https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61335
Bug ID: 61335
Summary: [4.10 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fbounds-check
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61335
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61336
Bug ID: 61336
Summary: ICE on alpha: in print_operand_address, at
config/alpha/alpha.c:5454
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
--- Comment #12 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jack Howarth from comment #6)
> I would also add that you are playing with fire here. Currently no company
> has a motivation to expend money or resources for fortran development on
> llvm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61123
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
It seems that Tag_ABI_PCS_wchar_t is emitted from the C-family frontends only
via config/arm/arm-c.c (as opposed to any other Tags). Probably because
the option is c-family specific. This code needs to mov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61337
Bug ID: 61337
Summary: Wrong indexing and runtime crash with unlimited
polymorphic array.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61334
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61334
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61335
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61044
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed May 28 08:42:25 2014
New Revision: 210999
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210999&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/61044
* doc/extend.texi (Local Labels): Note that label
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61044
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed May 28 08:44:23 2014
New Revision: 211000
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211000&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/61044
* doc/extend.texi (Local Labels): Note that label
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61335
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Wow, really old serious bug in VRP.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61044
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed May 28 08:48:03 2014
New Revision: 211001
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211001&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/61044
* doc/extend.texi (Local Labels): Note that label
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61044
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed May 28 08:50:18 2014
New Revision: 211002
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211002&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/61044
* doc/extend.texi (Local Labels): Note that label
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61335
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 32870
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32870&action=edit
patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61044
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61338
Bug ID: 61338
Summary: too many permutation in a vectorized "reverse loop"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61334
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61338
--- Comment #1 from vincenzo Innocente ---
if I write it "reverse"
void foo2() {
for (int i=511; i>=0; --i)
x[1023-i] += y[1023-i]*z[512-i];
}
its ok
__Z4foo2v:
LFB1:
leaq2048+_x(%rip), %rdx
xorl%eax, %eax
leaq4+_z(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61339
Bug ID: 61339
Summary: wide-int.h: 3 * mismatched tags
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61340
Bug ID: 61340
Summary: ipa-pure-const.c, ipa-reference.c: possible missing
switch cases ?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61152
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed May 28 09:33:04 2014
New Revision: 211004
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211004&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR libgcc/61152
* config/dbx.h (License): Add Runtime Library
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61152
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed May 28 09:35:19 2014
New Revision: 211005
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211005&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR libgcc/61152
* config/dbx.h (License): Add Runtime Library
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Some comments:
original shell: 1:1.86:2.9
+ -Ofast : 1:1.37:1.8
(gcc 4.10.0 r210749). Does this mean that there is a problem with -Ofast and
-fopenmp?
The Wallclock time are:
original shell: 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> ... (gcc 4.10.0 r210749) ...
Forgot to say: Target: x86_64-apple-darwin13, Corei7, 4 cores, 8 threads,
2.8Ghz
(turbo 3.8Ghz), cache 8Mb. Note that the "turbo" mode may make the serial test
faster.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60245
Florent Hivert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.8.1 |4.9.0
--- Comment #3 from Florent Hiver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61339
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is a really stupid warning that only exists because the MS compiler has
(or had) a bug that treats 'struct' and 'class' differently. GCC (and Clang)
correctly implement the C++ standard which says it d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60430
Florent Hivert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.8.1 |4.9.0
--- Comment #1 from Florent Hiver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60967
--- Comment #1 from Florent Hivert ---
The problem doesn't occur anymore with the released version (I was using the
cilkplus branch development version). Should this be closed as invalid or
should someone find if there is a duplicate ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, libgomp is optimized for Linux futexes, it has bare support for other
targets, so unless somebody steps up and submits and maintains a port for other
OSes, those will keep using pthread_* APIs with no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> BTW, having a user-base without developers coming out of that user-base is
> useless. If no one from apple-darwin is interested in developing GCC, then
> it doesn't matter how big the user base is:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61341
Bug ID: 61341
Summary: internal compiler error: in tsubst, at cp/pt.c:11313
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61338
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61341
--- Comment #1 from Ivan Sorokin ---
Reduced case:
template
struct X
{};
template
void foo(X... a);
void test()
{
foo(X(), X());
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61339
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61340
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61335
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 28 11:07:06 2014
New Revision: 211012
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211012&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-28 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/61335
* tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61045
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
/* Put the constant on the side where it doesn't overflow and is
of lower absolute value than before. */
cst = int_const_binop (TREE_CODE (arg0) == TREE_CODE (arg1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61342
Bug ID: 61342
Summary: Segfault when using default clause and VLA in OpenMP
task
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61335
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
--- Comment #14 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #13)
> In my paranoid days I have the feeling that I don't exist on the gcc
> lists!-(although I am only interested by gfortran and optimization, I do
> w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61300
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #1)
> So, the "writes way past this" is writing into the parameter save area.
>
> compare_kr is assuming that it was called with a parameter save area because
> it isn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61256
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61306
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
I finally managed to find the root cause for the bootstrap failure with my
current fix. I shall be able to improve my fix and should hopefully be ready
tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58483
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61300
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra ---
You could do that, but smaller stack frames is one of the nice features of the
ELFv2 ABI! What I called the "quick and dirty" fix seems to be the way to go,
as the scheme I had in mind to avoid a new INCOMING_R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61340
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #1)
> GCC's -Wswitch does not catch this?
On checking the gcc trunk build logs, yes.
Only clang can find the problem, not trunk gcc.
I had a look in gcc/tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61314
Georg Koppen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Building GCC 4.9.0 breaks |Building GCC 4.9.0 breaks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61045
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 28 12:44:11 2014
New Revision: 211018
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211018&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-28 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/61045
* fold-const.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61045
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 28 12:46:39 2014
New Revision: 211019
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211019&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-28 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2014-05-28
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60979
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60979
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 28 12:46:39 2014
New Revision: 211019
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211019&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-28 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2014-05-28
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61010
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 28 12:46:39 2014
New Revision: 211019
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211019&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-28 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2014-05-28
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61300
--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra ---
Actually, to work the patch in comment #3 would need to be
- if (!prototype_p (fun) || stdarg_p (fun))
+ if (1)
return true;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333
--- Comment #11 from Jack Howarth ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Also, benchmarking -O0 code is weird.
Is gcc really optimizing that low by default? Certainly it is at least doing
-O1 when not passed a -O* optimization flag?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61343
Bug ID: 61343
Summary: [C++11] Missing default initialization for class with
default constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Is gcc really optimizing that low by default? ...
AFAIK the default optimization in gcc is -O0. Now before drawing conclusions
you should answer my question in comment 8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60982
Yuriy Chernyshov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60430
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.9.0 |4.8.1
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61328
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #0)
> Maybe
>
> if (!source_expr2)
> return NULL_TREE;
>
> if (n1.size != n2.size)
> return NULL_TREE;
>
> would be better code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333
--- Comment #13 from Jack Howarth ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #12)
> > Is gcc really optimizing that low by default? ...
>
> AFAIK the default optimization in gcc is -O0. Now before drawing conclusions
> you should answer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61160
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61325
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61242
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed May 28 15:55:03 2014
New Revision: 211024
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211024&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/61242
* call.c (build_aggr_conv): Ignore passed in flags.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57543
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|paolo.carlini at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61343
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47202
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed May 28 16:38:23 2014
New Revision: 211026
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211026&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/47202
gcc/cp/
* decl.c (cxx_comdat_group): Return a decl.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47202
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|FIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61336
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57543
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61337
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60853
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59344
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61044
--- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Senthil Kumar Selvaraj from comment #3)
> The primary reason I added the diff relocs was to prevent linker relaxation
> messing up DWARF line number information - as you know, relaxation can
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333
--- Comment #14 from Jack Howarth ---
Without optimization flags on a 24-core x86_64 Fedora 15 box, the timings for
one, two and four OMP processes are…
clang-3.4.0 (clang-omp/openmp) 69.988439 sec: 34.962212 sec: 17.641935 sec
gcc 4.6.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
--- Comment #11 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, weird, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth.at.gcc at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Because they are not ignored and are not useless.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Because they are not ignored and are not useless.
See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-05/msg00332.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
--- Comment #15 from Mike Stump ---
Short answer, error checking. Remove them and one removes some error checking.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
--- Comment #16 from Jack Howarth ---
(In reply to Mike Stump from comment #15)
> Short answer, error checking. Remove them and one removes some error
> checking.
Will the current fix have any impact on our having the complete wide-int
function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61344
Bug ID: 61344
Summary: Wswitch does not work with enum bitfields
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53874
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61202
Carrot changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
--- Comment #17 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
The changelog was wrong. This is why bugzilla didn't catch the commit. It
should have said:
PR bootstrap/61146
instead of
PR bootstrap/PR61146
It would be nice to have a commit hook that catches th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
--- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Revision 211023
Author:fxcoudert
Date:Wed May 28 15:17:29 2014 UTC (4 hours, 39 minutes ago)
Log Message:
PR bootstrap/PR61146
* wide-int.cc: Do not include longlong.h when compil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
--- Comment #19 from Mike Stump ---
Nope.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61345
Bug ID: 61345
Summary: [4.10 Regression] ICE (segfault) in combine while
compiling the linux kernel
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61345
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61345
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|target
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61345
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Caused by:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg01543.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55585
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61346
Bug ID: 61346
Summary: VRP chooses bad bounds for variable
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61346
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Created attachment 32872
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32872&action=edit
test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61346
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Was this before or after revision 211012? There was a bug in VRP which was
also exposed by Fortran bounds checking: bug 61335.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61346
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
This was before 211012. It may be fixed. I will check.
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
