http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55175
--- Comment #6 from Ralf Corsepius 2012-11-03
06:25:33 UTC ---
I can confirm i386-rtems4.11-gcc now builds.
@Uros: I am inclined to believe this patch probably should be backported to
4.7.x.
At least, RTEMS is facing bizarre compilati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #6 from Adi 2012-11-03 06:24:03 UTC
---
This is the 5thmail I am sending(I got 4 delivery errors because of MIME
attachments).
After more investigation I saw that I managed to get the constructors
called by removing the "inline" k
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #5 from Adi 2012-11-03 06:21:08 UTC
---
Please tell me if you received my email. I got some delivery failures because
of attachments.
- Forwarded Message -
From: "adivilce...@yahoo.com"
To: dje at gcc dot gnu.org
Sent: F
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55186
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55186
Bug #: 55186
Summary: gcc.dg/const-uniq-1.c fails due to vector expected but
not being in the constant pool
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-03 02:51:26
UTC ---
This patch:
[hjl@gnu-tools-1 tmp]$ cat /tmp/x
diff --git a/gcc/expr.c b/gcc/expr.c
index 3e8e004..da35488 100644
--- a/gcc/expr.c
+++ b/gcc/expr.c
@@ -8115,7 +8115,7 @@ expand_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55185
Bug #: 55185
Summary: Error generated on extern inline function which isn't
called
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55184
--- Comment #1 from Mathias Gaunard 2012-11-03
00:29:47 UTC ---
Problem seems to occur with i686 as well but only if SSE2 is enabled (you'll
need to replace 'long' by 'long long' for this in the testcase)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54524
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
Summary|[4.6/4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54524
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski 2012-11-02
23:32:38 UTC ---
Author: pinskia
Date: Fri Nov 2 23:32:32 2012
New Revision: 193111
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193111
Log:
2012-11-02 Andrew Pinski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-02 23:09:19
UTC ---
(gdb) disass $pc - 19, +25
Dump of assembler code from 0xf7dddc7a to 0xf7dddc93:
0xf7dddc7a :mov%r8d,%esi
0xf7dddc7d :sub%eax,%esi
0xf7dddc7f :cmp$
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55184
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.4.0, 4.5.0, 4.7.0
Target Mil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55184
Bug #: 55184
Summary: Invalid codegen with vectors and casts
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55177
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou 2012-11-02
21:59:27 UTC ---
> So what you describe as 'really dumb' is actually something that we *force*
> people to do. We'd be much worse off without it.
'really dumb' applied only to the example thou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55085
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nat...@t-online.de
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55133
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-02
20:57:34 UTC ---
Fixed.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 55085 ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55085
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55079
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-02
20:51:31 UTC ---
Actually not, what happen here is that we unroll the loop 17 times based on the
fact that the array access iterates from taillen to tailen+n_iterations and the
array size is 17.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55183
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-02
20:50:48 UTC ---
Thanks Andrew, if the issue would actually be about the reinterpret_cast it's
indeed very well known.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55183
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2012-11-02
20:36:12 UTC ---
The functions dealing with the void* internalPointer() can't be
constexpr on GCC 4.6 and Clang 3.2-trunk, even though GCC 4.8-trunk
accepts it, because of the casts required.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54985
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54985
--- Comment #15 from Jeffrey A. Law 2012-11-02
20:19:23 UTC ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Nov 2 20:19:16 2012
New Revision: 193108
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193108
Log:
PR tree-optimization/54985
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55183
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55171
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |target
--- Comment #3 from Paol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55171
--- Comment #2 from Adam Mitz 2012-11-02 19:51:26 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Thus, is this mingw specific?
I can only get it to fail on mingw.
> Should be target instead?
Sorry, I don't know what this means.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55177
--- Comment #5 from David Woodhouse 2012-11-02
19:41:28 UTC ---
Indeed. Bear in mind that sometimes we *hide* the actual variable (by prefixing
its name or putting it in a small struct of its own), just to *force* people to
use the appropriate b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55183
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-11-02
19:36:36 UTC ---
4.6 does not really do constexpr.
Anyways I think this is a dup of bug 55039 as referenced by the following C++
Defect report:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55183
Bug #: 55183
Summary: GCC 4.8 constexpr is too permissive
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55079
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-02
18:44:37 UTC ---
Hmm, it seems to be due to off-by-one bug in my patch
Index: tree-ssa-loop-ivcanon.c
===
--- tree-ssa-loop-ivcanon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55177
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55177
--- Comment #3 from David Woodhouse 2012-11-02
17:05:03 UTC ---
The first example isn't *that* dumb, as a cut-down test case of real code which
may look more complex in reality.
If the real code really *is* as simple as my test case, you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55079
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-02
16:46:54 UTC ---
The patch cures a lot of false positives seen at -O3 bootstrap. The testcase
here is not cured, I am looking into it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55079
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-02
16:35:01 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Nov 2 16:34:52 2012
New Revision: 193098
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193098
Log:
PR middle-end/55079
* tree-ss
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55181
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-11-02
16:15:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 28599
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28599
foo.s (4.6.2, good)
Assembler output from 4.6.2 that generates a bit test instruction.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55181
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-11-02
16:13:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 28598
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28598
foo.s (from 4.8)
Assembler output that shows the expensive shift loop in insn 44.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55180
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16107
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55181
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-11-02
16:11:40 UTC ---
Created attachment 28597
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28597
foo.c Test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55181
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55181
Bug #: 55181
Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] Expensive shift loop where a
bit-testing instruction could be used
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55180
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||16107
--- Comment #1 from Andre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55176
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-11-02 15:13:48 UTC ---
Gcc is spinning in compute_antic (tree-ssa-pre.c:2507) calling
bitmap_set_new() until OOM:
#0 _int_malloc (av=0x7794d600 , bytes=2408) at malloc.c:3694
#1 0x7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55180
Bug #: 55180
Summary: Missed optimization abs(-x) -> abs(x)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #4 from Adi 2012-11-02 14:51:50 UTC
---
my attachment as text did not work so I have done it via word doc.
From: "adivilce...@yahoo.com"
To: dje at gcc dot gnu.org
Sent: Friday, November 2, 201
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #3 from Adi 2012-11-02 14:49:03 UTC
---
After more investigation I saw that I managed to get the constructors called by
removing the "inline" keyword from just one constructor of a class that resides
in my master header.
>From my -W
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55150
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-11-02
14:44:24 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Nov 2 14:44:12 2012
New Revision: 193096
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193096
Log:
2012-11-02 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55130
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-11-02
14:44:23 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Nov 2 14:44:12 2012
New Revision: 193096
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193096
Log:
2012-11-02 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50339
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse 2012-11-02 14:33:27
UTC ---
It looks even worse in 4.8:
movq%rdi, %r9
movq%rsi, %rdi
movq%rsi, %r10
sarq$63, %rdi
movq%rdi, %rcx
xorq%r9, %rcx
movq
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55175
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55175
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-02 14:09:09 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Nov 2 14:09:02 2012
New Revision: 193095
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193095
Log:
PR target/55175
* config
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55175
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55172
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53137
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m101010a at gmail dot com
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54431
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53697
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53137
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55159
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||55004
--- Comment #8 from Paolo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54431
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-11-02 11:43:50 UTC ---
Dup of Bug 53697 and Bug 53137.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53697
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55179
Bug #: 55179
Summary: Optionally warn when use-associating a module with no
(public) symbols
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55159
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Krügler
2012-11-02 11:39:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Thus, Daniel, is this invalid?
I think this part of the problem is indeed valid:
template
struct min_t
{
static bool less(T0 x, T1 y) { return x < y
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55169
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55169
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-02 11:18:22 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Nov 2 11:18:13 2012
New Revision: 193093
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193093
Log:
2012-11-02 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55159
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-02
11:14:54 UTC ---
Thus, Daniel, is this invalid?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55171
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cgf at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55015
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||icegood1980 at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55178
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55172
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55178
Bug #: 55178
Summary: lambda cannot be found at linkage stage
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55177
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55174
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55177
--- Comment #1 from David Woodhouse 2012-11-02
10:45:52 UTC ---
We have a similar issue with:
extern void func(void);
int baz(void)
{
if (__builtin_bswap32(x) & 0x8)
func();
}
baz:
.LFB1:
.cfi_startproc
movlx(%r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55169
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-02 10:45:40 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Nov 2 10:45:25 2012
New Revision: 193092
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193092
Log:
2012-11-02 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55162
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55175
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak 2012-11-02 10:05:24
UTC ---
Can you please try to build with attached (untested) patch?
The patch disables the part that handles exceptions and where rounding mode is
set. We need either x87 or SSE control
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55175
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak 2012-11-02 10:01:44
UTC ---
Created attachment 28596
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28596
Proposed patch
Patch that disables relevant parts of soft-fp library
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55177
Bug #: 55177
Summary: Missed optimisation: bswap, mask with constant, bswap
back again.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55159
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler
2012-11-02 08:57:33 UTC ---
I need to insert another correction. My attempt to simplify the reporters bug
failed because I was mislead by the report description that "visual studio 2012
work fine" interpreting
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55176
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55176
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-11-02 08:37:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> This only happens when gcc was lto/profiledbootstraped.
> Looks like it gets miscompiled in this case.
Turned out that "--enable-checking=rel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55167
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55159
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler
2012-11-02 08:10:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> But it seems that gcc doesn't ignore the const (in "const T*" or "const
> auto*")
> for functions here, which seems to be the root of the second problem (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55176
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-11-02 08:09:51 UTC ---
This only happens when gcc was lto/profiledbootstraped.
Looks like it gets miscompiled in this case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55147
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-02
08:03:05 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 2 08:03:02 2012
New Revision: 193090
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193090
Log:
PR target/55147
* config/i386/i
Attn:
This is Ms Vanessa Lawrence from Falkland Inc. Australia, we have got your
company info from our client Alibaba Trade and we are interested in your
product. we will like to know your production/shipping time frame. Ensure to
make a cc copy of your response to Email- falklandgro...@hot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55176
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-11-02 07:18:00 UTC ---
Reduced:
class Sandbox
{
void sandbox_exit ();
struct A
{
int write ();
};
void die ();
};
int a;
void
Sandbox::sandbox_exit ()
{
86 matches
Mail list logo
