http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58816
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
I had a look with a cross cc1plus and I think the below is enough to resolve
the issue. Can you fully test it? x86_64-linux is still fine with it. By the
way, we have got a couple of similar issues: PR58724 (I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58805
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58820
Bug ID: 58820
Summary: lambda multiple inheritance operator() not ambiguous
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58805
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> (In reply to vries from comment #10)
> > I've tried out the example from comment 9.
> >
> > Tree-tail-merge considers the statements without effect because:
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58772
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
This is relevant
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3396.htm but it's late
for C++14, hopefully for C++17. Honestly I didn't follow the topic much last
year, I'll try to further investiga
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58805
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to vries from comment #10)
> I've tried out the example from comment 9.
>
> Tree-tail-merge considers the statements without effect because:
> ...
> (gdb) call debug_gimple_stmt (stmt)
> # .MEM_10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58809
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58809
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Maybe fold_range_test should just return 0 when the type is not
INTEGRAL_TYPE_P. If that's the case, I can take this one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58779
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58822
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58805
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to vries from comment #14)
> > No it shouldn't. It should return true if the stmt has side-effects that
> > are _not_ explicit in the statement. This side-effect is explicitely there.
>
> Hmm, a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58823
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58742
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58815
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
In any case, keep in mind ulf that we are looking for help in this area: for
various reasons, the code isn't really maintained these days (eg, the original
implementor moved to another job, etc) Thus, contribu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43361
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nocannedmeat at gmail dot com
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58805
--- Comment #10 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've tried out the example from comment 9.
Tree-tail-merge considers the statements without effect because:
...
(gdb) call debug_gimple_stmt (stmt)
# .MEM_10 = VDEF <.MEM_3(D)>
__asm__("movq $42, %
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57899
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joerg.rich...@pdv-fs.de
--- Comment #7 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58825
Bug ID: 58825
Summary: endless loop compiling nested bind expression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58821
Bug ID: 58821
Summary: conditional reduction does not vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-opti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58825
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58817
Bug ID: 58817
Summary: optimize alloca with constant size
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58820
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler ---
This looks like a more fundamental name lookup problem of gcc to me. It can be
reproduced with function object types that are no lambda closures:
template
struct overload_set : Fs...
{
overload_set(Fs...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58806
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
struct A { int i; double d; };
void g(double*);
void f(){
A a;
a.i=1;
g(&a.d);
if(a.i != 1) __builtin_abort();
}
Here, I guess g is allowed to take its argument, cast it to char*, subtract
offsetof(str
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58742
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 21 11:34:04 2013
New Revision: 203890
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203890&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-21 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/58742
* fold-const.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58820
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58824
Bug ID: 58824
Summary: Lambda trigger internal compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58814
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58805
--- Comment #14 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> No it shouldn't. It should return true if the stmt has side-effects that
> are _not_ explicit in the statement. This side-effect is explicitely there.
Hmm, a rather deceptive name then, if gimp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58794
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I'm sure that we can build such FIELD_DECL only with Ada though, so, Eric,
> can you provide a testcase where that happens - thus, that shows that
> side-effects cannot be ignored here by for example compari
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58794
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58824
Thomas Sanchez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #31058|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58826
Bug ID: 58826
Summary: Runfail on CPU2006 436.cactusADM with after r203739
for core-avx2 target.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58824
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58572
Gerald Pfeifer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58813
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> With trunk gfortran gives
>
> troutmask:sgk[209] gfc4x -c b.f90
> b.f90:5.16:
>
> type(t)
> 1
> Error: Derived type 't' at (1) is bein
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58742
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58824
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Sanchez ---
The code is 21 lines... I can't reproduce the bug otherwise...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58794
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 21 13:33:29 2013
New Revision: 203891
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203891&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-21 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/58794
* fold-c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58824
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|thomas.sanchz at gmail dot com |
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58824
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini ---
I said *without includes* ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58794
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58772
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58822
Bug ID: 58822
Summary: Segfault when calling make_shared
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58742
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
The patch will fix the regression part, to be left to optimize is the
pointer offset association bits which should best be done in GIMPLE
reassoc which doesn't yet associate POINTER_PLUS_EXPR yet. It could
d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58824
Thomas Sanchez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #31059|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58824
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini ---
Great, thanks a lot!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58442
--- Comment #7 from Martin Husemann ---
I can reproduce the same crash on a different input file with a amd64 -> vax
cross compiler (so we can drop the theory that a miscompiled recog_1 function
causes this).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58824
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Sanchez ---
You're welcome, good luck !
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58821
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|U
Sent from my iPad
> On Oct 21, 2013, at 2:35 AM, "burnus at gcc dot gnu.org"
> wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58772
>
> Tobias Burnus changed:
>
> What|Removed |Added
> ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58761
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58729
--- Comment #15 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Mon Oct 21 13:52:39 2013
New Revision: 203893
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203893&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-20 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
PR libs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58817
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
We do this transform in fold_builtin_alloca_with_align (), I'm not sure but
maybe it does not happen because 'a' escapes to f.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58804
--- Comment #10 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Mon Oct 21 13:52:39 2013
New Revision: 203893
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203893&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-20 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
PR libs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58812
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58442
--- Comment #8 from Martin Husemann ---
And apparently same cause:
ooops, bogus rtx mem attrs: 0x4
(subreg:SI (reg/v:DI 70 [ xtime ]) 4)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58809
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58810
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58816
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58772
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gmail dot com ---
Sent from my iPad
> On Oct 21, 2013, at 2:35 AM, "burnus at gcc dot gnu.org"
> wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58772
>
> Tobias Burnus changed:
>
> What|R
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58818
Bug ID: 58818
Summary: parameters optimized out using -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: inline-asm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58818
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58804
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58580
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58729
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58816
Bug ID: 58816
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE have tree_list in
private_is_attribute_p
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48879
Branko Drevensek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||branko.drevensek at gmail dot
com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58806
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
You cannot find the PR because it's already implemented via the "fn spec"
attribute (conveniently not user-accessible because bike-shedding about
whether separate attributes are required). The documentation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58794
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
The issue being that &a.f and &a.f are not equal because even with
OEP_CONSTANT_ADDRESS_OF set we get into
case COMPONENT_REF:
/* Handle operand 2 the same as for ARRAY_REF. Operand 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58779
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-linux-gnu
Component|rtl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58819
Bug ID: 58819
Summary: return value ignored using -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: inline-asm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58817
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=58800
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.4, 4.8.3, 4.9.0
Target Milestone|-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58794
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58013
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58791
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code, wrong-debug
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58823
Bug ID: 58823
Summary: Uninitialized variable warning is missing
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58789
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58772
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to pins...@gmail.com from comment #6)
> Less portable as that only works on x86 while posix_memalign works on all
> posix targets.
Or more portable as it also works on non-POSIX platforms such as (n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58799
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58823
--- Comment #1 from Aaron Miller ---
Created attachment 31057
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31057&action=edit
testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58772
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
The syntax would be
int main()
{
Actor *act;
::posix_memalign (&act, 16, sizeof (Actor));
new (*act) Actor;
}
that is, you have to use a different allocator. Paolo, does libstdc++
provide a custom al
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58013
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 31056
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31056&action=edit
Patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58826
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58818
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=58013
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at redhat dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48592
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58826
--- Comment #2 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
In fact LRA is responsible for this failure - there is a bug in constant
regeneration. LRA correctly regenerates all occurrences of virtual register
which is not allocated(i.e. it does not has a register) bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58572
Gerald Pfeifer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58819
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58805
--- Comment #16 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Btw, you'd have had the same issue with the aggregate
> return of a pure/const function call, no?
For this bug to trigger, we need a gimple statement:
- without side-effects
- with one SSA_OP_DEF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58572
Tom Tromey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58809
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Patch posted for the first testcase:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg01714.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58682
Paulo J. Matos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58759
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58813
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58759
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58813
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 04:01:43PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> Error: Procedure 'yS???+' in generic interface 't' at (1) is neither
> function nor subroutine
>
> where the procedure name is gar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58781
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Created attachment 31061
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31061&action=edit
Busybox showing that the passed in string to the operator is OK.
When I run the bus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
Tomalak Geret'kal changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tom at kera dot name
--- Comment #23
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
