
* lambda.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58568
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Oct 8 22:29:49 2013
New Revision: 203290
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203290&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2013-10-08 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58568
* semantics
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 58568, which changed state.
Bug 58568 Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] [c++11] ICE with lambda in invalid
template variable definition
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58568
What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58568
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57310
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
51 matches
Mail list logo
