[Bug middle-end/53144] [4.8 Regression] gcc.c-torture/execute/vector-compare-1.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53144 --- Comment #2 from Paolo Bonzini bonzini at gnu dot org 2012-04-28 06:19:31 UTC --- In the case of PR53138 this was a preexisting bug in handling -(a b), made more explicit by the new phi-opt conversion. Looking at vector-compare-1.c and pass

[Bug c++/53152] New: In no match for operatorXX error message, mention the types of the arguments

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53152 Bug #: 53152 Summary: In no match for operatorXX error message, mention the types of the arguments Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status:

[Bug middle-end/53147] [4.7/4.8 Regression] gcc apparently miscompiles clang-3.1(or trunk)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53147 --- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de 2012-04-28 07:04:13 UTC --- Started with: 6458ce4faada4b1b64d3823d52cfdf8e6b9cb7f8 is the first bad commit commit 6458ce4faada4b1b64d3823d52cfdf8e6b9cb7f8 Author: jason

[Bug c++/53152] In no match for operatorXX error message gives the wrong column info

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53152 Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug middle-end/53147] [4.7/4.8 Regression] gcc apparently miscompiles clang-3.1(or trunk)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53147 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-28 07:27:54 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) Started with: This really sounds like a temp variable is escaping the scope. Which means the code in clang is undefined.

[Bug c/53131] -Wlogical-op: ready for prime time in -Wall ?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53131 --- Comment #2 from dcb dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2012-04-28 07:29:17 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) (In reply to comment #0) I am somewhat surprised that -Wlogical-op isn't part of either -Wall or possibly -Wextra. It could be in

[Bug middle-end/53147] [4.7/4.8 Regression] gcc apparently miscompiles clang-3.1(or trunk)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53147 Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last

[Bug c/53153] New: ice in tree_low_cst, at tree.c:6569

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53153 Bug #: 53153 Summary: ice in tree_low_cst, at tree.c:6569 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c/53153] ice in tree_low_cst, at tree.c:6569

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53153 Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug middle-end/53147] [4.7/4.8 Regression] gcc apparently miscompiles clang-3.1(or trunk)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53147 --- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de 2012-04-28 09:31:52 UTC --- Created attachment 27258 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27258 testcase $ g++ -w -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-exceptions

[Bug middle-end/53147] [4.7/4.8 Regression] gcc apparently miscompiles clang-3.1(or trunk)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53147 --- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de 2012-04-28 09:38:04 UTC --- Please add -fno-strict-aliasing to both invocations above to avoid misunderstandings.

[Bug target/51020] %{...*; :default} spec lines cause all switches to be validated

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51020 --- Comment #3 from Alexey Kravets a.kravets at samsung dot com 2012-04-28 09:53:38 UTC --- Created attachment 27259 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27259 Reset starred flag patch. This patch seems to solve this problem. It

[Bug middle-end/53147] [4.7/4.8 Regression] gcc apparently miscompiles clang-3.1(or trunk)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53147 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-28 10:02:39 UTC --- [/var/tmp/llvm/llvm/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Analysis/UninitializedValues.cpp : 172:56] D.147621 ={v} {CLOBBER};

[Bug middle-end/53147] [4.7/4.8 Regression] gcc apparently miscompiles clang-3.1(or trunk)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53147 --- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-28 10:05:26 UTC --- [/var/tmp/llvm/llvm/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Analysis/UninitializedValues.cpp : 172:56] D.147621 = clang::CFGBlock::front (block);

[Bug target/53134] Request for option to disable excess precision on i387

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53134 Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c/53131] -Wlogical-op: ready for prime time in -Wall ?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53131 --- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-28 10:37:04 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) Do the warnings indicate bugs or not? Yes. I checked the first ten. And what do the kernel people say? Do they want

[Bug middle-end/53147] [4.7/4.8 Regression] gcc apparently miscompiles clang-3.1(or trunk)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53147 Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING

[Bug c++/53154] New: Template class not shadowed by member declaration

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53154 Bug #: 53154 Summary: Template class not shadowed by member declaration Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: accepts-invalid

[Bug c/53131] -Wlogical-op: ready for prime time in -Wall ?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53131 Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug c/53131] -Wlogical-op: ready for prime time in -Wall ?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53131 --- Comment #5 from dcb dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2012-04-28 12:17:57 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) Could you give a sample? -Wlogical-op merges 2 unrelated warnings: *) x 2 (you would expect a boolean, not 2, so maybe x2 was meant) *) x0

[Bug c/43772] Errant -Wlogical-op warning when testing limits

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772 Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug c/43772] Errant -Wlogical-op warning when testing limits

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772 --- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-28 12:32:49 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) For : x=INT_MIN x=INT_MAX the code creates a range for x=INT_MIN, another range for x=INT_MAX, merges them into a single

[Bug c/43772] Errant -Wlogical-op warning when testing limits

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772 --- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2012-04-28 12:33:26 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) It forgets to check first whether the first 2 ranges are trivial. Or easier, instead of checking: if (TREE_CODE (tem)

[Bug c/43772] Errant -Wlogical-op warning when testing limits

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772 --- Comment #12 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-28 12:37:06 UTC --- (In reply to comment #11) (In reply to comment #9) It forgets to check first whether the first 2 ranges are trivial. Or easier, instead of

[Bug c/43772] Errant -Wlogical-op warning when testing limits

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772 --- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2012-04-28 12:40:14 UTC --- (In reply to comment #10) But there is something strange, because it is warning it is always false, which is obviously not true. So I think at some

[Bug c/53131] -Wlogical-op: ready for prime time in -Wall ?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53131 --- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2012-04-28 12:45:19 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) It seems a pretty small warning, but I guess #1 and #2 could be split up, if that helps get #2 in. I think it is the

[Bug c/43772] Errant -Wlogical-op warning when testing limits

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772 --- Comment #14 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-28 12:49:57 UTC --- (In reply to comment #13) Except that this version would warn for xINT_MIN xINT_MAX, whereas this belongs to other warnings. So testing the

[Bug c/43772] Errant -Wlogical-op warning when testing limits

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772 --- Comment #15 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2012-04-28 12:55:28 UTC --- (In reply to comment #14) (In reply to comment #13) Except that this version would warn for xINT_MIN xINT_MAX, whereas this belongs to other

[Bug c/43772] Errant -Wlogical-op warning when testing limits

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772 --- Comment #16 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-28 13:07:41 UTC --- (In reply to comment #15) No, there could be a warning that the first test is always false, another one that the second one is always false, but

[Bug tree-optimization/30318] VRP does not create ANTI_RANGEs on overflow

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318 --- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2012-04-28 13:18:25 UTC --- Created attachment 27260 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27260 Wrap using gmp I find it easier to use bignum and wrap at the end,

[Bug preprocessor/39029] #pragma once is not exported from the precompiled headers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39029 --- Comment #5 from Johan Boulé bohan.gnu at retropaganda dot info 2012-04-28 14:15:17 UTC --- I believe my original bug report does not stand as a valid bug. Bug #47857 has been marked as duplicate but is not: it's a spurious warning. Also, Olaf

[Bug preprocessor/47857] Pragma once warning when compiling PCH

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47857 Olaf van der Spek olafvdspek at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|VERIFIED

[Bug c/53153] [4.8 Regression] ice in tree_low_cst, at tree.c:6569

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53153 H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug middle-end/53144] [4.7/4.8 Regression] PPRE infinite loop

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53144 Paolo Bonzini bonzini at gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug middle-end/53144] [4.7/4.8 Regression] PPRE infinite loop

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53144 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-04-28 15:53:10 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) H.J., can you try bisecting this? Sure. BTW, I created a new git based bisect tool. It works quite well.

[Bug c/43772] Errant -Wlogical-op warning when testing limits

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772 --- Comment #17 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2012-04-28 18:49:49 UTC --- (In reply to comment #16) I understand now, and I think you are right. We don't have a warning for ((int)x) INT_MIN or ((int)x) INT_MAX but I think

[Bug middle-end/53144] [4.7/4.8 Regression] PPRE infinite loop

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53144 H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.7.1 --- Comment #5

[Bug c++/53152] In no match for operatorXX error message gives the wrong column info

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53152 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-28 19:54:51 UTC --- printing the types was basically PR 49152

[Bug c++/53154] Template class not shadowed by member declaration

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53154 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug c++/52988] std::async not executed on function returning nullptr_t

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52988 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW

[Bug fortran/53148] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Incorrect intrinsic function parsing on labeled statements when compiled w/ -ffrontend-optimize

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53148 Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug lto/50616] lto1.exe: internal compiler error: invalid resolution in the resolution file

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50616 Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0

[Bug testsuite/53155] New: Not parallel: test for -j fails

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53155 Bug #: 53155 Summary: Not parallel: test for -j fails Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug testsuite/53155] Not parallel: test for -j fails with new make

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53155 Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Not parallel: test for -j |Not parallel:

[Bug testsuite/53155] Not parallel: test for -j fails with new make

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53155 --- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2012-04-28 21:49:43 UTC --- laptop-mg /tmp/m $ cat Makefile all: $(MAKE) plouf plouf: echo $(MFLAGS) $(filter -j, $(MFLAGS)) laptop-mg /tmp/m $ make -j make plouf

[Bug testsuite/53155] Not parallel: test for -j fails with new make

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53155 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-28 21:53:21 UTC --- -j by itself fails but -j with a number passes. This is what I use which is why it works.

[Bug c/43772] Errant -Wlogical-op warning when testing limits

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772 --- Comment #18 from eggert at gnu dot org 2012-04-28 21:53:30 UTC --- (In reply to comment #17) I expect the remaining false positives to be very rare. i=INT_MINisomething or iINT_MIN||isomething are common, but iINT_MINisomething seems less

[Bug c/43772] Errant -Wlogical-op warning when testing limits

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772 --- Comment #19 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2012-04-28 22:16:55 UTC --- (In reply to comment #18) I'm afraid that false positives would still be likely. For example, suppose we're on a platform where INT_MAX = LONG_MAX

[Bug c/43772] Errant -Wlogical-op warning when testing limits

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772 --- Comment #20 from eggert at gnu dot org 2012-04-28 22:40:27 UTC --- (In reply to comment #19) intmax_t i = (whatever); if (INT_MAX i i = LONG_MAX) Have you actually seen that? No, I just now invented that example. It was based on

[Bug target/53134] Request for option to disable excess precision on i387

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53134 --- Comment #8 from Rich Felker bugdal at aerifal dot cx 2012-04-28 23:14:57 UTC --- I agree, sadly, that WONTFIX is probably the most appropriate action. At least, like Andrew said, we're getting to the point where assuming it's okay to build

[Bug target/52593] Builtin sqrt on x86 is not correctly rounded

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52593 --- Comment #7 from Rich Felker bugdal at aerifal dot cx 2012-04-28 23:21:51 UTC --- This bug seems to have been fixed with the addition of the -fexcess-precision=standard feature, which is now set by default with -std=c99 or c11, and which

[Bug rtl-optimization/53125] Very slow register allocation on SPARC

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53125 --- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at redhat dot com 2012-04-29 00:08:54 UTC --- I'll look at this PR in a week.

[Bug target/52593] Builtin sqrt on x86 is not correctly rounded

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52593 --- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-04-29 00:16:38 UTC --- If you have a bug in glibc's libm, please make sure there is an open bug report for it in glibc Bugzilla, component math; I don't see

[Bug target/52593] Builtin sqrt on x86 is not correctly rounded

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52593 --- Comment #9 from Rich Felker bugdal at aerifal dot cx 2012-04-29 01:21:59 UTC --- Reported to glibc bug tracker as bug #14032: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14032

[Bug target/53156] New: [4.8 Regression]: gcc.target/cris/peep2-andu2.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53156 Bug #: 53156 Summary: [4.8 Regression]: gcc.target/cris/peep2-andu2.c Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug target/53156] [4.8 Regression]: gcc.target/cris/peep2-andu2.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53156 Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/53157] New: within lambda, error: lvalue required as unary ‘’ operand

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53157 Bug #: 53157 Summary: within lambda, error: lvalue required as unary ‘’ operand Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/19520] protected function pointer doesn't work right

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520 Rich Felker bugdal at aerifal dot cx changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bugdal at aerifal

[Bug c++/53158] New: [C++11] Bogus error in loop condition

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53158 Bug #: 53158 Summary: [C++11] Bogus error in loop condition Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: