http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53895
--- Comment #5 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-08-15 06:58:49 UTC ---
btw I opened a gold bug
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14342
which did not get any attention yet
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54212
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-15
07:56:48 UTC ---
Author: ramana
Date: Wed Aug 15 07:56:41 2012
New Revision: 190407
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190407
Log:
Fix PR target/54212
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54262
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53420
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=53432
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54268
Bug #: 54268
Summary: std::string::reserve not consistent with
std::vector::reserve
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54263
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #38 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-15
08:57:51 UTC ---
What are the code generation deficiencies you are targeting with this? For
testcase #1 I get
sptr_result:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
movq
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54264
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54259
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54201
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #39 from Chip Salzenberg chip at pobox dot com 2012-08-15
09:13:36 UTC ---
avoiding BLKmode avoids unnecessary spills to memory. See Bug 28831 and Bug
41194 for examples.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #40 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-15 09:29:02 UTC ---
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, chip at pobox dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #39 from Chip Salzenberg chip
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54269
Bug #: 54269
Summary: [4.8 Regression] memory usage too large when
optimizing
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54269
--- Comment #1 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2012-08-15 09:57:13 UTC ---
seems like it is triggered by unrolling, using
gfortran -O2 -funroll-loops -ffree-form -D__LIBINT hfx_contraction_methods.F
is enough. A bt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54269
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-15
10:05:26 UTC ---
Well, that's ENABLE_CHECKING code. Are you sure 4.7 built with
--enable-checking=yes does not exhibit this behavior?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54252
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54269
--- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2012-08-15 10:59:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Well, that's ENABLE_CHECKING code. Are you sure 4.7 built with
--enable-checking=yes does not exhibit this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54252
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-15
11:00:53 UTC ---
hmmm MEM_SIZE for the offending load appears to be 32 bytes. Something is fishy
here.
vld1.32 {d16}, [r3:128]! = Offending load
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54252
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-15
11:18:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
hmmm MEM_SIZE for the offending load appears to be 32 bytes. Something is
fishy
here.
vld1.32 {d16}, [r3:128]! =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54269
--- Comment #4 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2012-08-15 11:37:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Well, that's ENABLE_CHECKING code. Are you sure 4.7 built with
--enable-checking=yes does not exhibit this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54270
Bug #: 54270
Summary: [4.8 Regression] spurious warning with
-Wunused-function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54270
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54270
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-15
12:44:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
Considering the following test case:
By the way, if you compile your test case with -O you will see that the
compiler has properly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54252
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-15
13:03:41 UTC ---
That ain't the root cause and that patch should really not be applied.
The problem really is in neon_dereference_pointer where we expand such
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240
--- Comment #12 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-08-15 13:17:47 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Aug 15 13:17:42 2012
New Revision: 190411
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190411
Log:
gcc:
2012-08-15
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240
William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54245
--- Comment #4 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-15
13:27:38 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Aug 15 13:27:29 2012
New Revision: 190412
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190412
Log:
gcc:
2012-08-15
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54245
William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54245
William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #41 from Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com 2012-08-15 13:47:37
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #38)
What are the code generation deficiencies you are targeting with this? For
testcase #1 I get
sptr_result:
.LFB0:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #42 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-15 13:58:16
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #37)
(In reply to comment #36)
(In reply to comment #35)
Note that for the test case in comment #34 (and comment #9) to fail that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52555
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=54268
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51359
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #43 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-15 14:21:05
UTC ---
The problem is we return a TI union in XF register
because the x86-64 psABI.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52555
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54271
Bug #: 54271
Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] libgcrypt CRC24RFC2440 30% slower
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-15
14:28:02 UTC ---
yes it was only ok very briefly, and has been slow again since then
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54271
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=54268
--- Comment #2 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-08-15 14:31:48 UTC ---
clang behaves similarly (even with -stdlib=libc++)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27930|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52555
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-15 14:34:53
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I actually wonder how could target attribute work the way it is implemented
right now so far.
It works by miracle. See PR 37565.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54252
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54259
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-15
14:46:11 UTC ---
Re component - c++
Although the error is due to a limitation in the FE, it's not a regression in
the FE, as SFINAE has never respected access control until
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #44 from Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com 2012-08-15 14:45:42
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #43)
The problem is we return a TI union in XF register
because the x86-64 psABI.
Is this the same problem documented in comment #9?
The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
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=54146
--- Comment #47 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-15
15:07:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #46)
Created attachment 28020 [details]
Faster rewrite_into_loop_closed_ssa
After this patch, IRA is the only major bottle-neck
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54267
--- Comment #8 from David Keller david.keller at litchis dot fr 2012-08-15
15:55:16 UTC ---
According to http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=28191, the man is
wrong, FreeBSD look at LD_LIBRARY_PATH before rpath.
So, when LD_LIBRARY_PATH
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #46 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-15 16:01:15
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #45)
Changing this is generally very risky for ABI incompatibilities, many targets
base some of the decisions how to pass parameters or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52933
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54272
Bug #: 54272
Summary: [SH] Add support for addv / subv instructions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54272
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkojima at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54273
Bug #: 54273
Summary: [4.7] ICE in extract_constrain_insn_cached with
--float=soft, --target=powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54111
--- Comment #5 from Leonid Volnitsky leonid at volnitsky dot com 2012-08-15
17:34:41 UTC ---
More combinatorics and more test (gcc-trunk, clang-trunk and gcc463). Now
everything in one file.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28831
--- Comment #18 from Chip Salzenberg chip at pobox dot com 2012-08-15
18:00:39 UTC ---
What will it take to get this fixed? Pass by value is Big in C++11 style, with
move semantics designed to tie right into the optimization that's being missed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
--- Comment #9 from Steve Ellcey sje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-15 18:01:58
UTC ---
That is correct, the original test fails with -fcompare-debug on a mipsel*
target
or a mips* (big-endian) target. The cutdown test case only fails on mips*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37995
Tom Tignor ttignor at us dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ttignor at us dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54250
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54276
Bug #: 54276
Summary: Lambda in a Template Function Undefined Reference to
local static
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37995
--- Comment #15 from Tom Tignor ttignor at us dot ibm.com 2012-08-15 21:27:31
UTC ---
Created attachment 28022
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28022
Simple repro for gcc subdir in PATH bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38966
Tom Tignor ttignor at us dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ttignor at us dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38966
--- Comment #10 from Tom Tignor ttignor at us dot ibm.com 2012-08-15 21:34:50
UTC ---
Created attachment 28023
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28023
Simple repro for gcc subdir in PATH bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28896
Larry Baker baker at usgs dot gov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27999|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28896
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54244
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54243
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-15 22:11:15 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Aug 15 22:11:03 2012
New Revision: 190420
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190420
Log:
2012-08-15 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54244
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-15 22:11:13 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Aug 15 22:11:03 2012
New Revision: 190420
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190420
Log:
2012-08-15 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54243
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54244
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54277
Bug #: 54277
Summary: Template class member referred to with implicit this
inside lambda is incorrectly const-qualified
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128
--- Comment #10 from Steve Ellcey sje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-15 23:21:42
UTC ---
Created attachment 28026
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28026
Cutdown test case that fails in little endian mode
Here is a second cut-down
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54260
--- Comment #3 from Feto Fetrovsky at gmail dot com 2012-08-15 23:48:07 UTC
---
Hi,
Thanks for the response. I've looked at the corresponding config.log, and
looked into the problems there, but I can't seem to make sense of what's going
on. I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54278
Bug #: 54278
Summary: control reaches end of non-void function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #47 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-16 00:00:25
UTC ---
Created attachment 28028
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28028
A patch
Here is a patch which should be applied on top of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54278
Travis Gockel travis at gockelhut dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54142
--- Comment #19 from Segher Boessenkool segher at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-16
00:57:44 UTC ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Aug 16 00:57:37 2012
New Revision: 190427
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190427
Log:
2012-08-15 Segher
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54142
Segher Boessenkool segher at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53313
David Stone david at doublewise dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54269
--- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2012-08-16 05:29:46 UTC ---
4.7 configured with --enable-checking=yes also needs 1.0Gb.
for a checking enable compiler, time went from 25s with 4.7 to 1m27s with 4.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54279
Bug #: 54279
Summary: first stage build with g++ fails with . as the first
component of $PATH
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54279
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
86 matches
Mail list logo