http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50610
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey Walton 2011-10-04
05:24:20 UTC ---
For this problem, the work around was:
try
{
const T* base = ptr;
base += SafeInt(cnt);
}
catch(const SafeIntException&)
{
throw InvalidArgumentExceptio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50610
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey Walton 2011-10-04
04:07:17 UTC ---
My bad:
jeffrey@studio:~/Desktop/safeint-opt-test$ gcc --version
gcc (Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5) 4.4.3
Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50610
Bug #: 50610
Summary: G++ 4.4.3: Incorrect code at -O2 (-fwrapv, SafeInt,
c++ templates, template class files)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50609
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||cris-axis-elf
Status|UNC
pr23135.x6 -auxbase-strip /tmp/ccJhtPAy.lto.o -O2 -w -version
-flto-partition=none -fresolution=pr23135.res pr23135.o -o pr23135.s
GNU GIMPLE (GCC) version 4.7.0 20111003 (experimental) [trunk revision 179480]
(cris-elf)
compiled by GNU C version 4.4.3 20100127 (Red Hat 4.4.3-4), GMP version
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50609
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-10-04
00:22:11 UTC ---
Last known working revision:first known failing 179447:179464, and 179462 is
the only related change in that range, so it's confirmed that's the revision
exposing or causing this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50607
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-10-04
00:04:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> On x86 linux the testcase does not cause segfaults, so may be you could
> investigate via gdb which function cause segfault on cris-elf.
I cloned this
35.s
GNU GIMPLE (GCC) version 4.7.0 20111003 (experimental) [trunk revision 179480]
(cris-elf)
compiled by GNU C version 4.4.3 20100127 (Red Hat 4.4.3-4), GMP version
4.3.0, MPFR version 2.4.1, MPC version 0.8
GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=30 --param ggc-min-heapsize=4096
GNU GIMPL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50608
Dan Berger changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50608
Bug #: 50608
Summary: cannot apply 'offsetof' to a non constant address
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50607
--- Comment #3 from Artem Shinkarov
2011-10-03 23:32:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> For cris-elf too (unsurprisingly as the error seems universal), plus I'm
> seeing
> a:
>
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr23135.c compilation, -O2 -flto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50607
--- Comment #2 from Artem Shinkarov
2011-10-03 23:17:22 UTC ---
That seems to be the changes caused by the patch I have committed. However, may
be this is a test-case that needs adjustment.
I'll have to consult with Joseph. He asked to change t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50607
Bug #: 50607
Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/bconstp-3.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50607
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2011-10-03
23:09:44 UTC ---
For cris-elf too (unsurprisingly as the error seems universal), plus I'm seeing
a:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr23135.c compilation, -O2 -flto (internal
compiler error)
gcc.l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50603
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever Confirmed|1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50606
Bug #: 50606
Summary: gcc fails to detect obvious use of NULL pointer
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50605
Bug #: 50605
Summary: ice in ipa_get_jf_pass_through_result with -O3
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50357
dcb changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50357
--- Comment #1 from dcb 2011-10-03 20:23:46 UTC ---
Seems fixed in gcc snapshot 20111001
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35831
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50283
--- Comment #3 from John David Anglin 2011-10-03
19:43:40 UTC ---
Created attachment 25405
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25405
.final dump
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50588
--- Comment #13 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-10-03
19:27:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 25404
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25404
reduced preprocessed test case
With this reduced test case I'm seeing gcc-4.6 ifcvt hoisting tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50604
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
Summary|[4.7.0] verify_g
nker-build-id
--enable-languages=c,c++,lto --enable-plugin --with-tune=generic
--enable-version-specific-runtime-libs
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.7.0 20111003 (experimental) [trunk revision 179472] (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50603
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49967
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey 2011-10-03 17:57:44
UTC ---
Author: sje
Date: Mon Oct 3 17:57:40 2011
New Revision: 179472
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179472
Log:
2011-10-03 Steve Ellcey
PR target/49967
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50603
Bug #: 50603
Summary: [x32] Unnecessary lea
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50601
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50602
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.7.0
--- Comment #1 from Andi Kleen 2011-1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50602
Bug #: 50602
Summary: ICE in tree_nrv, at tree-nrv.c:155 during large LTO
build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50601
Bug #: 50601
Summary: [4.7 Regression] New LTO failures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594
--- Comment #13 from Kerrek SB 2011-10-03 16:12:28
UTC ---
Very interesting. I understand that making the function static makes the
program ill-formed, but it's still somewhat surprising that a compiler flag
should turn a perfectly valid program
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39164
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50600
Bug #: 50600
Summary: "Illegal instruction" when using pragma Profile
(Restricted)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33814
mercergeoinfo at yahoo dot co.uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mercergeoinfo at yahoo d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-03
15:12:53 UTC ---
Yes, yesterday, a bit sleepy, I also wondered that, but I'm not knowledgeable
enough of these mechanisms to say whether it would be otherwise safe.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-03
15:02:37 UTC ---
we could add __attribute__((externally_visible)) on the declarations in
I don't know what other side effects that would have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50599
Bug #: 50599
Summary: -ftree-vectorize generating incorrect code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50598
Bug #: 50598
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Undefined symbols: "___emutls_v.*",
... on *-apple-darwin*
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Krügler
2011-10-03 13:49:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
I agree that given the "make static" contract of -fwhole-program (which I was
not aware about) the compiler behaves accordingly. I wonder whether it would b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-03
13:45:03 UTC ---
Oh, thanks Jon for testing that. Indeed, as far as I'm concerned, the issue is
resolved.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-03
13:43:21 UTC ---
[basic.stc.dynamic.allocation] p1
"a program is ill-formed if an allocation function is declared in a namespace
scope other than global scope or declared static in global scope."
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-03
13:41:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Thank you for the replies. Is this behaviour standard-conforming?
The documentation for -fwhole-program says that all functions become static,
which I sus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-03
13:22:23 UTC ---
I have no idea how this can be made to work with -fwhole-program, but other
people know better.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42304
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43682
--- Comment #3 from nightstrike 2011-10-03
13:06:38 UTC ---
Who can update the in-tree boehm-gc?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36819
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50588
--- Comment #12 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-10-03
12:56:10 UTC ---
Backporting r179284 to 4.6.1 (trivial except for the third ifcvt.c hunk which
required manual application due to a context diff) fixed the test case there
too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50587
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50588
--- Comment #11 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-10-03
11:46:28 UTC ---
The failure seems to have disappeared on trunk starting with r179284:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2011-09/msg00903.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39681
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-03
11:13:52 UTC ---
Like, sorry about my naivete, by adding a cp_parser_skip_to_end_of_statement or
something right after the error message?!?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39681
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-03
11:08:39 UTC ---
Ok, thanks. Frankly I hadn't noticed the *second* error. The first one seemed
good enough to me, and quite similar to what I saw elsewhere modulo type
instead of type-specifier. So do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44854
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50570
msteghofer at cistib dot upf.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msteghofer at cistib dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50570
--- Comment #2 from msteghofer at cistib dot upf.edu 2011-10-03 10:15:09 UTC ---
Created attachment 25403
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25403
Code to reproduce the behaviour
Subroutine POINTER_INTENT_IN_BUG_FAILING contains t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39681
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-10-03
10:07:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Manuel, can I have your opinion about this one?
Since you ask, my opinion is that first there should be only 1 error and not
two, and bonus points if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50595
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-03
10:04:17 UTC ---
Without having looked at the code, ICC behaves exactly like GCC.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50597
Bug #: 50597
Summary: printf_fp.o: relocation R_X86_64_PC32 against
`hack_digit.6607' can not be used when making a shared
object; recompile with -fPIC
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50038
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak 2011-10-03 09:19:16
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> So assuming this approach (modify implicit-zee pass) is right, we'll have to
> enable this pass at least on x86 (32 bit). Is it ok ?
>
> P. S.
> I forgot to m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50587
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-10-03
09:06:43 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Oct 3 09:06:38 2011
New Revision: 179447
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179447
Log:
PR tree-optimization/50587
* tree-ssa-reass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50593
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50587
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-10-03 08:44:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Created attachment 25402 [details]
> gcc47-pr50587.patch
>
> Does this patch fix it?
Yes it fixes both the LTO kernel and Firefox builds.
Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50596
--- Comment #1 from vincenzo Innocente
2011-10-03 08:40:53 UTC ---
manage to vectorize this
int j[1024];
void foo5() {
for (int i=0; i!=N; ++i)
j[i] = (a[i]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50588
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-10-03
08:35:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > So which libc was this originally compiled against? Some things in
> > traceroute.i make me think it's glibc, but I don't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50596
Bug #: 50596
Summary: Problems in vectorization of condition expression
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50587
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
67 matches
Mail list logo