http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51246
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
08:25:40 UTC ---
Created attachment 25907
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25907
gcc47-pr51246.patch
I wonder whether we can't just adjust the assert here to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50888
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51247
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51247
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43491
--- Comment #3 from amker.cheng amker.cheng at gmail dot com 2011-11-24
09:24:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I'm thinking that this is perfectly normal thing to do, and that the redundant
move is meant to disappear in a later pass. My
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51291
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51290
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-24 10:20:49 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Nov 24 10:20:43 2011
New Revision: 181690
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181690
Log:
/cp
2011-11-24
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51290
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51247
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51292
Bug #: 51292
Summary: RESULT var with -finit-local-zero -fno-automatic
results in error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48941
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
11:00:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
How strongly do you object? I think the benefits are
worth any compatibility drawbacks in this case.
It would be a nice to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51293
Bug #: 51293
Summary: [OOP] ICE on ANY with overloaded == operator
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51294
Bug #: 51294
Summary: spurious warning from -Wconversion in C and C++
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51294
--- Comment #1 from Bruce Adams tortoise_74 at yahoo dot co.uk 2011-11-24
11:35:24 UTC ---
Probably unncessary but the OS is RHEL5 on a 32bit machine.
brucea@:home/brucea/spuriouslsb_release -a
LSB Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51210
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48665
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51227
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51294
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
12:01:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
0 is a const so the compiler should be able to choose the correct type.
0 is an int, so the compiler is required by the standard to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51290
--- Comment #4 from Udo Steinberg us15 at os dot inf.tu-dresden.de 2011-11-24
12:04:58 UTC ---
Confirmed to be fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50628
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
12:18:46 UTC ---
Created attachment 25909
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25909
Fix
This is the fix I wrote about yesterday. It bootstraps and tests
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50290
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51268
--- Comment #6 from Sebastien Bardeau bardeau at iram dot fr 2011-11-24
13:23:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
It should be buried in 16 Scope, association, and definition, but I need
some
time to extract it.
Ok, so did I. Here is what I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51292
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51268
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
14:04:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Within a scoping unit, identifiers of entities in the following classes:
(1) ..., abstract interfaces, generic interfaces, ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51293
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
14:13:39 UTC ---
This usage requires support for polymorphic arrays - or at least the scalarizer
needs to be able to handle this, which is part of the work Paul did.
Latest
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51162
Sameera sameera.deshpande at arm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48150
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
14:44:57 UTC ---
Yeah, can't reproduce -O2/-O3/-Os issues, but can reproduce
FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c -O1 line 43 a.i == 4
FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c -O1 line 43 a.j
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50709
--- Comment #8 from Diego Novillo dnovillo at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
14:51:02 UTC ---
Author: dnovillo
Date: Thu Nov 24 14:50:56 2011
New Revision: 181692
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181692
Log:
Revert
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48150
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
14:58:30 UTC ---
Perhaps we could use as value of a$j SIGN_EXTRACT from the provided VALUE,
i.e. when a$j is 12-bit, assume
(debug_insn 14 13 15 2 (var_location:HI a$j (plus:HI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51295
Bug #: 51295
Summary: [C++11][noexcept] Wrong c'tor exception-specification
with non-trivial d'tor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50290
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
15:23:22 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 24 15:23:18 2011
New Revision: 181694
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181694
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50290
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51248
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51058
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51294
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51268
--- Comment #8 from Sebastien Bardeau bardeau at iram dot fr 2011-11-24
15:58:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
Within a scoping unit, identifiers of entities in the following classes:
(1) ..., abstract
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51009
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50885
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51258
--- Comment #10 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24 16:34:16
UTC ---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Nov 24 16:34:09 2011
New Revision: 181697
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181697
Log:
Fix several atomic tests on 32-bit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46371
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
16:41:54 UTC ---
Polymorphic array example: Todo check for validity and fix.
program p
use m
class(foo), allocatable :: o_bar(:)[:]
integer :: j
allocate(foo ::
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49865
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51294
--- Comment #4 from Bruce Adams tortoise_74 at yahoo dot co.uk 2011-11-24
17:09:56 UTC ---
Shouldn't integral conversion rules apply if the types of the second and third
arguments to a conditional expression differ.
So zero should be converted
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50237
--- Comment #28 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-24 17:44:03 UTC ---
This test uses the run-time test to check if .ctors and .init_array
input sections can be mixed. Separate tests don't make
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
Bug #: 51296
Summary: Several 30_threads tests FAIL on Tru64 UNIX
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #21 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
17:57:45 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Nov 24 17:57:41 2011
New Revision: 181698
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181698
Log:
2011-11-24 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51285
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
18:07:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
In that range there is the following commit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51297
Bug #: 51297
Summary: [4.7 regressions] Many gcov tests FAIL on Tru64 UNIX,
Solaris 8
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51297
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Sidwell nathan at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
18:30:40 UTC ---
The line numbers in the backtrace don't seem to correspond to current sources.
for instance line 866 is the definition of find_source, not the location of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51297
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|alpha-dec-osf5.1b,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51294
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
18:37:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Shouldn't integral conversion rules apply if the types of the second and third
arguments to a conditional expression differ.
Yes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51297
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
18:40:43 UTC ---
What are the values being passed to the bsearch call?
Very likely the problem indeed. qsort is known to be very picky on Solaris 8
and 9, in the sense
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51297
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell nathan at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
19:08:24 UTC ---
the names being entered into the array are unique, so there is a total ordering
-- I think that's a red herring. I think the problem is the string read from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51285
--- Comment #4 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2011-11-24 19:25:06 UTC ---
Simplified testcase showing Tobias patch is unrelated. Is this still triggered
by the same range ?
SUBROUTINE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
19:26:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
FAIL: 30_threads/thread/native_handle/typesizes.cc execution test
This one should definitely not run on Tru64, disabling that is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51279
--- Comment #5 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2011-11-24
19:32:52 UTC ---
This ICE also can be reproduced at r181697 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu (x86_64
Fedora 15).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51297
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
19:46:20 UTC ---
the names being entered into the array are unique, so there is a total
ordering
-- I think that's a red herring. I think the problem is the string
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
20:30:43 UTC ---
What does this program do, compiled with -std=c++11 -pthread ?
#include mutex
#include system_error
#include assert.h
#define VERIFY assert
int main()
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
--- Comment #22 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
20:44:32 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Nov 24 20:44:28 2011
New Revision: 181699
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181699
Log:
2011-11-24 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51218
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51297
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell nathan at acm dot org 2011-11-24 21:36:20
UTC ---
On 11/24/11 19:46, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
In fact the array is empty:
(gdb) p n_names
$1 = 0
(gdb) p names
$2 = (name_map_t *) 0x0
d'oh! A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51297
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
21:54:15 UTC ---
d'oh! A fix will be right up.
Thanks. I confirm that adding if (n_names 0) in the right places works fine.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43745
--- Comment #5 from Tomasz Francuz tfrancuz at mp dot pl 2011-11-24 21:56:17
UTC ---
Ok, here is the code:
class test
{
public:
test() {};
virtual void vfunction();
};
void test::vfunction()
{
}
int main()
{
}
After compilation 6 bytes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51134
--- Comment #13 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
22:11:16 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Nov 24 22:11:12 2011
New Revision: 181701
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181701
Log:
Revert revision
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50408
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
22:13:06 UTC ---
That a -fwhole-file regression, which became the default in 4.6. The work
around is -fno-whole-file.
The problem is in gfc_get_extern_function_decl:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51297
--- Comment #8 from Nathan Sidwell nathan at acm dot org 2011-11-24 22:12:11
UTC ---
On 11/24/11 21:54, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51297
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazouebotcazou at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50408
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
22:20:55 UTC ---
Patch for this issue - note that there are more places which have to be checked
and potentially fixed. The second part is just a performance/algorithmic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51250
--- Comment #5 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de 2011-11-24 22:39:10
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
The patch in comment #4 works for me without regressions!
Thanks,
Harald
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51298
Bug #: 51298
Summary: libgomp team_barrier locking failures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51297
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-24
23:31:06 UTC ---
Hm, can you try the attached patch? It avoids passing a null pointer, which
is
not permitted. Passing zero as nmemb is permitted (7.20.5 para 1 of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50797
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-11-25 00:58:51
UTC ---
It is implemented on hjl/x32/addr32 branch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=summary
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51227
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-25 01:00:51 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Nov 25 01:00:44 2011
New Revision: 181707
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181707
Log:
/cp
2011-11-24
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51227
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51134
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51299
Bug #: 51299
Summary: [C++11] erroneous nullptr warning on dynamic cast
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51184
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51299
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51256
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Macleod amacleod at redhat dot com 2011-11-25
03:00:44 UTC ---
Author: amacleod
Date: Fri Nov 25 03:00:38 2011
New Revision: 181709
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=181709
Log:
2011-11-24 Andrew
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51300
Bug #: 51300
Summary: Internal error when using -flto with -O0 in the linker
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
79 matches
Mail list logo
