Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
I just ran the static analysis tool cppcheck over
the trunk source code dated 20130623.
It said
[trunk/gcc/cp/cp-array-notation.c:471] -
[trunk/gcc/cp/cp-array-notation.c:473]: (warning) Variable 'init
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57682
Bug ID: 57682
Summary: Uniform initialization syntax rejected in
function-try-block
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57653
--- Comment #8 from Allan McRae allan at archlinux dot org ---
I really have no idea what I am looking for... but adding a breakpoint at
linemap_add I see (reason, file):
LC_ENTER foo.c
LC_RENAME command-line
LC_ENTER /usr/include/stdc-predef.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52483
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Loads from volatile mems have been fixed on 4.9 trunk.
While working on it I noticed that stores to volatile mems have basically the
same issue. I'll try to come up with a fix for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57682
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57683
Bug ID: 57683
Summary: Parallel build failure: generated prerequisite header
not built in time (insn-opinit.h)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57683
Nicolas Hannekum nix at binaryboy dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nix at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57682
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Something is already going wrong as early as
cp_parser_save_member_function_body: at line #22818 the whole
function-try-block is not properly handled in case of uniform
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
--- Comment #18 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #17)
(In reply to Daniel Marjamäki from comment #7)
In my experience this type of check is really noisy if there is a warning
for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57653
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57653
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57684
Bug ID: 57684
Summary: [c++11] Lambda is not convertible to std::function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52413
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57653
--- Comment #11 from Allan McRae allan at archlinux dot org ---
Created attachment 30345
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30345action=edit
log of gdb session
Here is the log from my gdb session.
Arch builds with no patches,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57684
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think the problem is that unordered_map requires its template arguments to be
complete at the time of instantiation, otherwise it's undefined behaviour.
When the static member is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57684
--- Comment #2 from Francesco Biscani bluescarni at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
I think the problem is that unordered_map requires its template arguments to
be complete at the time of instantiation, otherwise
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57208
--- Comment #25 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
Updated patch.
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
Chung-Ju Wu jasonwucj at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jasonwucj at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57684
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, because std::unique_ptr has a special exception that says it can be
instantiated with incomplete types, so that should work OK (like your case
where the static member is a raw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52413
--- Comment #6 from Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The current patch is also lacking handling of the sign if signed zero is used.
This should do the trick:
if (mpfr_sgn (x-value.real) == 0)
{
- mpfr_set_ui
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52413
--- Comment #7 from Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I forgot in the last comment to say: handling of sign for non-zero cases, in
old MPFR versions, is done by this line which was missing in the existing code:
+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57684
--- Comment #4 from Francesco Biscani bluescarni at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
Yes, because std::unique_ptr has a special exception that says it can be
instantiated with incomplete types, so that should work
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50550
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57684
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The standard says it is undefined to instantiate any std template with
incomplete types (with exceptions for shared_ptr and unique_ptr and maybe a few
others). As an extension
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52413
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Before going to the machinery in comment #6, the following patch (i.e., without
any mpfr_copysign)
--- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/simplify.c2013-06-08 21:50:33.0 +0200
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54012
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57682
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57653
--- Comment #12 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Allan McRae from comment #11)
Created attachment 30345 [details]
log of gdb session
Here is the log from my gdb session.
Arch builds with no patches, just a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57653
--- Comment #13 from Allan McRae allan at archlinux dot org ---
The Arch gcc does the full bootstrap. The debug build I am using was compiled
with DEBUG_CFLAGS=-g -fvar-tracking-assignments.
The file /usr/include/stdc-predef.h is from glibc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46299
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46271
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52413
--- Comment #9 from Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Before going to the machinery in comment #6, the following patch (i.e.,
without any mpfr_copysign)
Yep, you're right, no need for mpfr_copysign. Your patch looks good,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46485
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: antoine.balestrat at gmail dot com
Hello !
Using GCC 4.9.0 as of 20130623 :
$ cat inf.c
unsigned f(void)
{
unsigned a;
int b, c, d, e;
for(c = 27; c 40; c++)
b |= d |= b;
if(b)
a = e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46982
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41604
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39423
--- Comment #36 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is annoying:
int
foo (int tab[], int index)
{
return tab[index+1] + tab[index+2];
}
-O2 -m4 -mb:
add #1,r5
mov r4,r1
shll2 r5
add
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57685
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50550
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #3)
Here is a simple patch to accept the code in comment 0:
... which unfortunately introduces a large amount of ICEs in the testsuite,
e.g. on bounds_check_7.f90:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52413
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Here is the patch I plan to package and submit:
--- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/simplify.c2013-06-08 21:50:33.0 +0200
+++ gcc/fortran/simplify.c2013-06-23
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52413
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Last question: should I include some tests for the other available kinds?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52413
--- Comment #12 from Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #10)
+ y=fraction (-2.0)
+ write (buf, *) y
+ if (buf(1:10) /= -0.50) call abort ()
Why involve I/O in your
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57686
Bug ID: 57686
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr57584.c with -m32
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57687
Bug ID: 57687
Summary: FAIL: c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/comma_exp.c on
x86_64-apple-darwin10
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52413
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Why involve I/O in your test, and not just test the value like that:
if (fraction(-2.0) /= -0.5) call abort()
and, slightly more complicated to handle negative zero,
: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Created attachment 30347
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30347action=edit
C++ source code
I just noticed that -march=native support broke from
date 20130621 to 20130623 for AMD
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57688
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
Run it in gdb, wait for the fault, and disassemble the code around the faulting
PC. That valgrind report doesn't really say anything useful.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57688
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57687
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
On x86_64-linux, c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/gather_scatter.c fails, not sure if
it's a related issue or I should open a Bugzilla. See also gcc-testresults.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57688
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=42945
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57687
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
On x86_64-linux, c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/gather_scatter.c fails,
not sure if it's a related issue or I should open a Bugzilla.
See also gcc-testresults.
AFAICT the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57688
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #1)
Run it in gdb, wait for the fault, and disassemble the code around the
faulting PC. That valgrind report doesn't really say
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57688
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can you provide the full output of cat /proc/cpuinfo and not just the head?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57688
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30348
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30348action=edit
preprocessed C++ source code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57685
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
Started with the PR55079 fix in r193098.
The test case uses the values of uninitialized auto variables, perhaps that's
confusing the compiler.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57688
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
Can you provide the full output of cat /proc/cpuinfo and not just the head?
processor: 0
vendor_id: AuthenticAMD
cpu family
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57688
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
Also, for any bugreport with -march=native or -mtune=native you need to
specify what options have been passed to cc1plus/cc1 (add -v),
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57688
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57689
Bug ID: 57689
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE (segfault) building libgo on
ia64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57688
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57690
Bug ID: 57690
Summary: bextr sometimes used instead of shr
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
Bug ID: 57691
Summary: freestanding libstdc++ has compile error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213
Shane w.shane.grant at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||w.shane.grant at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57639
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #3)
The following patch fixes both variants:
... and regtests cleanly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57692
Bug ID: 57692
Summary: FAIL: c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/gather_scatter.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57687
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
aehmm sorry, the object g from above code is actually from PR#48784
#pragma pack(1)
volatile struct S0 {
signed a : 7;
unsigned b : 28;
} g = {0,-1};
= sizeof(g) = 5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213
--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
But this example works in mainline (would be 4.9.0) and I don't think it's a
regression.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46982
Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46982
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
... So I think that the code in comment #0 is not legal.
Then, should not this PR closed as INVALID?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #8 from Sandra Loosemore sandra at codesourcery dot com ---
Thanks for giving it a try. Do you think that in a case such as this where a
single access of the appropriate size cannot be generated due to the struct
having unaligned
74 matches
Mail list logo
