https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61994
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62032
--- Comment #3 from bin.cheng ---
I did some investigation and think it's a latent bug of lto which reveaded by
r213585.
Before the revision, pass_fold_builtins::execute calls gimple_fold_builtins
directly to fold __builtin___vsnprintf_chk (_26,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62032
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 7 Aug 2014, amker.cheng at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62032
>
> --- Comment #3 from bin.cheng ---
> I did some investigation and think it's a lat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743
--- Comment #3 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Any comments will be appreciated.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62045
Bug ID: 62045
Summary: __gnu_pbds::priority_queue,
binary_heap_tag> is too slow
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60406
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
It looks that a hack, mentioned in Comment #0 should use asm goto instead of
goto. The following test:
--cut here--
extern void foo (void *);
int test_bad (int p1, int p2)
{
__label__ bla1;
foo (&&bla1);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62011
finis at in dot tum.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||finis at in dot tum.de
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62011
--- Comment #5 from finis at in dot tum.de ---
Maybe there are a lot more instructions with such a false dependency. popcnt
may only be the tip of the ice berg. I don't think Intel only got this
operation wrong and all other SSE/AVX/... instructio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62046
Bug ID: 62046
Summary: A catch in a class, without any try, compiles fine
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62046
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62043
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62041
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
We fail to determine an upper bound on the number of iterations for those
loops.
With 4.9 I only see one loop completely unrolled, that at t.c:20. 4.8 doesn't
unroll any loop either.
4.9 seems to conclude
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62041
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-07/msg01812.html would most likely fix
it...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Err, sorry - you did bisect it already.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62041
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #2)
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-07/msg01812.html would most likely
> fix it...
Ah, no, it doesn't:
_2 = { -0.0, -0.0, -0.0, -0.0 } - x_1(D);
doesn't get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62041
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
(The gimple version works with -ffast-math at least)
In fold-const.c, fold_real_zero_addition_p has:
/* In a vector or complex, we would need to check the sign of all zeros. */
if (TREE_CODE (addend) !=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60406
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Alternatively, since __go_set_defer_retaddr always returns 0, we can prevent
split of the label by enclosing it in asm volatiles:
extern int foo (void *);
extern void bar (void);
int test_1 (void)
{
__label
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62047
Bug ID: 62047
Summary: --coverage segfault in libcilkrts
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62048
Bug ID: 62048
Summary: -fcilkplus warning for noreturn attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62047
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|bootstrap |c++
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62049
Bug ID: 62049
Summary: Negative count_rate when calling system_clock
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, so it's probably the range information on a SSA name we lose because we
restrict retaining that to the case where the new SSA name definition is in
the same basic-block as the original one:
/*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Or we could realize that range-info is important for loop passes and move
the first VRP pass accordingly (after pass_sink_code).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61871
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The backtrace mentions "malloc/free - deadlock" and the segmentation fault
happens later:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
[Switching to Thread 0x200011d3270 (LWP 18336)]
0x02e8bbac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60255
Andre Vehreschild changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gmx dot de
--- Comment #6 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61871
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The size in frame #6 is questionable:
#6 0x025a4b30 in __go_new (size=2199032605516) at
/home/uros/gcc-svn/trunk/libgo/runtime/go-new.c:15
(gdb) f 6
#6 0x025a4b30 in __go_new (size=219903260
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62050
Bug ID: 62050
Summary: Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines
re-entered with std::make_shared on abstract class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.4
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62051
Bug ID: 62051
Summary: [4.9/4.10] Undefined reference to vtable with -O2 and
-fdevirtualize-speculatively
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61393
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to torvald from comment #9)
> Alex, can you confirm that this is fixed?
If you are asking whether the patch makes the reported testcase work
as expected then yes, it does, I have verified that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61871
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Following patch "fixes" the test:
--cut here--
Index: runtime/proc.c
===
--- runtime/proc.c (revision 213681)
+++ runtime/proc.c (worki
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60923
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62040
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2014-08-06 00:00:00 |2014-8-7
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62035
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61987
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62052
Bug ID: 62052
Summary: function parameter has wrong address in lambda
converted to pointer-to-function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62052
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.10.0, 4.7.4, 4.8.2, 4.9.1
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053
Bug ID: 62053
Summary: ice in remap_type_1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58714
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Aug 7 18:54:27 2014
New Revision: 213724
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213724&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/58714
* tree.c (stabilize_expr): A stabilized prvalue is an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62054
Bug ID: 62054
Summary: fabsf uses constant pool and andps (x86-64) - use
pabsd instead?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60872
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Aug 7 18:54:34 2014
New Revision: 213725
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213725&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60872
* call.c (standard_conversion): Don't try to apply re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61994
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Aug 7 18:54:40 2014
New Revision: 213726
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213726&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/61994
* init.c (build_vec_init): Leave atype an ARRAY_TYPE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61994
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58714
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60872
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61959
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62055
Bug ID: 62055
Summary: missed optimization: recognize fnabs (FP negative
absolute value) (x86-64)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62054
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Did you try it? It doesn't compute the same thing at all...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Version|4.9.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62054
Sanjay Patel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62054
--- Comment #3 from Sanjay Patel ---
I think there's still an optimization possible here regarding the constant pool
data - see bug 62055. Hopefully, I didn't mess that one up. :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62050
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62050
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61959
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Aug 7 19:48:30 2014
New Revision: 213731
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213731&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/61959
* semantics.c (cxx_eval_bare_aggregate): Handle POINT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62043
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Aug 7 19:48:36 2014
New Revision: 213732
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213732&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/62043
* parser.c (c_parse_file): Change sorry to fatal_erro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61959
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Aug 7 19:49:21 2014
New Revision: 213733
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213733&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/61959
* semantics.c (cxx_eval_bare_aggregate): Handle POINT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62043
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61959
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Aug 7 19:50:11 2014
New Revision: 213735
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213735&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/61959
* semantics.c (cxx_eval_bare_aggregate): Handle POINT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58714
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Aug 7 19:50:04 2014
New Revision: 213734
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213734&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/58714
* tree.c (stabilize_expr): A stabilized prvalue is an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61959
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51312
--- Comment #13 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Aug 7 19:51:28 2014
New Revision: 213736
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213736&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-08-07 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/51312
* decl.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58714
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.2 |4.8.4
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51312
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62056
Bug ID: 62056
Summary: Long compile times with large tuples
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62016
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60707
--- Comment #3 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Thu Aug 7 21:44:55 2014
New Revision: 213740
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213740&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/60707
* gfortran.dg/pr45636.f90: xfail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60707
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Thu Aug 7 21:46:47 2014
New Revision: 213741
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213741&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/60707
* gfortran.dg/pr45636.f90: xfail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60707
--- Comment #5 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Thu Aug 7 21:49:09 2014
New Revision: 213742
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213742&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/60707
* gfortran.dg/pr45636.f90: xfail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61641
--- Comment #5 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 33271
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33271&action=edit
Patch
Maybe this will fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51726
Dmitry Gorbachev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
70 matches
Mail list logo
