https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63888
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #8)
> > You haven't responded about the language thing, there is no such thing as
> > ODR in C or Fortran, so you shouldn't report it.
>
> In LLVM, I do not (and s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53379
--- Comment #17 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #16)
> (In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #15)
> > While if we use -fsanitize=address (at greatly increased cost), we actually
> > get a Christmas tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64188
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64056
--- Comment #5 from ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Fri Dec 5 10:01:33 2014
New Revision: 218415
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218415&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/64056
* doc/sourcebuild.texi: Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #21 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #20)
> Ilya, it's the function call in this code I think:
>
> (cond [(eq_attr "length_nobnd" "!0")
>(plus (symbol_ref ("ix86_bnd_prefixed_insn_p (insn)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63888
--- Comment #10 from Yury Gribov ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #8)
> (sorry for delay, I missed the last comment)
> > Generally, we do want to instrument even artificial variables, and on many
> > of them buffer overflow is poss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #22 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Created attachment 34195
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34195&action=edit
Proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #23 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #21)
> Then we have three problematic patterns and the easiest way to handle it is
> to get rid of ix86_bnd_prefixed_insn_p call in length computation for them.
> I th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63888
--- Comment #11 from Yury Gribov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> An ODR violation is IMHO something different, it is the case where you have
> the same symbol name (but, you'd need to distinguish between globally
> visible symbo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #24 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #23)
> (In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #21)
>
> > Then we have three problematic patterns and the easiest way to handle it is
> > to get rid of ix86_bnd_prefixed_
, but empty dtor is
compiled into something rather weird. However, the other empty Nop() call is
optimized away as expected.
g++-5.0.0 -g -O3 -Wall -Wextra -c 20141205-dtor_loop.cpp
g++-5.0.0 -g -O3 -Wall -Wextra -o 20141205-dtor_loop 20141205-dtor_loop.o
Dump of assembler code for function foo_dtor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64192
Bug ID: 64192
Summary: [5 Regression] r218369 causes some regressions with
-m32.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64192
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64037
--- Comment #16 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Dec 5 11:47:51 2014
New Revision: 218418
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218418&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Pass unpromoted argument to promote_function_mode
This patch upda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64108
--- Comment #4 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Dec 5 11:52:44 2014
New Revision: 218419
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218419&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Stop only if there aren't any usable algorithms
When searching for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60955
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Erroneous warning about |[4.9/5 Regression]
|ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64037
--- Comment #17 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Dec 5 12:02:33 2014
New Revision: 218420
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218420&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Pass unpromoted argument to promote_function_mode
This patch upda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64108
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64037
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60955
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #5)
> This is a regression. Manuel, are you going to pursue the issue further and
> send to the mailing list a complete patch?
I don't even remember the details
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64193
Bug ID: 64193
Summary: Decreased performance after r173250
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64193
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Cederman ---
Created attachment 34197
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34197&action=edit
assembly output with r173250
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64193
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Cederman ---
Created attachment 34198
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34198&action=edit
assembly output without r173250
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64192
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
Hm, the only one I can reproduce is the gcc.dg/vect/pr60196-1.c
failure, but I will start with that and have a look. Hopefully it is
the same issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64160
Ulrich Weigand changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|emsr at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60414
--- Comment #4 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Fri Dec 5 14:15:27 2014
New Revision: 218422
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218422&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-05 Andre Vehreschild
PR fortran/60414
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41949
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Prasad H. L. from comment #4)
> The link seems to be broken again. Could you please fix it?
Yes, I'll update the API docs some time this month, which will fix it.
The correct link is now
http
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63917
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
A patch has been submitted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00478.html waiting for
approval!-(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #26 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #25)
>
> If all you want to do is add 1 byte to the length to account for a prefix
> then it might be cleaner to use ADJUST_INSN_LENGTH. You could then keep
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59766
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59912
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64194
Bug ID: 64194
Summary: [C++14] for
function template with auto return
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64196
Bug ID: 64196
Summary: No automated test coverage for debugging of
JIT-generated code
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64195
Bug ID: 64195
Summary: type_traits.h: is_trivially_copyable unimplemented
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #27 from ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Fri Dec 5 16:00:52 2014
New Revision: 218426
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218426&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/64003
* config/i386/i386.md (*jcc_1_b
: sparc*-sun-solaris2.*
Between 20141128 (r218141) and 20141205 (r218417) SPARC bootstrap got broken
compiling the 64-bit stage2 libcc1. The following testcase is extracted from
building _ffsdi2.o, but the same happens for many other files:
cc1 -fpreprocessed libgcc2.i -mptr64 -mcpu=v9 -quiet -m64 -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64197
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 34200
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34200&action=edit
preprocessed input
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64197
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64198
Bug ID: 64198
Summary: ICE in gofrontend
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
Assignee: ian at air
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64188
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64192
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
This is also causing unaligned accesses in the compiler on ia64, for example in
function ipa-inline-analysis.c:account_size_time:
new_entry.predicate = *pred;
struct predicate has only 4 byte alignme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64192
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
I'm still in the process of testing the following fix. I believe it will solve
all these problems. Sorry for such a stupid mistake:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00507.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64195
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64197
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
Dup of PR64192?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64192
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53199
--- Comment #7 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri Dec 5 17:50:40 2014
New Revision: 218431
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218431&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-05 Michael Meissner
PR target/53199
* gcc.target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64192
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Dec 5 18:14:37 2014
New Revision: 218433
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218433&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-05 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/64192
* ipa-prop.c (ipa_comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64192
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
s-rtl-df/
--without-cloog --without-ppl
Thread model: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20141205 (experimental) (GCC)
Tested revisions:
r218413 - ICE
4_9 r218177 - ICE
4_8 r218176 - ICE
4_7 r211571 - OK
4_6 r197894 - OK
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64200
Bug ID: 64200
Summary: ICE: in decide_alg, at config/i386/i386.c:24510 with
-mmemcpy-strategy=libcall:-1:align
-minline-stringops-dynamically
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64201
Bug ID: 64201
Summary: JIT tutorial does not describe accessing symbols from
other DSOs
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64202
Bug ID: 64202
Summary: C linkage causes shared library exception address
problem on ppc64 (not x86_64)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64202
--- Comment #2 from Michael Truog ---
Created attachment 34205
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34205&action=edit
Main executable compiled as C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64202
--- Comment #1 from Michael Truog ---
Created attachment 34204
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34204&action=edit
shared library implementation compiled as C++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64202
--- Comment #3 from Michael Truog ---
The commands to compile the minimal example are:
g++ -O0 -g -c test_lib.cpp -o test_lib.o
g++ -fPIC -DPIC -shared test_lib.o -o libtest.so.0.0.0
gcc -O0 -g -c -o test_main.o test_main.c
gcc -o test test_main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64202
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64202
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64202
Michael Truog changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #7 from Michael Truog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64202
Michael Truog changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64202
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64089
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to howarth from comment #6)
> I don't believe this can be an issue on darwin as we always default to
> producing PIC oode.
Ah, ok.
Thanks for filing this bug.
I'm wondering what other problems lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64200
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64203
Bug ID: 64203
Summary: shared_mutex compile errors on bare-metal targets
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64204
Bug ID: 64204
Summary: gcc.dg/c11-atomic-2.c fails on powerpc 64-bit little
endian after -mupper-regs patches went in
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64204
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 34206
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34206&action=edit
Proposed patch to fix the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64204
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64170
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 5 23:00:09 2014
New Revision: 218440
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218440&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/64170
* sanopt.c (maybe_optimize_asan_check_ifn): If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831
--- Comment #18 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thank you. I knew I was doing this wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50377
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64205
Bug ID: 64205
Summary: powerpc64-linux --with-cpu=G5 bootstrap failure
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64203
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 34208
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34208&action=edit
fix config macros for shared_lock
Does this fix it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64170
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64206
Bug ID: 64206
Summary: fake.so is unlinked too early for some users
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: jit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44604
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48244
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Any progress?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64049
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63888
--- Comment #12 from Kostya Serebryany ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> (In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #8)
> > > You haven't responded about the language thing, there is no such thing as
> > > ODR in C or Fortran, so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63829
Aaron Graham changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
Summary|Crash in__tl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64206
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64203
--- Comment #2 from Sandra Loosemore ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Created attachment 34208 [details]
> fix config macros for shared_lock
>
> Does this fix it?
No, with this patch I'm still getting the same undefined symbo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64207
Bug ID: 64207
Summary: vectorization report
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee:
83 matches
Mail list logo
