http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59204
Bug ID: 59204
Summary: Incorrect metaprogram evaluation in SFINAE context
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59203
Bug ID: 59203
Summary: config/cris/cris.c:2491: possible typo ?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59205
Bug ID: 59205
Summary: config/iq2000/iq2000.c:2188: possible cut'n'paste
error ?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59206
Bug ID: 59206
Summary: [4.9 regression] many bootstrap comparison failures on
armv5tel-linux-gnueabi
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59207
Bug ID: 59207
Summary: config/sparc/sparc.c:10663: possible uninit local
variable ?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59006
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, congh at google dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59006
Cong Hou congh at google dot com changed:
What
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59135
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com ---
The problem seems to exist in gcc 4.7.3 and within the recent 4.9.0 trunk. The
following variant of the code removes unnecessary library dependencies and
constexpr (which
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Created attachment 31256
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31256action=edit
gzipped C++ source code
The source code from bug # 45875, when compiled with today's trunk
of 20131120, says
bug1.cc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59144
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59208
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=59165
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59204
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59209
Bug ID: 59209
Summary: builtin memcpy in inlined function is not optimized
away if count is derived from src pointer difference
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59035
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Nov 20 10:31:24 2013
New Revision: 205096
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205096root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-11-20 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59035
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59209
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In test_copy2, we get:
_2 = x_1(D) + 1;
src_end.1_8 = (long int) _2;
src_start.2_9 = (long int) x_1(D);
_10 = src_end.1_8 - src_start.2_9;
_11 = (long unsigned int) _10;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59209
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58742
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59208
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59206
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59201
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59199
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59197
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=59142
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=59208
Markus Trippelsdorf octoploid at yandex dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59142
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58742
--- Comment #14 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So we don't forget it, PR 59209 asks to simplify:
(ptr+size)-ptr to size
not just:
ptr1+(ptr2-ptr1) to ptr2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59206
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59142
--- Comment #7 from Charles Baylis charles.baylis at linaro dot org ---
Comparing reduced.cpp.153r.cse1 in r172837 and the previous commit.
--- reduced.cpp.153r.cse1 from gcc trunk r172835 [works]
(insn 18 17 19 2 (parallel [
(set
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59058
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think the issue is
(set_nb_iterations_in_loop = ~(unsigned short) pretmp_22))
t.c:12:6: note: == get_loop_niters:-(unsigned short) pretmp_22
that is,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57756
--- Comment #10 from Kirill Yukhin kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Wed Nov 20 11:59:05 2013
New Revision: 205104
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205104root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/57756
* config/i386/i386.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58028
Graham Markall graham at opengamma dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||graham at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59058
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Unfortunately
@@ -2930,11 +2931,31 @@ number_of_exit_cond_executions (struct l
if (chrec_contains_undetermined (ret))
return ret;
- ret = chrec_fold_plus (type, ret,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59210
Bug ID: 59210
Summary: decltype incorrectly accepted as non-first element of
nested-name-specifier
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59058
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I improve this with also using max_stmt_executions I at least get no
vect.exp fail but the testcase in this PR is not vectorized when using
a size_t b.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58314
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58314
--- Comment #6 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31257
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31257action=edit
test case
cc1 -O2 consolemap.c -quiet
drivers/char/consolemap.c:654:647: error: 'asm' operand requires
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59206
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson mikpelinux at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #1)
Can you try it again at SVN revision r205061.
Retrying at that rev ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59058
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Still FAILs to vectorize gcc.dg/vect/pr18425.c with -m32. But we have here
= get_loop_niters:(unsigned long) (__n_7(D) + 4294967295) + 1
that could have been simplified. __n is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59210
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59211
Bug ID: 59211
Summary: init_priority doesn't work with constant expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58314
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to chrbr from comment #5)
Linux kernel build fails since 4.8
cc1 -O2 consolemap.c
drivers/char/consolemap.c:654:647: error: 'asm' operand requires impossible
reload
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59212
Bug ID: 59212
Summary: [4.9 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/plugin/selfassign.c
compilation
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59213
Bug ID: 59213
Summary: Implicit move constructor created when base class has
no move constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59211
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Similar to PR 53017 (does the same +0 workaround work?). The main difference
with constructor seems to be a call to default_conversion.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59173
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Nov 20 13:39:33 2013
New Revision: 205114
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205114root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/59173
* include/ext/pointer.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59173
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59194
--- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
---
actually it seems more general an issue, the following:
SUBROUTINE S1(m)
REAL :: m
!$OMP ATOMIC
m=m+1.0
END
REAL :: m
m=0.0
!$OMP PARALLEL
CALL S1(m)
!$OMP
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54954
--- Comment #7 from swalter at lexmark dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
The header file malloc.h (which is non-standard by the way) has the
attribute malloc on the malloc function call.
So this is invalid.
Sorry, can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59213
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think G++ is implementing the resolution of
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1402
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59212
--- Comment #1 from Diego Novillo dnovillo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dnovillo
Date: Wed Nov 20 13:48:40 2013
New Revision: 205115
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205115root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR 59212
* g++.dg/plugin/selfassign.c:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59213
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bruce Merry from comment #0)
assuming I've correctly interpreted the C++11 spec [the draft - N3242].
That's a pretty old draft now, you'd be better looking at a current
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59212
Diego Novillo dnovillo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59058
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31259
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31259action=edit
candidate patch
Candidate patch.
But I think it's better to remove this functions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59194
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Because CPUs obviously don't have floating point atomic instructions, what the
compiler does is just load it as an integer, view convert to floating point,
perform arithmetics, view
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54300
--- Comment #13 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Wed Nov 20 13:55:04 2013
New Revision: 205117
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205117root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/54300
gcc/
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59213
Bruce Merry bmerry at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59214
Bug ID: 59214
Summary: [4.9 Regression] Many plugin test failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59214
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=59212
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
--- Comment #21 from Joseph S. Myers jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Wed Nov 20 14:34:49 2013
New Revision: 205119
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205119root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/21718
* real.c: Remove
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16989
Bug 16989 depends on bug 21718, which changed state.
Bug 21718 Summary: real.c rounding not perfect
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
Joseph S. Myers jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
--- Comment #23 from Joseph S. Myers jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 55145 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55145
Joseph S. Myers jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59198
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55145
Bug 55145 depends on bug 21718, which changed state.
Bug 21718 Summary: real.c rounding not perfect
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59208
David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
--- Comment #24 from Rick Regan exploringbinary at gmail dot com ---
I don't understand -- won't mpfr_init2 (m, SIGNIFICAND_BITS); have the same
problem? Don't we need to change the computation of SIGNIFICAND_BITS in real.h?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58314
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31260
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31260action=edit
reduced test case
(In reply to chrbr from comment #6)
Created attachment 31257 [details]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59198
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #1)
However, I can not reproduce the ICE with
4.6.4:
Neither with the original test case in comment 0, nor with the reduced version
in comment 1!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59211
--- Comment #2 from Nadav Har'El nyh at math dot technion.ac.il ---
Amazing, this workaround indeed works :-) Thanks!
With the constexpr prio, indeed using prio+0 solved the problem.
For the enum class, prio::second, I can't use addition
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59153
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Nov 20 16:01:46 2013
New Revision: 205122
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205122root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2013-11-18 Uros Bizjak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59153
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
--- Comment #25 from Joseph S. Myers jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Rounding to zero and setting a sticky bit based on inexactness works as long as
the internal precision has at least two more bits than the final precision for
which correctly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
Bug ID: 59215
Summary: tsan: warning in shared_ptr_base.h
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59207
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #1 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This reminds me http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=17066
Do you have this problem with clang's tsan?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59216
--- Comment #1 from christophe.lyon at st dot com ---
Created attachment 31261
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31261action=edit
negsidi_test.c
testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59216
Bug ID: 59216
Summary: [ARM] negdi*extendsidi regression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59207
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Smolsky oleg at smolsky dot net ---
Unfortunately, I cannot repro with Clang (we use gcc48 with sysroot, and
I failed to get Clang to latch onto that STL. It only discovers the
system's STL)
I can try to come up with a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59207
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Nov 20 17:02:36 2013
New Revision: 205127
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205127root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/59207
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59207
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Nov 20 17:03:15 2013
New Revision: 205128
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205128root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/59207
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #3 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I can try to come up with a minimal test case... Yet, I cannot imagine
that the following would ever work with TSan:
typedef int _Atomic_word;
It does not matter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59216
--- Comment #2 from christophe.lyon at st dot com ---
Basically, the working code does:
asrsr3, r2, #31
negsr2, r2
sbc.w r3, r3, r3, lsl #1
while the failing one does:
negsr2, r2
asrsr3, r2, #31
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59207
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59216
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59194
--- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
I bet tsan complains because the load is
not atomic, but does it really matter?
I think there are (at least) two
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59194
--- Comment #6 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
I bet tsan complains because the load is
not atomic, but does it really matter? If we read garbage there, compare
and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Smolsky from comment #0)
in ...gcc/include/c++/4.8.x-google/x86_64-unknown-linux/bits/atomic_word.h
typedef int _Atomic_word;
Should this be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59217
Bug ID: 59217
Summary: GCC fails to cross-build: conflicting declarations of
'basename', 'sbrk', etc.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59194
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
And the problem with that is? Because the arithmetics is based on the value
we've read, it shouldn't be a problem.
That said, during stage3 I'll look at how costly would be to use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I realise that, but the general point is still valid: for race detectors to
understand the atomic updates in the library they library needs to be compiled
with the race detector
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
tsan as well, but the point is till ...
s/till/still/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54954
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to swalter from comment #7)
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
The header file malloc.h (which is non-standard by the way) has the
attribute malloc on the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #8 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
I realise that, but the general point is still valid: for race detectors to
understand the atomic updates in the library they library
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59194
--- Comment #8 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
And the problem with that is? Because the arithmetics is based on the value
we've read, it shouldn't be a problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Smolsky oleg at smolsky dot net ---
So, let me see if I understand. The case in question is _M_add_ref_lock() :
template
inline void
_Sp_counted_base_S_atomic::
_M_add_ref_lock()
{
// Perform
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #5 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
But only if you re-compile stdlibc++ with tsan,
It's libstdc++ not stdlibc++, I don't know why everyone gets that wrong :-)
Sorry (I usually get it right) :)
Anyway, this
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
