[Bug libgomp/42616] OMP'ed loop inside pthread leads to crash.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42616 --- Comment #17 from java4ada at yahoo dot com --- Is this fixed by https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revisionrevision=218576 ?
[Bug libstdc++/64399] g++ does not diagnose when upcasting owning pointer (e.g. unique_ptr) with non-virtual destructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64399 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- It might be valid with a custom deleter, but the example shown has undefined behaviour.
[Bug libstdc++/58876] No non-virtual-dtor warning in std::unique_ptr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Matthew Woehlke from comment #5) Actually, this may be required for 'make_uniqueA(new B)' to warn, since That's not how make_unique works.
[Bug libstdc++/64399] g++ does not diagnose when upcasting owning pointer (e.g. unique_ptr) with non-virtual destructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64399 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- N.B. we definitely want -Wdelete-non-virtual-dtor not the less useful -Wnon-virtual-dtor
[Bug c++/63985] Accepts invalid range-based for declaration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63985 --- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Wed Dec 24 09:07:23 2014 New Revision: 219054 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219054root=gccview=rev Log: /cp 2014-12-04 Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com PR c++/63985 * parser.c (cp_parser_for_init_statement): Reject invalid declarations in range-based for loops. /testsuite 2014-12-04 Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com PR c++/63985 * g++.dg/cpp0x/range-for29.C: New. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/range-for29.C Modified: trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/cp/parser.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
[Bug c++/63985] Accepts invalid range-based for declaration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63985 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Assignee|paolo.carlini at oracle dot com|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone|--- |5.0 --- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com --- Fixed for 5.0.
[Bug libstdc++/64399] g++ does not diagnose when upcasting owning pointer (e.g. unique_ptr) with non-virtual destructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64399 --- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4) It might be valid with a custom deleter, but the example shown has undefined behaviour. When the derived class does not add any member or redefine any important functionality, it is not an uncommon technique to call the base class destructor on a derived class. It might pedantically be illegal, but it is useful, and I believe some people would like to avoid the warning when the two destructors are equivalent.
[Bug middle-end/50865] Invalid code generation for INT64_MIN % 1 on x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865 Mikael Pettersson mikpelinux at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #34323|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #14 from Mikael Pettersson mikpelinux at gmail dot com --- Created attachment 34328 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34328action=edit patch revised to always allow the transformation for Fortran Patch revised to not restrict the transformation for Fortran, since the X != INT_MIN condition apparently is an invariant there.
[Bug c++/64395] void_t doesn't work as expected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64395 benzejaa at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #3 from benzejaa at gmail dot com --- Good to know, thanks!
[Bug target/64160] msp430 code generation error adding 32-bit integers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64160 --- Comment #7 from Nick Clifton nickc at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: nickc Date: Wed Dec 24 13:36:29 2014 New Revision: 219058 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219058root=gccview=rev Log: PR target/64160 * config/msp430/msp430.md (addsi splitter): Do not split when the destination partially overlaps the source. Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/config/msp430/msp430.md
[Bug middle-end/12086] memcmp(i,j,4) should use word (SI) subtraction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12086 --- Comment #13 from Eelis gcc-bugzilla at contacts dot eelis.net --- It's also worth noting that this affects operator== for std::array. :(
[Bug testsuite/64032] [5 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/undefined-loop-2.c (test for warnings, line 18)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64032 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Stubbs ams at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: ams Date: Wed Dec 24 14:27:06 2014 New Revision: 219059 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219059root=gccview=rev Log: Fix undefined-loop-2.c test case. 2014-12-24 Andrew Stubbs a...@codesourcery.com PR testsuite/64032 * gcc.dg/undefined-loop-2.c: Don't allow GCC to optimize away the loop exits too early. Modified: trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/undefined-loop-2.c
[Bug middle-end/12086] memcmp(i,j,4) should use word (SI) subtraction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12086 --- Comment #14 from owner at bugs dot debian.org --- Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this Bug report. This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message has been received. Your message has not been forwarded to the package maintainers or other interested parties; you should ensure that the developers are aware of the problem you have entered into the system - preferably quoting the Bug reference number, #85535. If you wish to submit further information on this problem, please send it to 85535-qu...@bugs.debian.org. Please do not send mail to ow...@bugs.debian.org unless you wish to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system.
[Bug testsuite/64032] [5 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/undefined-loop-2.c (test for warnings, line 18)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64032 Andrew Stubbs ams at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #6 from Andrew Stubbs ams at gcc dot gnu.org --- I've just committed a patch to fix this. It works on x86_64, ARM, and PowerPC, at least.
[Bug ipa/64390] -shared does not resolve symbols from lto generated archives
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64390 --- Comment #3 from Hin-Tak Leung htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net --- I wonder if it isn't '-shared' but that a mixture of object files and archives are being used. See also: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/27372667/undefined-reference-cross-compiling-static-libraries-with-lto-under-gcc I 'll give binutils 2.25 a try soon - I have got something building atm; it looks like I need to move my system's ar ld aside to make sure the new ones are used, which is not trivial, and can't happen while I have something building anyway...
[Bug libobjc/51891] class_copyIvarList crashes on empty ivars
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51891 --- Comment #3 from Dimitris Papavasiliou dpapavas at gmail dot com --- Created attachment 34329 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34329action=edit A patch that fixes the issue and provides a suitable testcase.
[Bug libstdc++/64399] g++ does not diagnose when upcasting owning pointer (e.g. unique_ptr) with non-virtual destructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64399 --- Comment #7 from Matthew Woehlke mw_triad at users dot sourceforge.net --- (In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #3) Because it's not a bug. This is a totally valid scenario. Valid in what way? I constructed a Y but arranged, probably by accident, that its dtor is never called. I fail to see how that's not likely a bug in my code that reasonably warrants a diagnostic. (Note that I'm talking about a *warning*, and possibly one that isn't even on by default, not an error.) (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #6) It might pedantically be illegal, but it is useful, and I believe some people would like to avoid the warning when the two destructors are equivalent. However, the compiler doesn't know that here, because I didn't provided a definition thereof; Y's dtor, even in this example, could have important side effects. Even if the compiler *can* prove equivalence, I'd be suspicious whether this was intended, but I'd be okay with a different (i.e. more pedantic) warning in that case. (I'd also point out that it's not unreasonable to require the user to somehow annotate if this is intentional if they care about avoiding the warning when it's enabled.) Anyway, I still get no warning if Y has members that need to be destroyed, which definitely causes bad behavior when its dtor isn't called.
[Bug libstdc++/58876] No non-virtual-dtor warning in std::unique_ptr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876 --- Comment #7 from Matthew Woehlke mw_triad at users dot sourceforge.net --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6) (In reply to Matthew Woehlke from comment #5) Actually, this may be required for 'make_uniqueA(new B)' to warn, since That's not how make_unique works. ...and I'm suggesting it *should* be. (How else are you going to warn? After that executes, the pointer no longer knows that it really contains a B, unless you teach the compiler some fancy extra tricks, which seems overly complicated. Conversely, I feel that 'make_uniqueA(new B)' should warn if it's going to result in failing to call B's dtor. I might even go so far as to say 'even if the compiler can prove that B's dtor is trivial', though I'd be willing to delegate that to a different and more pedantic warning.)
[Bug libstdc++/58876] No non-virtual-dtor warning in std::unique_ptr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- No, really, that's not how make_unique works. You do not use 'new' with make_unique, that's the whole point, so you would say make_uniqueB() to create a B. Your motivating examples should be valid C++ of you want to convince anyone, so maybe: unique_ptrA p = make_uniqueB();
[Bug bootstrap/64400] New: Unable to bootstrap for iq2000-elf target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64400 Bug ID: 64400 Summary: Unable to bootstrap for iq2000-elf target Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: bootstrap Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: yselkowi at redhat dot com With binutils-2.25, bootstrapping gcc-4.9.2 with --target=iq2000-elf --without-headers fails: /usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/build/iq2000-elf/./gcc/xgcc -B/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/build/iq2000-elf/./gcc/ -B/usr/iq2000-elf/bin/ -B/usr/iq2000-elf/lib/ -isystem /usr/iq2000-elf/include -isystem /usr/iq2000-elf/sys-include-g -ggdb -O2 -pipe -Wimplicit-function-declaration -O2 -g -ggdb -O2 -pipe -Wimplicit-function-declaration -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -isystem ./include -g -DIN_LIBGCC2 -fbuilding-libgcc -fno-stack-protector -Dinhibit_libc -I. -I. -I../.././gcc -I/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc -I/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/. -I/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/../gcc -I/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/../include -DHAVE_CC_TLS -DUSE_EMUTLS -o _absvsi2.o -MT _absvsi2.o -MD -MP -MF _absvsi2.dep -DL_absvsi2 -c /usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/libgcc2.c -fvisibility=hidden -DHIDE_EXPORTS /usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/libgcc2.c: In function ‘__absvsi2’: /usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/libgcc2.c:232:1: internal compiler error: in dwarf2out_var_location, at dwarf2out.c:21266 } ^ Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html for instructions. Makefile:463: recipe for target '_absvsi2.o' failed make[2]: *** [_absvsi2.o] Error 1 /usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/build/iq2000-elf/./gcc/xgcc -B/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/build/iq2000-elf/./gcc/ -B/usr/iq2000-elf/bin/ -B/usr/iq2000-elf/lib/ -isystem /usr/iq2000-elf/include -isystem /usr/iq2000-elf/sys-include-g -ggdb -O2 -pipe -Wimplicit-function-declaration -O2 -g -ggdb -O2 -pipe -Wimplicit-function-declaration -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -isystem ./include -g -DIN_LIBGCC2 -fbuilding-libgcc -fno-stack-protector -Dinhibit_libc -I. -I. -I../.././gcc -I/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc -I/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/. -I/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/../gcc -I/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/../include -DHAVE_CC_TLS -DUSE_EMUTLS -o _absvdi2.o -MT _absvdi2.o -MD -MP -MF _absvdi2.dep -DL_absvdi2 -c /usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/libgcc2.c -fvisibility=hidden -DHIDE_EXPORTS /usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/libgcc2.c: In function ‘__absvdi2’: /usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/libgcc2.c:271:1: internal compiler error: in dwarf2out_var_location, at dwarf2out.c:21266 } ^ Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html for instructions. Makefile:463: recipe for target '_absvdi2.o' failed make[2]: *** [_absvdi2.o] Error 1 /usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/build/iq2000-elf/./gcc/xgcc -B/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/build/iq2000-elf/./gcc/ -B/usr/iq2000-elf/bin/ -B/usr/iq2000-elf/lib/ -isystem /usr/iq2000-elf/include -isystem /usr/iq2000-elf/sys-include-g -ggdb -O2 -pipe -Wimplicit-function-declaration -O2 -g -ggdb -O2 -pipe -Wimplicit-function-declaration -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -isystem ./include -g -DIN_LIBGCC2 -fbuilding-libgcc -fno-stack-protector -Dinhibit_libc -I. -I. -I../.././gcc -I/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc -I/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/. -I/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/../gcc -I/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/../include -DHAVE_CC_TLS -DUSE_EMUTLS -o _addvsi3.o -MT _addvsi3.o -MD -MP -MF _addvsi3.dep -DL_addvsi3 -c /usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/libgcc2.c -fvisibility=hidden -DHIDE_EXPORTS
[Bug libgcc/64401] New: avr-elf crtbegin.o fails to compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64401 Bug ID: 64401 Summary: avr-elf crtbegin.o fails to compile Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libgcc Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: yselkowi at redhat dot com Host: x86_64-cygwin Target: avr-elf Build: x86_64-cygwin Building gcc-4.9.2 with --target=avr-elf --without-headers using binutils-2.25, libgcc.a itself and crtend.o are built, but not crtbegin.o: /usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/build/avr-elf/./gcc/xgcc -B/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/build/avr-elf/./gcc/ -B/usr/avr-elf/bin/ -B/usr/avr-elf/lib/ -isystem /usr/avr-elf/include -isystem /usr/avr-elf/sys-include-g -ggdb -O2 -pipe -Wimplicit-function-declaration -mmcu=avr25 -O2 -g -ggdb -O2 -pipe -Wimplicit-function-declaration -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -isystem ./include -I. -I. -I../../.././gcc -I/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc -I/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/. -I/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/../gcc -I/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/../include -g0 -finhibit-size-directive -fno-inline -fno-exceptions -fno-zero-initialized-in-bss -fno-toplevel-reorder -fno-tree-vectorize -fno-stack-protector -Dinhibit_libc -I. -I. -I../../.././gcc -I/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc -I/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/. -I/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/../gcc -I/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/../include -o crtbegin.o -MT crtbegin.o -MD -MP -MF crtbegin.dep -c /usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/crtstuff.c -DCRT_BEGIN /usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/crtstuff.c: In function ‘__do_global_ctors_1’: /usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/crtstuff.c:571:13: error: expected ‘)’ before ‘:’ token __asm ( : =g (jcr_list) : 0 (__JCR_LIST__)); ^
[Bug target/63681] bfin-rtems ICE in cfg_layout_initialize, at cfgrtl.c:4233
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63681 Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||yselkowi at redhat dot com --- Comment #2 from Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi at redhat dot com --- Still occurs with 4.9.2 GA with both bfin-elf and bfin-rtems targets.
[Bug ipa/64390] -shared does not resolve symbols from lto generated archives
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64390 Hin-Tak Leung htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME --- Comment #4 from Hin-Tak Leung htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #2) Can you try binutils 2.25? Trying binutils 2.25 was a great help. ranlib of 2.25 actually emit a warning about being ran on lto archives (which ranlib of 2.24 does not - I checked again). So the part of R I had problem building and had to work around, was running AR and RANLIB separately; other parts were doing AR in one step, so setting AR was sufficient except where it failed, only once. Setting RANLIB=gcc-ranlib in addition to AR=gcc-ar works. I would have been nice if ranlib emit a warning (so it was added in 2.25) instead of silently going ahead; incidently ar on redhat segaulted in a slightly out of date patch with your name on it: Import H.J.'s patch to add support for kernel ld -r modules. (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149660#c16) and the fix to the segfault is identical to what you already did two years ago: commit d7f8c5c183adcaa3c313150486e15ea703a65576 Author: H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com Date: Mon Jun 4 06:44:34 2012 -0700 Set tdata.plugin_data first (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149660#c17) So it would be nice if you could check and make sure that redhat is shipping the latest of the 'ld -r' diff, and/or have a look at the 32-bit segault also? ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174065 )
[Bug target/51244] [SH] Inefficient conditional branch and code around T bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244 --- Comment #84 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: olegendo Date: Wed Dec 24 21:55:59 2014 New Revision: 219062 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219062root=gccview=rev Log: gcc/ PR target/51244 * config/sh/sh.md (*mov_t_msb_neg): Convert split into insn_and_split. Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/config/sh/sh.md
[Bug target/63681] bfin-rtems ICE in cfg_layout_initialize, at cfgrtl.c:4233
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63681 --- Comment #3 from Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi at redhat dot com --- I'm seeing an ICE in the same code on the tic6x-elf target as well.
[Bug target/57636] cr16: ICE while building libgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57636 --- Comment #6 from Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi at redhat dot com --- This is working in 4.9.2, so it seems that indeed fixed it.
[Bug target/45360] arm: -mhard-float != -mfloat-abi=hard during linking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45360 Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #4 from Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi at redhat dot com --- arm-elf is an obsolete target now, but I checked this with target arm-eabi on 4.9.2 and it is working.
[Bug target/53987] [SH] Unnecessary zero-extensions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53987 --- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org --- In bzip2-1.0.2/blocksort.s there is code such as: .L294: mov.b @(4,r11),r0 extu.b r0,r11 mov.b @(4,r3),r0 extu.b r0,r3 cmp/eq r3,r11 bf .L314 mov.w @(8,r2),r0 extu.w r0,r11 mov.w @(8,r1),r0 extu.w r0,r3 cmp/eq r3,r11 bf .L314 mov r4,r13 add r6,r13 mov.b @(5,r13),r0 mov r5,r3 add r6,r3 extu.b r0,r12 mov.b @(5,r3),r0 extu.b r0,r11 cmp/eq r11,r12 bf .L313 mov.w @(10,r2),r0 extu.w r0,r12 mov.w @(10,r1),r0 extu.w r0,r11 cmp/eq r11,r12 bf .L313 mov.b @(6,r13),r0 extu.b r0,r12 mov.b @(6,r3),r0 extu.b r0,r11 cmp/eq r11,r12 bf .L313 mov.w @(12,r2),r0 extu.w r0,r12 mov.w @(12,r1),r0 extu.w r0,r11 cmp/eq r11,r12 bt .L300 .L313: cmp/hi r11,r12 bra .L308 movtr0 .L300: mov.b @(7,r13),r0 extu.b r0,r11 mov.b @(7,r3),r0 extu.b r0,r3 cmp/eq r3,r11 bt .L301 .L314: cmp/hi r3,r11 bra .L308 movtr0 In the BB at L294 the zero extensions can be omitted before the cmp/eq insns. Since the zero extended values are then compared using cmp/hi the zero extensions must be inserted there again. Sinking zero extensions for such cases will reduce the code size.
[Bug target/64402] New: mep-elf ICE in libgcc/unwind-dw2.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64402 Bug ID: 64402 Summary: mep-elf ICE in libgcc/unwind-dw2.c Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: yselkowi at redhat dot com Host: x86_64-cygwin Target: mep-elf Build: x86_64-cygwin While building 4.9.2 with --target=mep-elf --without-headers, in apparently all multilibs: /usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/build/mep-elf/./gcc/xgcc -B/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/build/mep-elf/./gcc/ -B/usr/mep-elf/bin/ -B/usr/mep-elf/lib/ -isystem /usr/mep-elf/include -isystem /usr/mep-elf/sys-include -mlibrary-g -ggdb -O2 -pipe -Wimplicit-function-declaration -mel -O2 -g -ggdb -O2 -pipe -Wimplicit-function-declaration -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -isystem ./include -mlibrary -g -DIN_LIBGCC2 -fbuilding-libgcc -fno-stack-protector -Dinhibit_libc -I. -I. -I../../.././gcc -I/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc -I/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/. -I/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/../gcc -I/usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/../include -DHAVE_CC_TLS -DUSE_EMUTLS -o unwind-dw2.o -MT unwind-dw2.o -MD -MP -MF unwind-dw2.dep -fexceptions -c /usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/unwind-dw2.c -fvisibility=hidden -DHIDE_EXPORTS In file included from /usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/unwind-dw2.c:1698:0: /usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/unwind.inc: In function ‘_Unwind_RaiseException’: /usr/src/ports/cross-gcc/cross-gcc-4.9.2-1.x86_64/src/gcc-4.9.2/libgcc/unwind.inc:136:1: internal compiler error: in pre_and_rev_post_order_compute, at cfganal.c:1022 } ^
[Bug target/64403] New: m32c-elf ICE with -mcpu=m32cm and cleanup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64403
Bug ID: 64403
Summary: m32c-elf ICE with -mcpu=m32cm and cleanup
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: yselkowi at redhat dot com
Host: x86_64-cygwin
Target: m32c-elf, m32c-rtems
Build: x86_64-cygwin
While building 4.9.2 with binutils-2.25 for m32c-{elf,rtems} targets, the m32cm
multilib libgcc configure (but not the main one) fails during the SjLj
exceptions test:
$ cat conftest.c
void bar ();
void clean (int *);
void foo ()
{
int i __attribute__ ((cleanup (clean)));
bar();
}
$ ./gcc/xgcc -B gcc -c -fexceptions -save-temps conftest.c
[succeeds]
$ ./gcc/xgcc -B gcc -c -mcpu=m32cm -fexceptions -save-temps conftest.c
conftest.c: In function ‘foo’:
conftest.c:7:1: error: insn does not satisfy its constraints:
}
^
(insn 52 38 23 (set (reg:SI 2 r1 [29])
(reg:SI 4 a0)) 99 {movsi_24}
(nil))
conftest.c:7:1: internal compiler error: in final_scan_insn, at final.c:2891
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html for instructions.
[Bug c++/63522] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] ICE: unexpected expression 'ElementIndices' of kind template_parm_index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63522 --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jason Date: Thu Dec 25 07:27:54 2014 New Revision: 219066 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219066root=gccview=rev Log: PR c++/63522 * parser.c (cp_parser_type_parameter): Call check_for_bare_parameter_packs on default argument. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/variadic164.C Modified: trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/cp/parser.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/vt-34052.C
