On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Martin Liška mli...@suse.cz wrote:
On 04/02/2014 04:13 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 03/27/2014 10:48 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Previous patch is wrong, I did a mistake in name ;)
Martin
On 03/27/2014 09:52 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 03/25/2014 09:50 PM,
Hi,
We are doing a project which requires us to write a new pass to
recalculate the chain of recurrences and use them. We would like to do
this as an ipa pass plugin. For now we have got it working as a GIMPLE
pass. When we try to change it to an IPA pass, it gives seg fault. We
believe it
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Balajiganapathi S
bal...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
Hi,
We are doing a project which requires us to write a new pass to recalculate
the chain of recurrences and use them. We would like to do this as an ipa
pass plugin. For now we have got it working as a GIMPLE
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Martin Liška mli...@suse.cz wrote:
On 04/03/2014 11:41 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Martin Liška mli...@suse.cz wrote:
On 04/02/2014 04:13 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 03/27/2014 10:48 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Previous patch is
Hi,
is there any plan to release a gcc 4.8.3?
Thanks,
Daniel.
--
Daniel F. Gutson
Chief Engineering Officer, SPD
San Lorenzo 47, 3rd Floor, Office 5
Córdoba, Argentina
Phone: +54 351 4217888 / +54 351 4218211
Skype: dgutson
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Martin Liška mli...@suse.cz wrote:
On 04/03/2014 11:41 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Martin Liška mli...@suse.cz wrote:
On 04/02/2014 04:13 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 03/27/2014 10:48 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Firefox:
cgraph.c:869 (cgraph_create_edge_1) 0: 0.0%
0: 0.0% 130358176: 6.9% 0: 0.0%1253444
cgraph.c:510 (cgraph_allocate_node) 0: 0.0%
0: 0.0% 182236800: 9.7% 0: 0.0% 555600
toplev.c:960
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:34:00PM -0300, Daniel Gutson wrote:
is there any plan to release a gcc 4.8.3?
Yes.
Marek
Snapshot gcc-4.8-20140403 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20140403/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.8 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Ops sorry to hear that.
Actually it's a new backend I'm working on the responsible for that
bug, so I guess it's relevant to post it here.
So I run this:
/home/david/uclibc/uclibc-buildroot-custom/output/build/host-gcc-final-gcc-4_7_3-release/build/./gcc/collect2
Hello,
I'm a student and am currently studying compiler. I was studying
GCC's i386 MD, and I found that RTL insn mapped to 'sete' assembly
instruction seems to have exactly opposite semantics than 'sete'
instruction itself. Below are more details. If someone could clarify the
issue, or let me
I resend the mail, because I was given 502 error.
On 04/03/2014 12:43 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Hello,
taking latest trunk gcc, I built Firefox and Chromium. Both
projects compiled without debugging symbols and -O2 on an 8-core
machine.
Firefox:
-flto=9, peak memory usage (in LTRANS):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60659
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59967
--- Comment #3 from Christoph Breitkopf chbreitkopf at gmail dot com ---
It's this conditional in the inner loop. The expression becomes constant only
if both loops are unrolled (i and j are the loop counters):
if (1j i)
ck0[j] += s;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60743
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
current snapshot gcc-4.9-20140330, trunk revision 208948
uses 773 MB peak memory.
last week's snapshot gcc-4.9-20140323, trunk revision 208775
used only 417 MB peak memory,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60743
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
started with r208910 of gcc/config/arm/cortex-a53.md
as it looks like, this single check-in did almost double the memory usage!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15638
Lucia Huang eving.tw at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eving.tw at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60717
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Fuka vladimir.fuka at gmail dot com ---
Could there be a connection http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58085 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60743
Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60743
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #3)
Kyrill,
sorry, to bother you with this,
but do you see any possibility to
return to the previous memory footprint?
I'll have a look.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15638
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Lucia Huang from comment #17)
Hi,
Is there an option to revert this change? To generate an error or warning
for a missing header? Thanks.
What is the use case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60717
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Could there be a connection http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58085
?
May be, but pr58085 is not fixed by the patch in comment 2 (submitted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34928
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Created attachment 32530
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32530action=edit
Preprocessed file for avx512f-gather-5.c on x86_64-apple-darwin13
(In reply to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 32531
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32531action=edit
Preprocessed file for avx512f-gather-5.c on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Preprocessed file from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #5)
Created attachment 32530 [details]
Preprocessed file for avx512f-gather-5.c on x86_64-apple-darwin13
(In reply to UroÅ Bizjak from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #7)
linux preprocessed file has a couple of *__restrict modifiers in:
Indeed, there is no vgather in the resulting assembly when darwin version
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60717
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #4)
Could there be a connection
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58085 ?
May be, but pr58085 is not fixed by the patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60731
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
If I compile the following test with -S -O3 -mavx512f -save-temps
// #include avx512f-check.h
#define N 1024
int a[N], b[N], c[N], d[N];
__attribute__((noinline, noclone))
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60741
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=60706
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Bah. Then we need to use the preprocessor to avoid the warning:
Index: gcc/tree-pretty-print.c
===
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60706
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
But I guess from your comment that it fixed the testcase on
hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60731
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
I have found the origin of the problem. It is due to
#include stdlib.h
which after some steps include
sys/cdefs.h
which contains the following lines
/*
* We use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #11 from Yukhin Kirill kirill.yukhin at intel dot com ---
Maybe simply do:
#ifdef __restrict
#undef __restrict
In some common header (say, avx512f-check.h)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60740
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60718
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
hmm,
the memref from insn 40 is from alias set 3: [3 MEM[(struct
and the memref from insn 44 is from alias set 8: [8 MEM[(struct
and thus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Maybe simply do:
#ifdef __restrict
#undef __restrict
In some common header (say, avx512f-check.h)?
It works (added in avx512f-check.h, with a #endif!-). It would
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Another option would be to add -std=c99 for darwin.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60744
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60744
Bug ID: 60744
Summary: poor location and error recovery
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #13)
Another option would be to add -std=c99 for darwin.
I would suggest that this is the Right Thing to do.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15638
--- Comment #19 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Lucia Huang from comment #17)
Hi,
Is there an option to revert this change? To generate an error or warning
for a missing header? Thanks.
Hi Lucia, no there
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
--- Comment #57 from David Kredba nheghathivhistha at gmail dot com ---
I got it again with trunk revision 209048:
/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-g++ -fPIC -flto=4 -fuse-linker-plugin -O2 -ggdb
-pipe -march=core2 -mtune=core2 -mno-3dnow
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60745
Bug ID: 60745
Summary: Many ICEs running libstdc++ testsuite with ubsan,
maybe due to PCH
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60746
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60746
Bug ID: 60746
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE segfault in
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
I would suggest that this is the Right Thing to do.
I agree. Patch tested
--- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx512f-gather-5.c2014-01-29
19:02:01.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #16 from Yukhin Kirill kirill.yukhin at intel dot com ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #15)
19:02:01.0 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx512f-gather-5.c 2014-04-03
15:17:05.0 +0200
@@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60609
--- Comment #5 from Charles Baylis charles.baylis at linaro dot org ---
I have proposed a fix for this:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00122.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
There is quite some usage of __restrict in gcc.target/i386/ directory.
Why doesn't this problem trigger with e.g. avx2-gather-4.c, which also uses
__restrict?
AFAICT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #17 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #14)
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #13)
Another option would be to add -std=c99 for darwin.
I would suggest that this is the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59617
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #17)
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #14)
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #13)
Another option would be to add -std=c99
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60731
--- Comment #6 from Tim Moloney tim.moloney at mrsl dot com ---
I created glibc bug #16805
(https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16805).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60740
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60740
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Apr 3 13:43:23 2014
New Revision: 209057
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209057root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-04-03 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60745
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=60706
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 4/3/2014 6:25 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60706
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
But I guess from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60747
Bug ID: 60747
Summary: the tree-vrp compilation flag produce wrong assembly
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.7
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=378
--- Comment #13 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I mis-remembered the bug. This is a problem with branch distance. The GNU
Assembler, GNU Linker and GOLD allow instruction relaxation that creates long
branch stubs for far branches. The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60748
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60747
--- Comment #2 from tech techsgin at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 32533
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32533action=edit
Assembly of O2 no tree-vrp
Assembly of O2 no tree-vrp
.filemain.cpp
.text
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60747
--- Comment #3 from tech techsgin at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 32534
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32534action=edit
Assembly of O2 WITH tree-vrp
Assembly of O2 WITH tree-vrp
.filemain.cpp
.text
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60747
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60748
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49423
Charles Baylis charles.baylis at linaro dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60747
tech techsgin at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60747
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60745
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For some reason builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_UBSAN_HANDLE_MISSING_RETURN)
returns NULL. I'm confused; I thought this can't happen.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60749
Bug ID: 60749
Summary: combine is overly cautious when operating on volatile
memory references
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60750
Bug ID: 60750
Summary: double free after std::move on string inside throw
when compiled with optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60746
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32536
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32536action=edit
C++ test case (test.ii); compile with g++ -O2 (works with -O1)
(In reply to Tobias
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60745
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60745
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60743
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
Bug ID: 60751
Summary: Extra comma in WRITE statement not diagnosed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #1 from Walter Spector w6ws at earthlink dot net ---
Simple test case:
program extracomma
implicit none
write (*,*), 1, 2, 3
end program
This compiles without error.
I notice that if I compile with -std=f95, it does diagnose
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60745
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
With that patch I get no ICEs in the v3 testsuite, thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15638
--- Comment #20 from Lucia Huang eving.tw at gmail dot com ---
Hi Andrew:
We use gcc as preprocessor to extand header files for C code.
It is used in a script to parse and check for error in a large code base
(6000+ files). Not all headers are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60037
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
ubsan sees it too
/home/jwakely/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/random.tcc:3480:20:
runtime error: division by zero
FAIL:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42143
mat...@mpia-hd.mpg.de mat...@mpia-hd.mpg.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60750
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60750
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #3 from Walter Spector w6ws at earthlink dot net ---
I didn't complain to Intel, but I can...
However the compilers that did catch it by default were NAG, lahey, and Absoft.
Walter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15638
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
See comment 3.
Every new option to GCC requires extra testing and extra maintenance. IMHO it's
not a good idea to add an option to support one use case in a single codebase,
which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60750
--- Comment #3 from sshannin at gmail dot com ---
As a note that may help pin things down, removing either call to std::move() or
removing the concatenation with err_prefix done in call to the
std::runtime_error constructor seems to resolve this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60752
Bug ID: 60752
Summary: [4.9 Regression] build/genautomata runs out of memory
and is killed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60752
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60743
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60505
--- Comment #4 from Cong Hou congh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: congh
Date: Thu Apr 3 23:05:42 2014
New Revision: 209065
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209065root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-04-03 Cong Hou co...@google.com
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60753
Bug ID: 60753
Summary: defining an explicit function template specialization
as deleted, following a non-deleted declaration, not
diagnosted
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60754
Bug ID: 60754
Summary: Missed optimization with inline asm longer than 3
lines
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60754
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60755
Bug ID: 60755
Summary: lambda capturing `this` doesn't honor the const
qualifier of the enclosing member function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60755
--- Comment #1 from Filip Roséen filip.roseen at gmail dot com ---
Reduced testcase:
-
struct A {
void f () { }
void g () const {
[this] { f (); } ();
}
};
int main () {
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60756
Bug ID: 60756
Summary: var-tracking selects wrong registers
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60756
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60757
Bug ID: 60757
Summary: combine uses exponential time in nonzero_bits1
recursion
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
