http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55383
--- Comment #10 from Magnus Reftel ---
Applied Manuel López-Ibáñez's patch on top of trunk and tested Jeremy's
testcase. Without the patch, the error message says that
"__attribute__((noreturn))" is being cast away. With the patch, the error
messa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60497
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60495
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> It could be r200954. The backtrace is similar to the one for
> pr58880 (duplicate?).
Very likely.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60418
--- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60418
>
> --- Comment #20 from H.J. Lu ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60363
--- Comment #5 from bin.cheng ---
Vrp1 generates below code:
:
if (b_elt_11(D) != 0B)
goto ;
else
goto ;
:
# kill_elt_10 = PHI
goto ;
:
kill_elt_14 = kill_elt_2->next;
:
# kill_elt_2 = PHI
if (kill_elt_2 != 0B)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60482
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 32332
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32332&action=edit
gcc49-pr60482-2.patch
Untested fix for the ssa-ifcombine-10.c regression. It seems that previously,
with a usele
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60499
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60499
Bug ID: 60499
Summary: [4.9 Regression] non-reserved name in
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60499
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wake
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60500
Bug ID: 60500
Summary: Spurious warning on derived type initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60500
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60363
--- Comment #6 from bin.cheng ---
After investigation, I think the root cause is:
For given mergephi2 dump (before vrp), there are latch(bb13) and header(bb14)
of a loop:
:
# changed_18 = PHI
:
# changed_1 = PHI
# kill_elt_4 = PHI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60495
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60493
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60452
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> If I modify the shorter testcase such that int e[2]; is a static array, then
> we don't generate cmove for it, because on:
> (mem:SI (const:DI (plus:DI (symbol_r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60493
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60486
--- Comment #4 from Darryl Piper ---
details also posted on avrfreaks.net
http://www.avrfreaks.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=1143389
the bug has existed since the code base copy from 4.7.2 to create the vanilla
4.8.0
so all the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60486
Darryl Piper changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60486
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Component|other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60429
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 11 12:42:18 2014
New Revision: 208479
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208479&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-11 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/60429
PR tree
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60485
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 11 12:42:18 2014
New Revision: 208479
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208479&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-11 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/60429
PR tree-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55383
--- Comment #11 from Magnus Reftel ---
No regressions seen. Sent en email with the patch to gcc-patches as requested (
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg00517.html ).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60429
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression]|[4.7/4.8 Regression]
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60485
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58195
Joel Yliluoma changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bisqwit at iki dot fi
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58195
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58195
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
This looks like the unary version of:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg00014.html
and something that could be auto-generated from a pattern like:
(cond (ne @0 0) (negate @0) 0) -> (negate @0)
;-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60429
--- Comment #24 from Allan Jensen ---
I just tested the latest subversion head of gcc 4.9 and can confirm it fixes
the original problem (tst_qregion in Qt 5.2.1 compiled with -O3).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60418
--- Comment #24 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #23)
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2014, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60418
> >
> > --- Comment #20 from H.J. Lu ---
> > (In
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60438
--- Comment #32 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ok, I've done an --enable-checking=yes,rtl bootstrap on x86_64-linux and
i686-linux, and collected statistics without your patch, but with:
--- gcc/combine-stack-adj.c.jj2014-02-06 17:37:02.173062234 +010
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60501
Bug ID: 60501
Summary: LRA emits add patterns which might clobber cc
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: rt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60501
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||s390x-ibm-linux
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60501
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #1 from Richard B
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58424
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60502
Bug ID: 60502
Summary: 4.9 ICE reassociation and vector types.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optim
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60498
--- Comment #1 from zosrothko at orange dot fr ---
This issue applies also to other C functions like strdup, realpath, strerror_r,
strsep, etc..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60502
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60498
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=60502
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Indeed. Probably should call build_all_ones_cst instead of build_low_bits_mask
in eliminate_not_pairs.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60502
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #2)
> Indeed. Probably should call build_all_ones_cst instead of
> build_low_bits_mask in eliminate_not_pairs.
Agreed. Are you going to prepare a patch, or should I? Gu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60499
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Mar 11 17:16:41 2014
New Revision: 208490
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208490&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/60499
* include/debug/forward_list (forward_list::oper
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60499
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60498
--- Comment #3 from zosrothko at orange dot fr ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> stdio.h is provided by cygwin, not GCC, so IMHO you should report it there
> instead.
on the cygwin mailling list, cygwin states that it is a bug in g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60498
--- Comment #4 from zosrothko at orange dot fr ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> stdio.h is provided by cygwin, not GCC, so IMHO you should report it there
> instead.
and by the way, it compiles fine when using -std=gnu++11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60498
--- Comment #5 from zosrothko at orange dot fr ---
This is a snipet from usr/include/stdio.h
#if !defined(__STRICT_ANSI__) || (__STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L)
#ifndef _REENT_ONLY
int _EXFUN(asiprintf, (char **, const char *, ...)
_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60501
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Bootstrap with -mzarch -m31 -march=zEC12 as defaults passed. 108 testsuite
fails got fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60498
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60502
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60389
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Mar 11 17:34:32 2014
New Revision: 208491
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208491&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-03-11 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/60389
* method.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60389
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60418
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 32334
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32334&action=edit
gcc49-pr60418.patch
Unfortunately the patch fails to bootstrap due to -fcompare-debug failures, so
tried this in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60498
--- Comment #7 from zosrothko at orange dot fr ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> As C++ isn't C, obviously it g++ -std=c++11 doesn't define __STDC_VERSION__
> macro, but just defines
> __STRICT_ANSI__ 1
> __cplusplus 201103L
> Shoul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60498
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Sure, but with -std=gnu++11 __STRICT_ANSI__ isn't defined (as intended).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60498
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Definitely a Cygwin bug, their header should test:
#if !defined(__STRICT_ANSI__) || (__STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L) || (__cplusplus
>= 201103L)
That way the functions will be defined for any -std=gnuNN mode,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60498
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, you've listed also plenty of non-standard functions like asiprintf, I
guess those certainly shouldn't be available for __STRICT_ANSI__, even for
-std=c99, -std=c11 or -std=c++11.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59738
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Mar 11 19:23:04 2014
New Revision: 208494
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208494&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline.
2014-01-09 Jonathan Wakely
PR libs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #23 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Mar 11 19:41:07 2014
New Revision: 208495
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208495&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-11 Jonathan Wakely
Backport from mainline.
2014-01-27
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60503
Bug ID: 60503
Summary: gcc looks for C++ attributes in the wrong place in a
lambda-expression
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60418
--- Comment #26 from H.J. Lu ---
This patch avoids removing preheader when optimizing since
preheader will be added back later even if it is removed:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-cfgcleanup.c b/gcc/tree-cfgcleanup.c
index 926d300..af5b24b 100644
--- a/g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59680
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Mar 11 21:06:21 2014
New Revision: 208497
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208497&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-11 Jonathan Wakely
Backport from mainline.
2014-01-09
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59680
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60367
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58501
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60504
Bug ID: 60504
Summary: [4.9 regression] many Ada testsuite regressions with
gcc-4.9-20140309 on armv5tel-linux-gnueabi
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60505
Bug ID: 60505
Summary: Warning caused by GCC vectorizer.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizatio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60505
--- Comment #1 from Cong Hou ---
Google ref: b/13403465
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60504
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38199
--- Comment #40 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 32335
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32335&action=edit
Updated patch taking care of NIST failures and cleaned up
This patch regression tests and passes NIST on x86-64.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60506
--- Comment #1 from jenkinsj89 at yahoo dot ca ---
Created attachment 32337
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32337&action=edit
the program that gives g++ fits
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60506
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60506
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reduced testcase:
typedef unsigned QuadV4 __attribute__((vector_size(16)));
void updateCount() {
QuadV4 QZ;
QuadV4 v;
v == QZ && v == QZ;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60506
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i86_64-pc-cygwin|
|-march=corei7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60506
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jenkinsj89 at yahoo dot ca
--- Comment #2
75 matches
Mail list logo
