http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58523
Bug ID: 58523
Summary: ARM and AArch64: -fsection-anchors doesn't seem to
work
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58523
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
It is due to them being common symbols which are never section anchored due
to they might be in another TU.
Use -fno-common or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58523
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58523
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
With -fno-common,
arm LE produces:
movwr3, #:lower16:.LANCHOR0
movtr3, #:upper16:.LANCHOR0
ldmiar3, {r0, r3}
addr0, r0, r3
bxlr
AARCH64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58524
Bug ID: 58524
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE mem_ref_in_stmt, at
tree-ssa-loop-im.c:677
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58524
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58521
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58523
Brian Grayson b.grayson at samsung dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58521
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
As remarked in PR58524: For me, it failed with MALLOC_PERTURB_ set and didn't
without, which implies that some uninitialized memory is used.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58525
Bug ID: 58525
Summary: __cxa_throw_bad_array_new_length is generated with
-fno-exceptions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58525
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30891
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30891action=edit
Proposed untested fix
Proposed untested fix is attached
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58516
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Sep 25 07:48:47 2013
New Revision: 202883
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202883root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/58516
cp/
* semantics.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58521
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58516
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58521
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
spawn /usr/local/gcc/gcc-20130925/Build/./gcc/xg++ -shared-libgcc
-B/usr/local/gcc/gcc-20130925/Build/./gcc -nostdinc++
-L/usr/local/gcc/gcc-20130925/Build/ia64-suse-linux/libstdc++-v3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58516
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58521
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Btw, the ICE hints at iterative_hash_expr and operand_equal_p being out-of-sync
after the change. Yep:
/* The type of the second operand is relevant, except for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58526
Bug ID: 58526
Summary: Inlining looses restrict qualifier and leads to loop
versioned vectorization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
On 09/24/2013 05:53 PM, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58490
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can you let me know whether
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-03/msg00553.html
fixes the problem?
This
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58413
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Sep 25 08:58:57 2013
New Revision: 202886
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202886root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/58413
c-family/
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58413
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58420
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Sep 25 09:04:20 2013
New Revision: 202887
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202887root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/58420
* ubsan.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58420
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58510
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58510
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
At first blush this seems to fix it:
--- a/gcc/cp/init.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/init.c
@@ -980,9 +980,12 @@ sort_mem_initializers (tree t, tree mem_inits)
else if (TREE_VALUE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58521
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 25 09:51:13 2013
New Revision: 202889
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202889root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-09-25 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58521
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58513
Bug 58513 depends on bug 58521, which changed state.
Bug 58521 Summary: [4.9 Regression] bootstrap failure: ICE in mem_ref_in_stmt,
at tree-ssa-loop-im.c:677
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58521
What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58526
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50584
--- Comment #4 from Malcolm Inglis me at minglis dot id.au ---
I don't have a copy of the C99 standard, but IBM says [1] that if the function
is called with a pointer to a smaller array than specified with `static`, then
the behavior is undefined.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58527
Bug ID: 58527
Summary: Failures when a function parameter pack is not final
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58528
Bug ID: 58528
Summary: lto1: internal compiler error: in build_abbrev_table,
at dwarf2out.c:7478
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58527
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The parameter pack can only be deduced if it is in last position (that's an
arbitrary restriction, but it is in C++11). However, you can still do:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58527
--- Comment #2 from Nick Maclaren nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk ---
Thanks. I can't use your fix, because I am trying to write a generic
multi-dimensional array class for possible inclusion in the standard,
and demanding such usages from end users is Not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58527
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Nick Maclaren from comment #2)
I would be interested in a reference to the wording in the standard,
if you know it offhand. I failed to find it.
[temp.deduct.call]
For
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58528
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Please try to reduce the testcase, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/A_guide_to_testcase_reduction
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57916
Chris Jefferson chris at bubblescope dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chris at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58529
Bug ID: 58529
Summary: Loop 30% faster with Intel than with GCC
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58529
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30894
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30894action=edit
Main file (calls test file in a loop)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58529
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30895
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30895action=edit
Assembler generated by Intel's icpc for test.cc
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Created attachment 30896
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30896action=edit
gzipped C++ source code
I just tried to compile package activemq-cpp-3.7.1-1 with gcc 4.9 trunk
dated 20130925. It said
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58529
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Does it help if you pass the_bins_size as int*restrict (and adapt the uses)? Or
use a local variable instead that you write at the end? Gcc has a notoriously
restricted view of what
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58530
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58530
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
--- Comment #16 from Rick Regan exploringbinary at gmail dot com ---
I can no longer find any conversions that gcc (I'm using 4.6.3) performs
incorrectly, including the examples cited above. It doesn't look like there has
been any related code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58529
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #3)
Does it help if you pass the_bins_size as int*restrict (and adapt the uses)?
Or use a local variable instead that you write at the end?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
--- Comment #17 from Vincent Lefèvre vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net ---
I confirm that it is an architecture-dependent bug. I can't reproduce any error
with your test program on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58531
Bug ID: 58531
Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] Strange array element ordering
with O1 flag
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58531
--- Comment #1 from Guillaume guillaume at eulerian dot com ---
Created attachment 30897
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30897action=edit
test.c / Makefile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58531
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=58531
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58531
--- Comment #4 from Guillaume guillaume at eulerian dot com ---
Ok i understand.
I took a sad brain shortcut assuming a single block declaration was generating
an (only possible) increasing address for each compound.
This was working on all
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58529
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I actually see gcc 4 times (not just 30%) slower than icpc here using the same
command lines. The asm produced by gcc contains tons of mov insn.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
--- Comment #18 from Rick Regan exploringbinary at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #17)
I confirm that it is an architecture-dependent bug. I can't reproduce any
error with your test program on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58528
--- Comment #2 from Charles charles.frasch at gmail dot com ---
Hi,
I think I got this right. Found a file in /tmp that had stuff like this:
CMakeFiles/Fix_Engine_Detail_ut.dir/Message_Index_ut.cpp.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58530
Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus
: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
I just tried to bootstrap gcc 4.9 trunk dated
20130925 on an AMD Phenom with BOOT_CFLAGS=-g -O3.
It failed, but on checking the difference between
-O2 and -O3, I got the following setting
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58529
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Please ignore my last comment, I now see the same 30% difference, the rest must
have been a user error on my part.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58469
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Sep 25 19:54:12 2013
New Revision: 202922
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202922root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-09-25 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57697
--- Comment #15 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Sep 25 19:54:12 2013
New Revision: 202922
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202922root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-09-25 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58436
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Sep 25 19:56:20 2013
New Revision: 202923
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202923root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-09-25 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58436
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58529
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
Can you add -funroll-loops --param max-unroll-times=7?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58461
--- Comment #3 from Matthew Fortune matthew.fortune at imgtec dot com ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #2)
I think it'd be wrong for the backend to say that moves between
MIPS16 registers and other general registers are more
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58338
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: glisse
Date: Wed Sep 25 20:28:12 2013
New Revision: 202924
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202924root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-09-25 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58533
Bug ID: 58533
Summary: [c++1y] ICE with auto in function pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58534
Bug ID: 58534
Summary: [c++1y] ICE with auto in template function parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58535
Bug ID: 58535
Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE with virtual template
function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58536
Bug ID: 58536
Summary: [c++1y] ICE with auto in constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
/craig/new-gcc/i-4.8
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.2 20130925 (prerelease) (GCC)
I get similar results with this version:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/home/craig/new-gcc/i-trunk/bin/g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/craig/new-gcc/i-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.9.0/lto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58538
Bug ID: 58538
Summary: Injected class-name treated as type-name instead of
template-name when used as a template-argument for a
template template-parameter
Product: gcc
/configure
--enable-languages=c,c++,objc,obj-c++,fortran,lto --enable-checking=release
--with-gmp=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --with-mpfr=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--with-mpc=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --with-cloog=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130925 (experimental
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
john.harper at vuw dot ac.nz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||john.harper at vuw dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58513
--- Comment #3 from congh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: congh
Date: Thu Sep 26 01:36:49 2013
New Revision: 202932
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202932root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-09-24 Cong Hou co...@google.com
Backport from mainline:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58521
--- Comment #9 from congh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: congh
Date: Thu Sep 26 01:36:49 2013
New Revision: 202932
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202932root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-09-24 Cong Hou co...@google.com
Backport from mainline:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53001
Joshua Cogliati jjcogliati-r1 at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30873|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #14 from Bill Long longb at cray dot com ---
Just a note that I'm now using
$ gf --version
GNU Fortran (MacPorts gcc49 4.9-20130609_0) 4.9.0 20130609 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
and the original
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58540
Bug ID: 58540
Summary: Incorrect warning message for '*=' statement and
different results based on optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58539
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58540
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58541
Bug ID: 58541
Summary: [c++11] Bogus error: redeclaration ... differs in
‘constexpr’
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #15 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bill Long from comment #14)
Just a note that I'm now using
GNU Fortran (MacPorts gcc49 4.9-20130609_0) 4.9.0 20130609 (experimental)
and the original test case works
82 matches
Mail list logo
