http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54133
Bug #: 54133
Summary: regrename introduces additional dependencies
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49437
--- Comment #5 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-07-31
01:05:18 UTC ---
Fixed only in 4.7.0
Ramana
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49169
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51662
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2012-07-31
00:58:50 UTC ---
Created attachment 27902
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27902
Fix?
Does this fix the bug? The call to instantiate_decl was removed for 4.7, so
this issue should
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48803
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.2, 4.7.0
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51631
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53664
--- Comment #7 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-07-31
00:04:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Thanks for looking, Ramana. I noticed in my investigation that the search
> string needs to be different for scan-assembler-times than for scan-assem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53664
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-07-31
00:00:36 UTC ---
Created attachment 27901
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27901
Tentative patch.
Tentative patch - has a few unneeded whitespace changes but probably fixes t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27100
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-30
23:48:39 UTC ---
It's not clear to me how instantiate_pending_templates protects its
instantiations from GGC.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27100
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|2006-09-03 21:39
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14563
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54131
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51662
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25266
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52983
Gary Funck changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gary at intrepid dot com
--- Comment #11 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54132
Bug #: 54132
Summary: Incorrect loop transformation with
-ftree-loop-distribute-patterns
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54131
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Component|rtl-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54131
Bug #: 54131
Summary: ICE building 416.gamess, reload_cse_simplify_operands
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54129
--- Comment #6 from blucia at gmail dot com 2012-07-30 21:00:56 UTC ---
Thanks for pointing out where that code is.
I still think this is weird (i.e., possibly a bug) for two reasons:
1)Differs from Linux behavior. I'm sure lots of things differ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54120
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54129
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2012-07-30
20:50:21 UTC ---
>Where is the code in the destructor for the __thread variables?
in libgcc/emutls.c .
The code is:
static void
emutls_destroy (void *ptr)
{
struct __emutls_array *arr = ptr;
poi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54130
Bug #: 54130
Summary: Recognize builtins with bool return type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54129
--- Comment #4 from blucia at gmail dot com 2012-07-30 20:40:31 UTC ---
I don't really see your point. Where is the code in the destructor for the
__thread variables? For the pthread_key_create vars, I wrote down what I want
to do to the data, an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54129
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2012-07-30
20:29:05 UTC ---
> In my program, only one destructor function exists.
Yes in your source only has one but the code really there is two. One for the
__thread implementation and one you have in your
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54129
--- Comment #2 from blucia at gmail dot com 2012-07-30 20:25:52 UTC ---
The man page for pthread_key_create says:
"An optional destructor function may be associated with each key value. ...
The order of destructor calls is unspecified if more th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51081
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54129
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Summary|__thread va
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51081
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-30 19:55:45 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon Jul 30 19:55:41 2012
New Revision: 189985
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189985
Log:
2012-07-30 Janus Weil
PR fortran/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54129
Bug #: 54129
Summary: __thread variables and pthread_*specific data
destroyed in different order on Darwin than Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53664
--- Comment #5 from Janis Johnson 2012-07-30
18:34:50 UTC ---
Thanks for looking, Ramana. I noticed in my investigation that the search
string needs to be different for scan-assembler-times than for scan-assembler,
since the regular expression h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53664
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-07-30
18:30:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Tests gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/neon/v*.c are generated by the script
> gcc/config/arm/neon-testgen.ml. 54 of these tests have duplicate
> scan-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #31 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-07-30 16:26:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #30)
> Created attachment 27898 [details]
> Hack to avoid quadratic loops
>
> This makes use of the assumption that this_obj and its comparison companion
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
Bug #: 54128
Summary: GCC does not bootstrap on little endian mips due to
mis-compare on tree-data-ref.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #30 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-30
16:15:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 27898
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27898
Hack to avoid quadratic loops
This makes use of the assumption that this_obj and its comparison c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
--- Comment #8 from John David Anglin 2012-07-30
15:46:13 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Jul 30 15:46:08 2012
New Revision: 189980
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189980
Log:
PR middle-end/53823
* expmed.c (expan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #29 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-30
15:04:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 27897
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27897
Unswitched gtype-desc.c at r189965
Manually "unswitching" gt_pch_p_9line_maps gives me acceptable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54126
--- Comment #3 from Ilya Mikhaltsou 2012-07-30
14:56:31 UTC ---
Reduced source:
namespace std {
template class initializer_list {
};
}
using namespace std;
class ClassB {
public:
constexpr ClassB(int x) {}
};
template struct ClassA {
tem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54126
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54127
Bug #: 54127
Summary: [4.7] ICE in maybe_record_trace_start with asm goto,
--target=powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54126
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Mikhaltsou 2012-07-30
14:33:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 27896
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27896
Preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54125
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||charlet at gcc dot gnu.org
Assig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
--- Comment #7 from Uros Bizjak 2012-07-30 14:25:32
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> And this is why "uninitialized" warnings shouldn't be silenced like this...
>
> * expmed.c (expand_mult): Initialize coeff and is_neg.
>
> http://gcc.gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #28 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-30
14:22:37 UTC ---
With -ftrack-macro-expansion=2 (the default):
(gdb) call dump_line_table_statistics()
Number of expanded macros: 237994
Average number of tokens per macro expan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54126
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-07-30
14:22:18 UTC ---
The attachment is missing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54126
Bug #: 54126
Summary: ICE on constexpr move ctor with const ref type instead
of error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54125
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #27 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-30
13:51:58 UTC ---
The problem is the quadratic behavior invoked by the loop in
gt_pch_nx_line_maps:
{
size_t l2 = (size_t)(((*x).info_macro).used);
if ((*x).info_macro.maps != N
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #26 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-30
13:17:25 UTC ---
FWIW, the resulting PCH for GCC 4.8 is more than twice as large as the PCH for
GCC 4.7.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54125
Bug #: 54125
Summary: [4.8 regression] s-atopri.adb:40:10:
"Support_Atomic_Primitives" is undefined broke Ada on
sparc64-linux
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29776
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2012-07-30 12:48:19
UTC ---
Created attachment 27895
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27895
Target patch that handles ctz extensions
x86 target patch that teaches gcc about extensions for ctz.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #74 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-07-30 12:33:01 UTC ---
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
>
> --- Comment #73 from Mikael Morin 2012-07-30
> 12:29:33 UT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #73 from Mikael Morin 2012-07-30
12:29:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #72)
> > (In reply to comment #63)
> > > That's bogus as TYPE_FIELDS
> > > is supposed to be shared amongst variant types.
> >
> > Then we'll have to revert Micha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54114
--- Comment #3 from jimis 2012-07-30 12:18:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 27894
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27894
XPatch.cpp preprocessed source from xalanc
Hi thanks for your patience, I resurrected my PC so now I have acc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54124
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-07-30
11:37:18 UTC ---
That section is formatted the same in HTML and the info pages.
If you go to the options summary at
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.7.1/gcc/Option-Summary.html you can search
for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29776
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak 2012-07-30 11:36:23
UTC ---
> Perhaps REE can be taught about ctz giving a non-negative result.
Maybe we need some VRP pass to remove these extensions. Please note an example
from (duplicate) PR54115, where we gen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #24 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-07-30 11:21:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> (In reply to comment #22)
> > Still a 98% compile time regression on todays trunk.
>
> What revision number is this? If it includes r189951, could y
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
--- Comment #23 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-30
11:08:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> Still a 98% compile time regression on todays trunk.
What revision number is this? If it includes r189951, could you please see if
you can get an update
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #72 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-07-30 11:04:39 UTC ---
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
>
> --- Comment #71 from Mikael Morin 2012-07-30
> 10:35:48 UT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53975
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #17 from Andrey
I suspect
> there will still be a compile time increase from GCC 4.7 to GCC 4.8 because of
> the macro expansion tracking stuff. Could you please try a recent trunk GCC
> 4.8
> and report back how compile times look for you now?
gcc version 4.8.0 20120730 (experimental) (GCC)
markus@x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #71 from Mikael Morin 2012-07-30
10:35:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #70)
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > So, is this a fortran front-end bug, a middle-end bug, or a lto bug ?
> > (Hint: PR 51765 is a mar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34548
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34548
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47353
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #21 from Steven Bos
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54114
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54117
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54123
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53773
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-07-30 08:47:35 UTC ---
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53773
>
> William J. Schmidt changed:
>
>What|Remov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
--- Comment #70 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-07-30 08:43:09 UTC ---
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
>
> --- Comment #69 from Mikael Morin 2012-07-28
> 09:46:00 UT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54121
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #1
75 matches
Mail list logo
