http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
--- Comment #18 from Bill Schmidt ---
spawn /home/wschmidt/gcc/build/gcc-mainline-test2/gcc/xgcc -B/home/wschmidt/gcc
/build/gcc-mainline-test2/gcc/ /home/wschmidt/gcc/gcc-mainline-test2/gcc/testsu
ite/gcc.dg/vect/vect-96.c -fno-diagnostics-show-c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58687
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58887
--- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013, mtewoodbury at gmail dot com wrote:
> I think I understand consensus, but I only hear your voice here, not the voice
> of a multitude. You may be part of the consensus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58918
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
XALLOCA is a libiberty macro, target libraries shouldn't be using
libiberty headers.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58847
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58423
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58918
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Assignee
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
At some point Ian Taylor filed a Bugzilla about these issues, I think it's
still open. Not sure what we should do in this area...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29234
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini ---
Tentative patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg02536.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58687
--- Comment #11 from Max TenEyck Woodbury ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #10)
>
> If you are planning to do sporadic GCC development, it may be worthwhile to
> ask for an account in the Compile Farm http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47754
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Oct 30 17:59:44 2013
New Revision: 204219
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204219&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/47754
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_avx256_split_vector_move_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, I should dig Ian's bug out and have another look. I'm planning to throw
some ideas around on the mailing list ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58914
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58687
--- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013, mtewoodbury at gmail dot com wrote:
> Thank you, I will look info all of that. My own resources have limits; when
> it
> comes to testing generated code on many archit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58912
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Oct 30 18:24:56 2013
New Revision: 204221
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204221&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-30 Chris Studholme
PR libstdc++/58912
* include/bits/sh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58912
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Oct 30 18:26:53 2013
New Revision: 204222
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204222&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-30 Chris Studholme
PR libstdc++/58912
* include/bits/sh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58912
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58581
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57410
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I can not reproduce it on today trunk. I guess it was fixed by some LRA patch
but I ca not say by what patch exactly as there were too many LRA patches since
May.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33426
--- Comment #18 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Oct 30 18:53:42 2013
New Revision: 204223
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204223&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-30 Tobias Burnus
gcc/cp/
PR other/33426
* cp-t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58926
Bug ID: 58926
Summary: -Wstrict-overflow unwanted warning comparing variables
initialized from one of static duration
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58927
Bug ID: 58927
Summary: Despite loop->safelen=INT_MAX / GCC ivdep: loop
versioned for vectorization because of possible
aliasing
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58887
--- Comment #13 from Max TenEyck Woodbury ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #12)
>
> I was agreeing with Andrew. Jason, the other maintainer likely to review
> libcpp patches, hasn't commented on this issue. (There are plen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Richard G. ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> What's the status of this bug?
Same as I reported in comment #5---I just confirmed with a build of 4.8.2.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58369
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Oct 30 19:21:27 2013
New Revision: 204224
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204224&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/58369
* reload1.c (compute_reload_subreg_offset):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58687
--- Comment #13 from Max TenEyck Woodbury ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #12)
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2013, mtewoodbury at gmail dot com wrote:
>
>> Thank you, I will look info all of that. My own resources have limits; when
>> i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58901
--- Comment #1 from Martin Husemann ---
The real question is: why does memory_address_addr_space_p() return false for
this rtx. Stepping into it results in:
0x007618be in vax_legitimate_address_p (mode=HImode, x=0x7ea0fd2c,
strict=20, 5, 212
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58762
--- Comment #2 from congh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: congh
Date: Wed Oct 30 20:01:47 2013
New Revision: 204229
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204229&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-30 Cong Hou
PR target/58762
* config/i386/i386
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58928
Bug ID: 58928
Summary: Different results from gcc when -mlzcnt is used
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58929
Bug ID: 58929
Summary: condition_variable does not wait without -pthread
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58901
--- Comment #2 from Martin Husemann ---
indexable_address_p() returns false for
(symbol_ref:SI ("DECPOWERS") [flags 0x40] )
because flag_pic is true and symbolic_operand (xfoo0, SImode)) returns true:
/* Return true if xfoo0 and xfoo1 constitut
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58488
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 58488, which changed state.
Bug 58488 Summary: -Wuninitialized is useless for a variable whose address is
later taken
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58488
What|Removed |Add
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58369
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9 reg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58930
Bug ID: 58930
Summary: [C++11] Bogus error: converting to ... from
initializer list would use explicit constructor
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58455
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Blocks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58236
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58183
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57156
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58931
Bug ID: 58931
Summary: condition_variable::wait_until overflowed by large
time_point
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58918
--- Comment #4 from bviyer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: bviyer
Date: Wed Oct 30 22:51:29 2013
New Revision: 204232
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204232&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix for bug Bootstrap/58918.
+2013-10-30 Balaji V. Iyer
+
+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58932
Bug ID: 58932
Summary: [4.9 Regression][C++11] Deleted functions and SFINAE
in partial template specializations
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58933
Bug ID: 58933
Summary: IRA ICE in update_costs_from_allocno
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58933
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc*-*-*
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58915
--- Comment #2 from Cong Hou ---
I am afraid that get_range_info () has little use here. The value range we care
about may only exist under specific conditions and is hence flow sensitive. For
example, we may need the value range of n in the if bo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58545
--- Comment #5 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke ---
Author: amylaar
Date: Wed Oct 30 23:55:46 2013
New Revision: 204234
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204234&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc:
PR other/58545
* reload1.c (update_eliminabl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52120
--- Comment #2 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
4.8.2-1 produces the expected output for the last trigger
gcc-4.8 -c proc.adb
proc.adb:9:10: iterator is an Ada 2012 feature
gnatmake: "proc.adb" compilation error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43361
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||noufal at nibrahim dot net.in
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58236
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Res
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52121
nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nicolas.boulenguez at f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58762
--- Comment #3 from congh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: congh
Date: Thu Oct 31 00:50:47 2013
New Revision: 204241
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204241&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-30 Cong Hou
Backport from mainline:
2013-10-30
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58134
--- Comment #6 from Sharad Singhai ---
Author: singhai
Date: Thu Oct 31 01:01:40 2013
New Revision: 204244
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204244&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-30 Sharad Singhai
PR middle-end/58134
* opts.c (commo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58933
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Oct 31 03:14:07 2013
New Revision: 204245
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204245&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-30 Vladimir Makarov
PR bootstrap/58933
* ira-color
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||npickito at gmail dot com
--- Comment #10 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58934
Bug ID: 58934
Summary: [4.9 Regression]: build fails on cris-elf in
reload_cse_simplify_operands for newlib dtoa.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57662
--- Comment #6 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> Fixed according to
>
> 2013-08-14 Andrey Belevantsev
>
> PR rtl-optimization/57662
> * sel-sched.c (code_motion_process_successors): Whe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So why don't reject it at
> TARGET_LEGITIMATE_COMBINED_INSN/ix86_legitimate_combined_insn
> instead of limit at combine phase if it's only benefit for x86 ?
The question sounds self-contradictory... Anywa
101 - 161 of 161 matches
Mail list logo