http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53346
--- Comment #23 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-31
09:19:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
If the patch referenced in comment #22 fixes this bug, then it is a dup of bug
54073. Can someone confirm if this has been
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53346
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54073
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dominiq
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55198
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48308
--- Comment #23 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-31
09:55:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
Did the patch which was applied at revision 183512 fix this bug? If so please
mark this bug as being fixed for 4.7.0 and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33699
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-31
10:09:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Smaller perhaps, but it uses two registers, where it originally used none.
For x86 that's the better tradeoff.
Except
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55804
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55807
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55808
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55829
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55808
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55823
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55826
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55807
--- Comment #11 from lu_zero at gentoo dot org 2012-12-31 11:02:44 UTC ---
I'm trying to convince the original author to interact directly, otherwise I'll
foster them myself in a bit. Thanks for the hint meanwhile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55823
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55823
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm
||antoine.balestrat at gmail
||dot com
--- Comment #1 from Antoine Balestrat antoine.balestrat at gmail dot com
2012-12-31 12:42:21 UTC ---
I was not able to reproduce the bug with this testcase (using GCC 4.8.0 as of
20121231), but this one looks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48443
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2012-12-31 13:01:37
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I was not able to reproduce the bug with this testcase (using GCC 4.8.0 as of
20121231), but this one looks to trigger the same
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: antoine.balest...@gmail.com
Hello ! The following testcase makes GCC as of 20121231 ICE with -O
-fstrict-overflow -ftree-vectorize.
$ cat flow.c
int g;
void f(void)
{
short a, b, i
as
of
20121231), but this one looks to trigger the same ICE on current trunk.
I would recommend you opening a new bug report for that ICE.
Done. Filed as PR55831.
a
new bug report and sorry if this is a dup :-)
I'm using GCC 4.8.0 as of 20121231.
$ cat fold.c
int g, b;
void f(void)
{
int a = 0;
unsigned char c;
unsigned short d = 0, *p = a;
if(g)
a--;
if(b a (d = 1))
for(;; a++);
for(; a 15; a++)
b |= d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55831
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: antoine.balest...@gmail.com
Using GCC 4.8.0 as of 20121231 :
$ cat bb.c
int a, b, c;
void foo()
{
unsigned d, l, *p, k = 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55808
--- Comment #3 from Patrick mister.freeman at laposte dot net 2012-12-31
15:06:03 UTC ---
the options for compiling mame are :
make NOWERROR=1 OPTIMIZE=2 PYTHON=python2
but I did also a test with no options ( by typing make ), each
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55831
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55831
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-31
15:24:29 UTC ---
Though, with (a = a + 1) instead of a++ it started ICEing with
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167378
or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55834
Bug #: 55834
Summary: Undefined reference to static template member using
lambda to function pointer conversion.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55784
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55787
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tasin at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55790
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-31
16:15:11 UTC ---
I've seen this as well at some point - make sure your tree is clean, there
seem to be missing dependencies.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55796
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55814
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-31
16:25:41 UTC ---
We do not sink loads aggressively.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55819
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-31
16:27:01 UTC ---
This means a configure test was not detecting presence of getcwd correctly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55832
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55833
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.5.4,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55787
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-31
16:50:21 UTC ---
If only ...
cc1plus: sorry, unimplemented: -fexcess-precision=standard for C++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55819
--- Comment #2 from lailavrazda1979 at gmail dot com 2012-12-31 19:42:19 UTC ---
I know it works with 4.7.2, and I think 4.7.3 as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55808
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-31
21:11:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
the options for compiling mame are :
make NOWERROR=1 OPTIMIZE=2 PYTHON=python2
I mean which are used to invoke gcc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55832
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55832
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55835
Bug #: 55835
Summary: [TileGX] libgcc doesn't build.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55836
Bug #: 55836
Summary: Weffc++: warning: base class 'class std::listint,
std::allocatorint ' has a non-virtual destructor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55837
Bug #: 55837
Summary: -Weffc++: warning: 'xxx:yyy' should be initialized in
the member initialization list
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55831
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-31
23:50:06 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 31 23:50:00 2012
New Revision: 194764
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194764
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55836
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-01
00:09:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
Created attachment 29066 [details]
Self-contained source file
When using -Weffc++ with this code
class Foo :
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55837
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-Weffc++: warning: |[C++11]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55837
--- Comment #2 from Lars Hamrén hamren at sdu dot se 2013-01-01 00:21:56 UTC
---
I do realize that this is a clash between an old-ish rule and the new C++11
syntax.
However, the spirit of the underlying rule (which I assume is that all members
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55836
--- Comment #2 from Lars Hamrén hamren at sdu dot se 2013-01-01 00:38:27 UTC
---
Why not just not use -Weffc++ for STL.
I can turn it off locally using a pragma, but that is rather ugly.
I like to have as many warning flags turned on as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55836
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-01
01:30:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
When using -Weffc++ with this code
class Foo : public std::listint { };
the compiler warns that the base class
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55837
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-01
02:48:27 UTC ---
This warning also complains if you don't have a mem-initializer for a type such
as std::string, which has a perfectly safe default constructor i.e. the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55832
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-01 03:15:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
0x6fa26f fold_binary_loc(unsigned int, tree_code, tree_node*, tree_node*,
tree_node*)
../../gcc/fold-const.c:13522
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55808
--- Comment #5 from Patrick mister.freeman at laposte dot net 2013-01-01
04:41:07 UTC ---
here are the options :
gcc -DCRLF=2 -DINLINE=static inline -DLSB_FIRST -DNDEBUG -DFLAC__NO_DLL
-DSDLMAME_SDL2=0 -D_LFS64_LARGEFILE=0 -DDISTRO=generic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27855
--- Comment #43 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-01
05:25:15 UTC ---
Bug 50557 looks like the same issue or at least a related one and it is
mentioned that LRA fixes the register allocation issue. So yes it would be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50557
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regression]|[4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53895
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
56 matches
Mail list logo
