On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 2:34 AM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:22 AM, Igor Zamyatin izamya...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All!
Unfortunately now the compiler generates wrong code for i686 target
when options -O3 and -flto are used. It started more than a month ago
Snapshot gcc-4.9-20130804 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20130804/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.9 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58069
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=58069
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
t.c: In function ‘main’:
t.c:43:5: error: definition in block 13 follows the use
int main ()
^
for SSA_NAME: _117 in statement:
_49 = _117 | _57;
t.c:43:5: internal compiler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58076
Bug ID: 58076
Summary: internal compiler error: tree check: expected tree
that contains ‘decl common’ structure, have
‘identifier_node’ in get_narrower, at tree.c:8500
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58069
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Slightly reduced
int b, c;
static *d = c;
void
foo (void)
{
int f, i, j, *g;
int h[] = { 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1 };
for (i = 0; i 1; i++)
{
int *k = b;
if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57602
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58076
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58077
Bug ID: 58077
Summary: Crash on matching template with bool type instead
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58077
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58069
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eraman at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50703
peter liuxiaopi349 at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liuxiaopi349 at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58078
Bug ID: 58078
Summary: explicitly-defaulted template class methods are not
instantiated by explicit template instantiation
definition
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57728
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58078
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58063
Fanael fanael4 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fanael4 at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58063
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57134
--- Comment #3 from Anton Blanchard anton at samba dot org ---
Created attachment 30607
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30607action=edit
Compilation failure with -mstrict-align on ppc64
The original testcase isn't failing, but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57293
--- Comment #4 from Fanael fanael4 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #1)
But I am planning to fix it until end of June.
Any progress on this one? Patching GCC to use Satan^H^H^H^H^Hreload is a
workaround, but one
the error is difficult. I stripped the source code as far as possible and
attached the preprocessor output.
mips64r5900el-linux-gnu-gcc (GCC) 4.9.0 20130804 (experimental)
I didn't changed the GCC source code, even if the following output contains the
word patched in the path.
The error happens
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57293
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at redhat dot com ---
I've started this work. But unfortunately, i have too many things on my plate
now. I was too optimistic. Now I can say only that I am planning to fix it on
stage1 (so the fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57532
--- Comment #6 from Salamanderrake salamanderrake at gmail dot com ---
I will have to patch it up to that point from gcc 4.8.1 to Comment #3, is the
main repo git or subversion?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57532
--- Comment #7 from Salamanderrake salamanderrake at gmail dot com ---
What I should have asked is what revision is gcc 4.8.1 and what revision was
the fix put into trunk?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57850
--- Comment #5 from Dima dmitrij.ledkov at ubuntu dot com ---
Why is this bug is still marked unconfirmed? Is there something I can do to
confirm it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58075
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
That compilation error means that a configure test detected that the setcontext
call modified TLS variables, which should not happen. That does happen on some
older versions of Solaris
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58080
Bug ID: 58080
Summary: internal compiler error, decltype in function
declaration (for SFINAE purposes)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58080
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Note that strictly speaking arithmetic on a pointer to void would be even
invalid.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58080
--- Comment #2 from Nickolay Merkin nickolay.merkin at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #1)
Note that strictly speaking arithmetic on a pointer to void would be even
invalid.
Yes of course, and the compiler has notified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58080
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58080
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
I meant something else: I meant that on a different compiler, your code could
be hardly rejected, you should not use arithmetic on void * in the first place.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58080
--- Comment #4 from Nickolay Merkin nickolay.merkin at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #3)
I meant something else: I meant that on a different compiler, your code
could be hardly rejected, you should not use arithmetic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58080
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Current clang++, for example, simply errors out, no warning.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57885
--- Comment #9 from François Dumont fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30610
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30610action=edit
hashtable_policy.h
File to replace the one in include/bits folder
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57885
--- Comment #10 from François Dumont fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30611
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30611action=edit
hashtable.h
File to replace the one in include/bits
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57850
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gdr at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58080
Evgeny Panasyuk evgeny.panasyuk at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58080
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
The ICE is of course wrong, I already sent a patch for it. If there are other
issues, let's handle one at a time, in different bugs, after having checked
that mainline GCC is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58080
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
By the way, with my patch installed, all the new testcases seem fine,
consistent with clang.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58079
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbg...@lug-owl.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jbg...@lug-owl.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58082
Bug ID: 58082
Summary: avr-gcc vector table relocation truncation error with
-mrelax option
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58083
--- Comment #1 from Alex Turbov i.zaufi at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30615
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30615action=edit
original source code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58083
Bug ID: 58083
Summary: ICE with lambda as default parameter of a template
function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58053
Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhnikov at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58053
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58054
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppluzhnikov at
This was a bug concerning reporting of compiler errors involving
user-defined literals.
The error messages would appear with token names 'CPP_STRING_USERDEF', etc.
This is very cryptic for the user.
This patch just catches user-defined literal tokens in
c-family/c-common.c/c_parse_error() and
Latest results for gcc 4.8.x.
-tgc
Testresults for 4.8.1
arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi
hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11
hppa64-hp-hpux11.11
i386-pc-solaris2.9 (2)
i686-pc-linux-gnu
mips-unknown-linux-gnu
mipsel-unknown-linux-gnu
powerpc-apple-darwin8.11.0
powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
Latest results for gcc 4.7.x.
-tgc
Testresults for 4.7.3
i386-pc-solaris2.8 (2)
i386-pc-solaris2.9 (2)
i386-pc-solaris2.11
sparc-sun-solaris2.8 (2)
sparc-sun-solaris2.9
Index: buildstat.html
===
RCS file:
Latest results for gcc 4.6.x.
-tgc
Testresults for 4.6.4
i386-pc-solaris2.8 (2)
i386-pc-solaris2.9 (2)
sparc-sun-solaris2.8 (2)
sparc-sun-solaris2.9
Index: buildstat.html
===
RCS file:
Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Hi, GCC/i386 currently has about 73 boolean parameters/knobs (defined
in ix86_tune_features[], indexed by ix86_tune_indices) to perform
micro-arch specific performance tuning. However such settings are hard
coded (fixed with a given -mtune setting) and
On 13/7/15 1:43 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
Could you please repost the patch with its description? This thread
is sufficiently old and noisy that I'm not even sure what the patch
does nor why.
Taking the same example in my first post:
extern void weakfun()
Richard Biener richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
The patch fails to add documentation.
That seems like a feature, it's likely not useful for the general
public. More for specialized tools that automatically search
for the best tuning.
And I am nervous about testing
coverage - is this
OK.
Jason
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 4:40 AM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Hi, GCC/i386 currently has about 73 boolean parameters/knobs (defined
in ix86_tune_features[], indexed by ix86_tune_indices) to perform
micro-arch specific performance
On 4 August 2013 17:14:36 Chung-Lin Tang clt...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 13/7/15 1:43 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
Could you please repost the patch with its description? This thread
is sufficiently old and noisy that I'm not even sure what the patch
does nor why.
Taking the same example in
This patch replaces uses of pp_string on operators and punctuators with
specialized pretty printing functions.
Tested on an x86_64-suse-linux. Applied to trunk.
-- Gaby
2013-08-03 Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net
* pretty-print.h (pp_bar_bar): New.
On Sat, 13 Jul 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
2013-07-14 Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr
gcc/cp/
* call.c (build_conditional_expr_1): Handle the case with 1 vector
and 2 scalars. Call save_expr before building a vector.
* typeck.c (cp_build_binary_op): Check complain before
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013, Marek Polacek wrote:
I've created a new branch, called ubsan for work being done for
Undefined Behavior Sanitizer.
Mind documenting this in http://gcc.gnu.org/svn.html? Let me
know if you need help (http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/web.html has
some background).
Gerald
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, DJ Delorie wrote:
Ok, I think I covered everything...
...except one comma. ;-)
Index: gcc/doc/contrib.texi
===
-Nick Clifton for arm, mcore, fr30, v850, m32r, rx work,
+Nick Clifton for arm, mcore, fr30,
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, Tom G. Christensen wrote:
Testresults for 4.6.4
i386-pc-solaris2.8 (2)
i386-pc-solaris2.9 (2)
sparc-sun-solaris2.8 (2)
sparc-sun-solaris2.9
Thanks, applied.
Gerald
Hi,
another case of Error reporting routines re-entered, due to the
pedwarns in c-common.c:pointer_int_sum. Usual solution, propagate complain.
Note: I can't just pass the complain of type tsubst_flags_t to
pointer_int_sum, because it can be, and it is for the testcase,
tf_none|tf_decltype,
Janus Weil wrote:
ping!
Sorry, I currently have only a shaky internet connection and also no
access to my development system.
Looking at gfc_class_initializer, I have the impression that it does not
handle initialization of unlimited polymorphic variables/components. I
don't know whether
Hi Tobias,
Sorry, I currently have only a shaky internet connection and also no access
to my development system.
sounds like holidays :)
Looking at gfc_class_initializer, I have the impression that it does not
handle initialization of unlimited polymorphic variables/components. I don't
Hi Paolo,
On 03.08.2013 19:38, Paolo Carlini wrote:
.. I don't know if at this Stage we are paying attention to these
minor details, but at least Patch 1 and 3 appear to have some
overlong
lines.
The patch set referenced by your mail has been superseded (see [1] and
[2]). I think most of
On 08/05/2013 12:52 AM, Adam Butcher wrote:
Hi Paolo,
On 03.08.2013 19:38, Paolo Carlini wrote:
.. I don't know if at this Stage we are paying attention to these
minor details, but at least Patch 1 and 3 appear to have some overlong
lines.
The patch set referenced by your mail has been
Hi Jason,
On 03.08.2013 17:18, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/01/2013 08:25 AM, Adam Butcher wrote:
+= DECL_TEMPLATE_INFO (callop)
+ DECL_TEMPLATE_RESULT (DECL_TI_TEMPLATE (callop)) == callop;
An expression broken across lines should be parenthesized.
And let's move the building of
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:02:29PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
* declare the pointer to function fields as virtual functions --
that is what I meant
with the (necessarily poor) emulation through the casts.
I guess you'll work on this later in the patch series you're sending,
but its
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Trevor Saunders tsaund...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:02:29PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
* declare the pointer to function fields as virtual functions --
that is what I meant
with the (necessarily poor) emulation through the casts.
The attached is a new patch implementing the stringop inline strategy
control using two new -m options:
-mmemcpy-strategy=
-mmemset-strategy=
See changes in doc/invoke.texi for description of the new options. Example:
This patchlet makes the asan module stop using a global pretty printer.
As a result, the code is cleaner that way -- and this is in preparation
of having pretty printers initialize themselves through constructors.
-- Gaby
2013-08-05 Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net
*
70 matches
Mail list logo
