http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58713
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
If I try to sfinae-out this function based on os<
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58717
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58713
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #4)
> If I try to sfinae-out this function based on os< an error that "template instantiation depth exceeds maximum of 900" (even
> for a valid cout<<42), because even if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58717
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57511
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||masoud_mxm at yahoo dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58712
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58705
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57518
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58721
Bug ID: 58721
Summary: [4.9 Regression] The subroutine perdida is no longer
inlined in fatigue.f90
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58712
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #0)
> 3)
> ==1269== Invalid write of size 8
> ==1269==at 0x63BDBD: iterative_hash_canonical_type(tree_node*, unsigned
> int) (gimple.c:3220)
> ==1269==by
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58705
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
This will ICE even with -std=c++03 -Wnarrowing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57742
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58721
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|rguenther at suse dot de |hubicka at gcc dot
gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58690
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58715
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58703
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58712
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58702
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58705
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
This will fix the ICE, but perhaps we want to give an error instead...
I'll regtest this and post to ML.
--- a/gcc/cp/typeck2.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/typeck2.c
@@ -833,7 +833,8 @@ check_narrowing (tree type, tree init
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58698
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58697
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8 Regression] wrong code |[4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58697
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Started with r192219, ended with r203317. The latter is weird, I thought
> Andrew's patches are just reshuffling of stuff, not changing compiler
> behavior.
> In
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58640
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 58696 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58696
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58640
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 14 09:17:20 2013
New Revision: 203516
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203516&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-14 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/58640
* gcc.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58712
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 14 09:24:36 2013
New Revision: 203517
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203517&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-14 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/58712
PR middle-end/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55358
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 14 09:24:36 2013
New Revision: 203517
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203517&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-14 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/58712
PR middle-end/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58705
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> This will fix the ICE, but perhaps we want to give an error instead...
IMNSHO we want, as C FE does:
58705.C:1:1: error: empty scalar initializer
58705.C:1:1: er
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58708
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57742
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57742
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> > This is a very limited version of this optimization. It is in
> > simplify_builtin_call, so only triggers if malloc/ca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58509
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Oct 14 10:13:12 2013
New Revision: 203518
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203518&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/58509
* config/sparc/sparc-protos.h (widen_mem_for_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53198
Emmanuel Thomé changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Emmanuel.Thome at inria dot fr
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58509
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53198
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini ---
Nobody pretended it's fixed in 4.7.x.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57742
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #4)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> > > This is a very limited version of this optimization. It is in
> > >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58701
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58716
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton ---
Author: nickc
Date: Mon Oct 14 11:24:17 2013
New Revision: 203520
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203520&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/58716
* config/msp430/msp430.c (msp430_option_override): Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58716
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58704
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53006
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57742
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> We have walk_aliased_vdefs for this. Basically the first callback
> you receive has to be the malloc, otherwise there is an aliasing
> stmt inbetween.
Cool! Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58115
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-pc-linux-gnu |i386-pc-linux-gnu,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58713
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #5)
> Thanks for your test, Marc. I will reflect upon the problem in a bit more
> detail
My current guess is that my suggested approach should work, assuming a proper
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58015
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 |hppa64-hp-hpux11.11,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58713
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #3)
> guess is that this would also improve the diagnostics in this case, is that
> right?
Even if it worked (which it doesn't, as Marc also discovered) it would onl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58708
--- Comment #5 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
The const qualification of the first parm and the number of elements are wrong.
I'm testing a patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58722
Bug ID: 58722
Summary: c-c++-common/gomp/pr58472.c FAILs: SEGV in
tree_class_check
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58722
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't believe it. This is exactly what r203427 fixed. Are you sure it is
with r203429 and it isn't r203426 or earlier?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58722
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> I don't believe it. This is exactly what r203427 fixed. Are you sure it is
> with r203429 and it isn't r203426 or earlier?
I guess you're righ
gt; http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31000&action=edit
Delta reduced C++ test case
That's with gcc version 4.9.0 20131014 (experimental) [trunk revision 203511]
(GCC) on an x86-64-gnu-linux system.
$ g++ -std=c++11 -O1 -flto -fopenmp testcase20.ii
testcase20.ii:40:1: internal c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58724
Bug ID: 58724
Summary: doc: use of attributes for namespace is not clear
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58725
Bug ID: 58725
Summary: g++ segfault with non-static member initializer in a
nested struct
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58725
--- Comment #1 from Lewis Hyatt ---
Created attachment 31001
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31001&action=edit
pre-processed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58725
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58546
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58724
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58724
--- Comment #2 from Akim Demaille ---
Hi Paolo,
Sorry, I don't have a checked out version of the GCC. I'll
try to make one tomorrow.
Please, note that I was also mentioning the fact that the documentation
is not sufficiently clear, IMHO.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58725
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58724
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
Well, an ICE which can be easily avoided seems a separate issue to me. By the
way, the same patchlet should work in the release branch too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58724
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58724
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|doc: use of attributes for |ICE with attribute
|nam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11685
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org|
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58698
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #7 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58115
--- Comment #3 from Sriraman Tallam ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #1)
> Hi Sriraman,
>
> I'm putting you on CC since you are the author of that test case:
> I am not sure if the test case should use -msse2 instead of -msse,
> but r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58658
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Oct 14 17:26:17 2013
New Revision: 203572
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203572&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-14 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/58658
* expr.c (gfc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58658
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58723
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
The failure is for the assert:
295 /* Flags that should not appear on indirect calls. */
296 gcc_assert (!(flags & (ECF_LOOPING_CONST_OR_PURE
297 | ECF_MA
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58115
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Sriraman Tallam from comment #3)
Hmm...
This bug seems to be connected to PR57756.
A lot of __attribute__((target(..))) get parsed,
before this error occurs. Some global data are completely
spoi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29040
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org|
Known to fail|
,obj-c++,fortran,lto --disable-werror
--enable-checking=release --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 20131014 (experimental) [trunk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58115
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #4)
> I just wonder why this does not happen on x86_64?
x86_64 enables SSE2 by default.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29040
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58727
Bug ID: 58727
Summary: Sub-optimal code for bit clear/set sequence
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58728
Bug ID: 58728
Summary: [missed optimization] == or != comparisons may affect
range test optimization.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58727
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Component|tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57742
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> We have walk_aliased_vdefs for this. Basically the first callback
> you receive has to be the malloc, otherwise there is an aliasing
> stmt inbetween. Initialize
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57742
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse ---
Created attachment 31003
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31003&action=edit
walk_aliased_vdefs experiment
Incomplete patch I used for my previous comment.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58729
Bug ID: 58729
Summary: tr2::dynamic_bitset::resize fails
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58729
--- Comment #1 from Kyle Bentley ---
Created attachment 31005
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31005&action=edit
output from the compile(as seen from terminal)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58729
--- Comment #2 from Kyle Bentley ---
Created attachment 31006
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31006&action=edit
Source code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58729
--- Comment #3 from Kyle Bentley ---
Created attachment 31007
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31007&action=edit
Code output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58714
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58729
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58714
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58652
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Patch for comment 0. The previous check didn't work as one added a component
ref to from_expr:
if (UNLIMITED_POLY (from_expr))
vtab = NULL;
...
gfc_add_vptr_compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58727
--- Comment #2 from Niels Penneman ---
You could be right about x86 being a different issue, since the superfluous
clear is there for every single optimization level that I have tested.
In that case, for the sake of completeness:
- ARM results ha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58727
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|tree-optimization
--- Comment #3 from And
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58727
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55517
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54625
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58729
--- Comment #5 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
This is wrong. Testing a patch...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58730
Bug ID: 58730
Summary: arm-eabi-gcc generate error instructions for armv4t
cpu
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56926
--- Comment #4 from asmwarrior ---
There is a test case in this post:
http://sourceforge.net/p/mingwbuilds/mailman/message/29214215/
/gcc-trunk
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20131014 (experimental) [trunk revision 203572] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 small.c; a.out
small.c: In function ‘main’:
cc1: warning: iteration 5u invokes undefined behavior
[-Waggressive-loop-optimizations]
small.c:6:3: note: containing loop
for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58732
Bug ID: 58732
Summary: wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58732
--- Comment #1 from Zhendong Su ---
Below is a simpler testcase that should demonstrate the same issue:
--
int printf (const char *, ...);
int a, b[2];
int
main ()
{
for (a = 1; a >= 0; a--)
{
b[1]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55517
--- Comment #13 from Kostya Serebryany ---
(In reply to m...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #12)
> This is annoying as it causes a large amount of chaff in the gcc/g++
> testsuite runs if one has not previously done a ulimit -v unlimited.
Patches (upst
98 matches
Mail list logo