http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53535
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|non-aligned memset on |non-aligned memset on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53535
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|non-aligned memset on |non-aligned memset on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53535
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-05-31
04:37:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Observe the
> emitted assembly code, which uses the same instructions for aligned and
> unaligned code
...(compare with the code from gcc.dg/pr46647.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53535
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-31
04:32:00 UTC ---
>alignment of data should not make a difference for emitted code
Unless the loading of unalignment makes it much slower. I thinking where two
aligned half loads are better than one u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53535
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-05-31
04:30:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 27528
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27528
Modified gcc.dg/pr46647.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53535
Bug #: 53535
Summary: non-aligned memset on non-strict-alignment targets not
optimized where aligned memset is
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53534
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|gcov-profile|c++
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53534
Bug #: 53534
Summary: gcov erroneously reporting opening brace of
constructor is never executed.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53527
--- Comment #2 from licheng.1212 at gmail dot com 2012-05-31 03:01:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> mips-unknown-elf is not a hosted platform and thus does not support Java.
But why the GCC 4.4.2 is OK,and I want to build a corss compiler th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #14
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
--- Comment #1 from Matt Hargett 2012-05-31 00:55:36 UTC
---
Created attachment 27526
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27526
tarball containing buildable sources and binaries that demonstrate the severe
performance regression o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53533
Bug #: 53533
Summary: [4.7 regression] loop unrolling as measured by Adobe's
C++Benchmark is twice as slow versus 4.4-4.6
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48308
Matt Heck changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||breakpoint at runbox dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52999
--- Comment #16 from John David Anglin 2012-05-30
23:04:04 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Wed May 30 23:03:59 2012
New Revision: 188032
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188032
Log:
PR target/52999
* config/pa/pa.c (TA
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52999
--- Comment #15 from John David Anglin 2012-05-30
22:54:24 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Wed May 30 22:54:20 2012
New Revision: 188031
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188031
Log:
2012-05-30 John David Anglin
PR targ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53356
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53008
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53008
--- Comment #11 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-05-30
22:13:48 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Wed May 30 22:13:43 2012
New Revision: 188030
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188030
Log:
Backport from mainline
2012-05-25
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53356
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2012-05-30
22:07:28 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed May 30 22:07:23 2012
New Revision: 188029
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188029
Log:
PR c++/53356
* tree.c (stabilize_init): Han
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53019
--- Comment #5 from Adam Borowski 2012-05-30
21:56:36 UTC ---
The changelog for Debian upload which included the fix is:
* Update to SVN 20120509 (r187339) from the gcc-4_7-branch.
- Fix PR libstdc++/53193, PR target/53272, PR tree-optimiz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21334
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #43 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52841
--- Comment #15 from Paul Pluzhnikov 2012-05-30
19:13:02 UTC ---
I've got another small reproducer, that shows up as a slightly different
failure, but very likely is the same problem:
namespace util { } // comment out => problem disappears
nam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48493
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-30
19:08:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> >on arm? That's pre-approved if it passes bootstrap & regtest
>
> I will try it on MIPS since I saw the exact same ICE and the exact same
> "(concat:SC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53532
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-05-30 19:08:18 UTC ---
This looks like another case of bug 51034.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50134
--- Comment #16 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-05-30
18:58:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> This bug results in real warnings being introduced unnoticed, see:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg02005.html
I think somebody tried
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50134
--- Comment #15 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-30
18:52:18 UTC ---
This bug results in real warnings being introduced unnoticed, see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg02005.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21334
tlknv at yandex dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tlknv at yandex dot ru
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-30
17:55:07 UTC ---
Thanks Manuel and Lawrence. If I understand correctly what L said, the simpler
and more urgent thing to do is making the warning code a bit smarter, I'll try
to do that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524
--- Comment #12 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-05-30
17:43:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I think there is a largely linguistic misunderstanding: when I said unintended
> I meant that I did not *anticipate* that after my patch, which was fi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524
--- Comment #11 from Lawrence Crowl 2012-05-30
17:42:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Let's add in CC Gaby, in the testsuite I see the warning triggering outside
> templates for a testcase coming from a bug report of him,
> g++.old-deja/g++.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524
--- Comment #10 from Lawrence Crowl 2012-05-30
17:37:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> The warnings are an unintended effect of my fix for PR16603.
>
> We warn at the end of the below lines of call.c. At the moment isn't clear to
> me *when*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-30
17:22:45 UTC ---
I think there is a largely linguistic misunderstanding: when I said unintended
I meant that I did not *anticipate* that after my patch, which was fixing a
real bug, we would end up war
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48493
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-30
17:05:49 UTC ---
>on arm? That's pre-approved if it passes bootstrap & regtest
I will try it on MIPS since I saw the exact same ICE and the exact same
"(concat:SC (reg/v:SF 134 [ s ])
(reg/v:SF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53502
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2012-05-30
16:52:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> New Revision: 188024
That patch removed the typedef from gcc/fortran/decl.c. Hence,
--disable-build-poststage1-with-cxx should work now.
Whether GCC shoul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53532
Bug #: 53532
Summary: function call ignored when called with argument of
incompatible, undefined structure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53502
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2012-05-30
16:44:49 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed May 30 16:44:42 2012
New Revision: 188024
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188024
Log:
2012-05-30 Tobias Burnus
PR c/53502
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-05-30
16:29:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> The warnings are an unintended effect of my fix for PR16603.
So, before your fix, same_type_p was returning true?
enum { e1 = -1 };
enum { e2 = -1 }
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53531
Bug #: 53531
Summary: <> accepted as template arguments for variadic
template
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53091
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cpy.prefers.you at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53530
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53525
--- Comment #12 from jimis 2012-05-30 15:55:19 UTC ---
I should probably explain where the problem is and why I've left a memory leak.
In tokens_buff_new() I can't use XOBNEWVEC() instead of XNEWVEC() because it is
not guarded from the obstack_mar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53529
--- Comment #2 from Bernard van Duijnen
2012-05-30 15:49:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Don't do it then? Having . in $PATH is a severe security issue anyway.
Typically it is unsecure yes, but not always. For instance on my ubuntu
laptop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53530
Bug #: 53530
Summary: const variables not constant enough to be used as
initializers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53529
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=48124
--- Comment #22 from Eric Botcazou 2012-05-30
15:28:14 UTC ---
> Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
This also needs to be tested on 32-bit and strict-alignment platforms.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53529
Bug #: 53529
Summary: assembler errors while building a cross compiler if .
(dot) is in your PATH
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53518
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48124
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23837|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53471
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53356
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2012-05-30
14:52:06 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed May 30 14:52:02 2012
New Revision: 188021
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188021
Log:
PR c++/53356
* tree.c (stabilize_init): Sid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill 2012-05-30
14:51:58 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed May 30 14:51:54 2012
New Revision: 188020
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188020
Log:
PR c++/53220
gcc/
* c-typeck.c (array_to_p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53356
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2012-05-30
14:50:49 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed May 30 14:50:44 2012
New Revision: 188019
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188019
Log:
PR c++/53356
* tree.c (stabilize_init): Sid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53019
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #4 from Richard Gu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53521
--- Comment #6 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-05-30 14:37:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> You say not doing free (0) leaks memory? What OS is this on?
I'm observing on a Linux box that :
MODULE TEST
IMPLICIT NONE
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE T(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53521
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53528
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-05-30 13:47:38 UTC ---
Note that the syntactic binding of C++11 attributes is different from that
of GNU attributes in various cases, so the front end will need to track
separately what att
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51776
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||53528
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wake
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53356
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53528
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53528
Bug #: 53528
Summary: Support C++11 generalized attributes
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53521
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-30
12:46:53 UTC ---
You say not doing free (0) leaks memory? What OS is this on? Note that
we fold such calls away:
case BUILT_IN_FREE:
if (integer_zerop (arg0))
return build_empty
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48493
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
Summary|[4.6/4.7/4.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51927
--- Comment #3 from gccearlyadop...@trash-mail.com 2012-05-30 12:34:12 UTC ---
My local GCC says "4.7.0_3". :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53501
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.1, 4.8.0
Summary|[4.5/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53501
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-30
12:32:17 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 30 12:32:10 2012
New Revision: 188010
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188010
Log:
2012-05-30 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53521
--- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-05-30 12:31:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Well, I think this is a valgrind issue and not a real "leak". Whether you
> want to "optimize" code for the non-NULL case by omitting the NULL check is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53501
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-30
12:29:31 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 30 12:29:26 2012
New Revision: 188009
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188009
Log:
2012-05-30 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53527
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||g...@integrable-solutions.ne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53527
Bug #: 53527
Summary: 4.7.0 release can't enable java language
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53501
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-30
10:34:50 UTC ---
It's my very best friend extract_muldiv that transforms
(int)((unsigned int) n.0_26 + 4294967295) * 2
to (int)(((unsigned int) n.0_26 + 2147483647) * 2)
It is the folding of (int)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53526
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53526
Bug #: 53526
Summary: [Coarray] (lib) Properly handle MOVE_ALLOC for
coarrays
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53501
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53521
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8|[4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8
|Re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Version|unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53522
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53522
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-30
09:14:35 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 30 09:14:27 2012
New Revision: 188005
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188005
Log:
2012-05-30 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53522
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-05-30 09:11:53 UTC ---
On Tue, 29 May 2012, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53522
>
> Dominique d'Humieres changed:
>
>What|Remov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53494
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-30
08:52:09 UTC ---
Note that in any case in current mainline the location is exactly the '?' of
the conditional expression: maybe the error message doesn't make sense but
lately we are making progress on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51927
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53525
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53521
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53494
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-30
08:17:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Am I interpreting correctly that double braces are /required/ for std::array
> init lists but only when the subtype has has a multivariable initializer t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51927
--- Comment #1 from gccearlyadop...@trash-mail.com 2012-05-30 07:48:35 UTC ---
This Bug still exists in the latest GCC 4.7 release.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46836
--- Comment #8 from dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-05-30 07:34:17 UTC ---
"manu at gcc dot gnu.org" a écrit:
> Well, we already have pragma system_header, we could extend it with an
> optional
> parameter.
>
> #pragma GCC system_header "canoni
89 matches
Mail list logo
