http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49352
--- Comment #11 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-13 06:10:25 UTC ---
Author: irar
Date: Mon Jun 13 06:10:20 2011
New Revision: 174982
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=174982
Log:
PR tree-optimization/49352
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49352
Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49385
Summary: Invalid RTL intstruction for ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459
--- Comment #12 from Anitha Boyapati anitha.boyapati at atmel dot com
2011-06-13 06:53:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
(In reply to comment #10)
I don't think initial_return_save() is called now. It passes the
compilation
there but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459
--- Comment #13 from Anitha Boyapati anitha.boyapati at atmel dot com
2011-06-13 07:13:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
function returns true. As a result, dwarf_debug_frame_expr() is always called!
Typo - dwarf2out_frame_debug_expr() is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49386
Summary: #undef min/max is dependent on order if #include
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49387
Summary: t.cxx:140: error: too many initializers for ‘const
__class_type_info_pseudo’
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459
Eric Weddington eric.weddington at atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49386
Chris Jefferson chris at bubblescope dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chris at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459
--- Comment #15 from Anitha Boyapati anitha.boyapati at atmel dot com
2011-06-13 07:55:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
(In reply to comment #13)
Can you change the state to NEW and raise the severity to blocker? I don't
have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49386
--- Comment #2 from Takaya Saito gintensubaru at gmail dot com 2011-06-13
08:09:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
max is a term defiend in the standard library. It is undefined behaviour if
you
#define it to something else when you are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49386
--- Comment #3 from Chris Jefferson chris at bubblescope dot net 2011-06-13
08:15:39 UTC ---
Ah yes. This is unfortunate, and I believe tricky to fix at the gcc end. We
could in principle add '#undef min, #undef max', but I worry that might break
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49386
--- Comment #4 from Takaya Saito gintensubaru at gmail dot com 2011-06-13
08:29:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Ah yes. This is unfortunate, and I believe tricky to fix at the gcc end. We
could in principle add '#undef min, #undef max', but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49103
--- Comment #13 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-13
08:41:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
This untested hack is an attempt to avoid reverting my patch
Submitted version of the workaround patch 4.6:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49388
Summary: Template class can extend private nested class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49387
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49387
--- Comment #2 from Mathieu Malaterre mathieu.malaterre at gmail dot com
2011-06-13 09:09:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 24505
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24505
Test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48454
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-13
09:09:19 UTC ---
Author: ramana
Date: Mon Jun 13 09:09:14 2011
New Revision: 174984
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=174984
Log:
PR target/48454
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47346
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthew_eanor at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49388
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49386
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-06-13
09:25:33 UTC ---
Note that iostream, before anything else, does #include bits/c++config,
thus there is something weird going on. If you can spot it, just tell me and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49386
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-06-13
09:29:07 UTC ---
Oh yes, the issue of course is that the #undef themselves are inside the
include guards of c++config, thus happen only once. We can take them out and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49386
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-06-13
09:34:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 24506
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24506
Draft patch
This is what I mean. It works of course, but in my
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49386
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49387
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49387
--- Comment #4 from Mathieu Malaterre mathieu.malaterre at gmail dot com
2011-06-13 09:49:41 UTC ---
Test was done a on a debian/squeeze system:
$ g++ --version
g++ (Debian 4.4.5-8) 4.4.5
$ apt-cache policy libboost1.42-dev
libboost1.42-dev:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49386
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49389
Summary: [C++0x] Wrong value category for pointer-to-member
expression with rvalue object expression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49385
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-06-13
11:20:23 UTC ---
I get no ICE on this with 4.7 r174986, even with --enable-checking, and the
assembler doesn't complain about the generated code.
So what is the problem?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49380
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49390
Summary: [4.6/4.7 Regression] GCSE miscompilation
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49390
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.4.6, 4.5.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49385
--- Comment #2 from revital.eres at linaro dot org 2011-06-13 11:26:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I get no ICE on this with 4.7 r174986, even with --enable-checking, and the
assembler doesn't complain about the generated code.
So what is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49386
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-06-13
11:36:50 UTC ---
I agree in principle about the c++config.h (aka os_defines.h) header of the
broken targets (which would be, I suppose, djgpp and mingw32) and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49387
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-13
11:53:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 24508
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24508
reduced testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49386
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-06-13
11:54:27 UTC ---
To be clear: if we want to close this as WONTFIX, I'm not objecting. I'd like
only to ear from Dave, though, because I'm not in touch with anybody
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49380
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49380
--- Comment #15 from Ilya Chernykh anixx at opensuse dot org 2011-06-13
12:17:47 UTC ---
I think this is fixed already?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49343
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-13
12:30:02 UTC ---
This is a proposed (fully tested) fix. How do you want me to add a testcase?
Should I just add the test-case attached to this bug to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49390
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-13
12:36:58 UTC ---
Blindly ignoring MEM_EXPR or other attributes looks very wrong to me.
Guess in some cases it could return true even when MEM_ATTRS aren't identical,
but they'd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49387
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-13
12:39:59 UTC ---
further reduced
#include typeinfo
struct ResourceMonitorClient { };
template typename T struct ResourcePool : public ResourceMonitorClient {
virtual
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25130
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49391
Summary: [arm] sp not accepted as input for alu operation
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49371
Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24501|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48613
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49371
--- Comment #24 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-06-13 13:12:36 UTC ---
However, what is still needed is adjustment of test-cases ...
Which test cases? on x86_64-apple-darwin10 the testsuite passes with only the
known
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49371
--- Comment #25 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-13 13:27:22
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #24)
However, what is still needed is adjustment of test-cases ...
Which test cases? on x86_64-apple-darwin10 the testsuite passes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49371
--- Comment #26 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-06-13 13:46:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
I had assumed that the cases noted in comment #15 were test fails - if they
were just examples, then we are probably
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49390
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-13
13:53:23 UTC ---
Perhaps we should have some exceptions where we allow different MEM_ATTRS, but
they need to be carefully chosen. E.g. if both refs are indirect refs and are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49371
--- Comment #27 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-13 14:18:58
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
(In reply to comment #25)
I had assumed that the cases noted in comment #15 were test fails - if they
were just examples, then we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49390
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-13
14:28:31 UTC ---
Perhaps, if the tests are more expensive, case MEM: if (for_gcse) could
first do the cheap tests, then
if (!exp_equiv_p (XEXP (x, 0), XEXP (y, 0), validate,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49392
Summary: [arm] spurious EABI version mismatches when LTO
enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jason at redhat dot com |rth at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49390
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-13
15:35:13 UTC ---
Created attachment 24510
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24510
gcc46-pr49390.patch
Untested patch. Richard, what do you think about it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49368
--- Comment #2 from David Meggy david.meggy at icron dot com 2011-06-13
16:03:01 UTC ---
Both those versions are newer than what I'm using. Looks like time to upgrade
Thanks for looking into this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052
Justin Lebar justin.lebar+bug at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49393
Summary: [4.7 Regression] LTO testsuite failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49367
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-13
18:11:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
As a1 and a2 are not restrict qualified they may point to the same object
and thus the two restrict pointers are based on each
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|Serge.Pavlov.at.gnu at |sergos.gnu at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052
--- Comment #10 from Justin Lebar justin.lebar+bug at gmail dot com
2011-06-13 18:18:13 UTC ---
Can I force gcc not to use its inlined version?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49393
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45307
Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49383
Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45307
Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49394
Summary: [4.7 Regression]
libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/lock_guard/cons/1.cc
FAILs with -fipa-pta -fnon-call-exceptions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #24478|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49349
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey sje at cup dot hp.com 2011-06-13 19:29:56
UTC ---
I tested the patch from comment #1 and it fixed gfortran.dg/char_result_3.f90.
I got one regression on IA64 Linux but I can't reproduce it so I think it was
just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49382
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49382
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-13
19:36:42 UTC ---
Alternatively, even before statement frontiers we could special case parameters
(PARM_DECLs and vars with PARM_DECL DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN) before the first insn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49382
--- Comment #3 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2011-06-13 19:52:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
we could special case parameters (PARM_DECLs and vars with PARM_DECL
DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN) before the first insn
At least
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49362
--- Comment #2 from mark.pupilli at dyson dot com 2011-06-13 19:56:43 UTC ---
The vld2q version should actually be 15 instructions (not 17!) as follows:
vld2.32{d20-d23}, [r0]
vld2.32{d26-d29}, [r1]
veor q12, q11, q14
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49384
--- Comment #2 from Paul Pogonyshev pogonyshev at gmx dot net 2011-06-13
20:09:49 UTC ---
So, changing in a way incompatible to what the standard says is intended? Or
am I (and pre-4.6 libstdc++) misreading the standard?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49395
Summary: Non-class prvalues seem to have cv-qualification with
GCC
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49396
Summary: c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c: duplicate if expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20049
Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jengelh at medozas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45718
Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49384
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-06-13
21:11:57 UTC ---
The published C++ Standard has DEFECTS, as any other Standard. With time,
defects are analyzed, fixes found (which then become part of the Standard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49397
Summary: ICE with proc pointer assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49398
Summary: [4.7 ] bootstrap broken for arm-linux-gnueabi with
thumb mode.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49398
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-14
00:23:33 UTC ---
Created attachment 24514
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24514
Reduced testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49398
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
82 matches
Mail list logo
