http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
--- Comment #28 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch ---
updated to the new revision
gcc version 4.9.0 20131007 (experimental) [gomp-4_0-branch revision 203250]
(GCC)
[innocent@olsnba04 parallel]$ setenv OMP_PROC_BIND
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58630
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=58641
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=58570
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #5)
I think we just want to copy the following from
nonoverlapping_component_refs_p:
/* If we're left with accessing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
--- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30967
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30967action=edit
Y
Ah, thanks, I can see where the failing sched_getaffinity calls are coming
from,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58642
--- Comment #30 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch ---
better: as usual nastier bugs are in the tests!
[innocent@olsnba04 parallel]$ strace ./affinity-1.exe | grep affin
execve(./affinity-1.exe, [./affinity-1.exe], [/* 61
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58662
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=58423
--- Comment #2 from xuepeng guo xguo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: xguo
Date: Tue Oct 8 07:58:08 2013
New Revision: 203267
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203267root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-10-08 Zhenqiang Chen zhenqiang.c...@linaro.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
What if both bit fields have different DECL_BIT_FIELD_REPRESENTATIVE?
Then they can't possibly overlap?
Probably, yes, that could be a nice enhancement.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58662
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58619
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ramana
Date: Tue Oct 8 08:34:28 2013
New Revision: 203269
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203269root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/58619
2013-10-08
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58660
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Please post patches to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org and x-ref this PR.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58661
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=54300
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58645
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54300
--- Comment #11 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #10)
and regcprop substitues d19 for d18 in insn 27, missing the fact that insn
73 is swapping the two values (thus clobbering the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58480
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: glisse
Date: Tue Oct 8 10:39:49 2013
New Revision: 203271
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203271root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-10-08 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58480
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58483
Bug 58483 depends on bug 58480, which changed state.
Bug 58480 Summary: Use attribute((nonnull)) to optimize callers
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58480
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54300
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm, interesting. Perhaps single_set should not do this if the dead set
clobbers an input.
Yes, that seems to be a sensible proposal, but single_set is an old thing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58662
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Actually, I think it's the uncprop:
--- Q.c.139t.crited22013-10-08 13:03:04.169955615 +0200
+++ Q.c.141t.uncprop12013-10-08 13:03:04.169955615 +0200
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58659
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Oct 8 12:33:37 2013
New Revision: 203274
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203274root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/58659
*
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.9.0 20131008 (experimental)
15b4: Abbrev Number: 5 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
5b5 DW_AT_name
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42118
Lionel GUEZ ebay.20.tedlap at spamgourmet dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58659
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Oct 8 13:38:21 2013
New Revision: 203277
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203277root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/58659
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58659
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57850
--- Comment #12 from Dima dmitrij.ledkov at ubuntu dot com ---
Is this going to be applied for 4.9 4.8 series?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58663
--- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com ---
#include stdlib.h
int main(void) {
char *p=malloc(1);
p[1]=1;
return 0;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58542
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
The problem actually starts in expand_atomic_compare_and_swap, in:
(gdb) list
7339 create_convert_operand_to (ops[3], expected, mode, true);
7340
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58619
--- Comment #5 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dehao
Date: Tue Oct 8 16:22:57 2013
New Revision: 203284
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203284root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport r203269.
PR tree-optimization/58619
2013-10-08 Dehao
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42118
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42118
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #7)
By the way, the Fortran committee is considering to deprecate FORALL in the
next standard (Fortran 2015) because it considers FORALL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58619
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
Eric,
there is one more thing to consider for your proposed patch,
that is the damned -fstrict-volatile-bitfields:
if strict_volatile_bitfields0 and the BIT_FIELD access
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58633
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
there is one more thing to consider for your proposed patch,
that is the damned -fstrict-volatile-bitfields:
if strict_volatile_bitfields0 and the BIT_FIELD access
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
--- Comment #11 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #10)
there is one more thing to consider for your proposed patch,
that is the damned -fstrict-volatile-bitfields:
if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58542
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58542
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression]|[4.7/4.8/4.9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58542
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
No. You only assume an alias if _both_ fields are bit fields.
But in my example only one a is a volatile bit field the other
is a normal member b.
Then they won't be affected
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58664
Bug ID: 58664
Summary: [c++11] ICE initializing array of incomplete type
within union
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58664
Volker Reichelt reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58665
Bug ID: 58665
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE with using incomplete struct
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58665
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58665
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Oct 8 21:54:06 2013
New Revision: 203288
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203288root=gccview=rev
Log:
/cp
2013-10-08 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58448
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Oct 8 21:54:06 2013
New Revision: 203288
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203288root=gccview=rev
Log:
/cp
2013-10-08 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58665
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58448
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58568
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Oct 8 21:58:58 2013
New Revision: 203289
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203289root=gccview=rev
Log:
/cp
2013-10-08 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58568
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Oct 8 22:29:49 2013
New Revision: 203290
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203290root=gccview=rev
Log:
/cp
2013-10-08 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 58568, which changed state.
Bug 58568 Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] [c++11] ICE with lambda in invalid
template variable definition
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58568
What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58568
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
54 matches
Mail list logo
