http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55176
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-11-02 07:18:00 UTC ---
Reduced:
class Sandbox
{
void sandbox_exit ();
struct A
{
int write ();
};
void die ();
};
int a;
void
Attn:
This is Ms Vanessa Lawrence from Falkland Inc. Australia, we have got your
company info from our client Alibaba Trade and we are interested in your
product. we will like to know your production/shipping time frame. Ensure to
make a cc copy of your response to Email-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55147
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-02
08:03:05 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 2 08:03:02 2012
New Revision: 193090
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193090
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55176
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-11-02 08:09:51 UTC ---
This only happens when gcc was lto/profiledbootstraped.
Looks like it gets miscompiled in this case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55159
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2012-11-02 08:10:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
But it seems that gcc doesn't ignore the const (in const T* or const
auto*)
for functions here, which seems to be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55167
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55176
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-11-02 08:37:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
This only happens when gcc was lto/profiledbootstraped.
Looks like it gets miscompiled in this case.
Turned out
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55176
Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55159
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2012-11-02 08:57:33 UTC ---
I need to insert another correction. My attempt to simplify the reporters bug
failed because I was mislead by the report description that visual
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55177
Bug #: 55177
Summary: Missed optimisation: bswap, mask with constant, bswap
back again.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55175
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-11-02 10:01:44
UTC ---
Created attachment 28596
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28596
Proposed patch
Patch that disables relevant parts of soft-fp library
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55175
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-11-02 10:05:24
UTC ---
Can you please try to build with attached (untested) patch?
The patch disables the part that handles exceptions and where rounding mode is
set. We need
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55162
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55169
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-02 10:45:40 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Nov 2 10:45:25 2012
New Revision: 193092
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193092
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55177
--- Comment #1 from David Woodhouse dwmw2 at infradead dot org 2012-11-02
10:45:52 UTC ---
We have a similar issue with:
extern void func(void);
int baz(void)
{
if (__builtin_bswap32(x) 0x8)
func();
}
baz:
.LFB1:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55174
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55177
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55178
Bug #: 55178
Summary: lambda cannot be found at linkage stage
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55172
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55178
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55015
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55171
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55159
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-02
11:14:54 UTC ---
Thus, Daniel, is this invalid?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55169
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-02 11:18:22 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Nov 2 11:18:13 2012
New Revision: 193093
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193093
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55169
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55159
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2012-11-02 11:39:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Thus, Daniel, is this invalid?
I think this part of the problem is indeed valid:
template class T0, class T1
struct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55179
Bug #: 55179
Summary: Optionally warn when use-associating a module with no
(public) symbols
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53697
Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54431
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-11-02 11:43:50 UTC ---
Dup of Bug 53697 and Bug 53137.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55159
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53137
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53697
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54431
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53137
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55172
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55175
Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joel at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55175
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-02 14:09:09 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Nov 2 14:09:02 2012
New Revision: 193095
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193095
Log:
PR target/55175
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55175
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50339
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-02 14:33:27
UTC ---
It looks even worse in 4.8:
movq%rdi, %r9
movq%rsi, %rdi
movq%rsi, %r10
sarq$63, %rdi
movq%rdi, %rcx
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55130
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-02
14:44:23 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Nov 2 14:44:12 2012
New Revision: 193096
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193096
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55150
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-02
14:44:24 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Nov 2 14:44:12 2012
New Revision: 193096
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193096
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #3 from Adi adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-02 14:49:03 UTC
---
After more investigation I saw that I managed to get the constructors called by
removing the inline keyword from just one constructor of a class that resides
in my
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #4 from Adi adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-02 14:51:50 UTC
---
my attachment as text did not work so I have done it via word doc.
From: adivilce...@yahoo.com adivilce...@yahoo.com
To: dje at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55180
Bug #: 55180
Summary: Missed optimization abs(-x) - abs(x)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55176
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-11-02 15:13:48 UTC ---
Gcc is spinning in compute_antic (tree-ssa-pre.c:2507) calling
bitmap_set_new() until OOM:
#0 _int_malloc (av=0x7794d600 main_arena,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55180
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||16107
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55181
Bug #: 55181
Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] Expensive shift loop where a
bit-testing instruction could be used
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55181
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55181
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-02
16:11:40 UTC ---
Created attachment 28597
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28597
foo.c Test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16107
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55180
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55181
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-02
16:13:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 28598
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28598
foo.s (from 4.8)
Assembler output that shows the expensive shift
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55181
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-02
16:15:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 28599
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28599
foo.s (4.6.2, good)
Assembler output from 4.6.2 that generates a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55079
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-02
16:35:01 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Nov 2 16:34:52 2012
New Revision: 193098
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193098
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55079
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-02
16:46:54 UTC ---
The patch cures a lot of false positives seen at -O3 bootstrap. The testcase
here is not cured, I am looking into it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55177
--- Comment #3 from David Woodhouse dwmw2 at infradead dot org 2012-11-02
17:05:03 UTC ---
The first example isn't *that* dumb, as a cut-down test case of real code which
may look more complex in reality.
If the real code really *is* as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55177
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55079
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-02
18:44:37 UTC ---
Hmm, it seems to be due to off-by-one bug in my patch
Index: tree-ssa-loop-ivcanon.c
===
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55183
Bug #: 55183
Summary: GCC 4.8 constexpr is too permissive
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55183
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-02
19:36:36 UTC ---
4.6 does not really do constexpr.
Anyways I think this is a dup of bug 55039 as referenced by the following C++
Defect report:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55177
--- Comment #5 from David Woodhouse dwmw2 at infradead dot org 2012-11-02
19:41:28 UTC ---
Indeed. Bear in mind that sometimes we *hide* the actual variable (by prefixing
its name or putting it in a small struct of its own), just to *force*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55171
--- Comment #2 from Adam Mitz mitza at ociweb dot com 2012-11-02 19:51:26 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
Thus, is this mingw specific?
I can only get it to fail on mingw.
Should be target instead?
Sorry, I don't know what
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55171
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55183
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54985
--- Comment #15 from Jeffrey A. Law law at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-02
20:19:23 UTC ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Nov 2 20:19:16 2012
New Revision: 193108
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193108
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54985
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55183
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-02
20:36:12 UTC ---
The functions dealing with the void* internalPointer() can't be
constexpr on GCC 4.6 and Clang 3.2-trunk, even though GCC 4.8-trunk
accepts it,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55183
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-02
20:50:48 UTC ---
Thanks Andrew, if the issue would actually be about the reinterpret_cast it's
indeed very well known.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55079
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-02
20:51:31 UTC ---
Actually not, what happen here is that we unroll the loop 17 times based on the
fact that the array access iterates from taillen to tailen+n_iterations
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55085
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55133
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-02
20:57:34 UTC ---
Fixed.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 55085 ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55085
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55177
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-02
21:59:27 UTC ---
So what you describe as 'really dumb' is actually something that we *force*
people to do. We'd be much worse off without it.
'really dumb'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55184
Bug #: 55184
Summary: Invalid codegen with vectors and casts
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55184
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.4.0,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-11-02 23:09:19
UTC ---
(gdb) disass $pc - 19, +25
Dump of assembler code from 0xf7dddc7a to 0xf7dddc93:
0xf7dddc7a dl_main+5210:mov%r8d,%esi
0xf7dddc7d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54524
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-02
23:32:38 UTC ---
Author: pinskia
Date: Fri Nov 2 23:32:32 2012
New Revision: 193111
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193111
Log:
2012-11-02
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54524
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55184
--- Comment #1 from Mathias Gaunard mathias at gaunard dot com 2012-11-03
00:29:47 UTC ---
Problem seems to occur with i686 as well but only if SSE2 is enabled (you'll
need to replace 'long' by 'long long' for this in the testcase)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55185
Bug #: 55185
Summary: Error generated on extern inline function which isn't
called
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-11-03 02:51:26
UTC ---
This patch:
[hjl@gnu-tools-1 tmp]$ cat /tmp/x
diff --git a/gcc/expr.c b/gcc/expr.c
index 3e8e004..da35488 100644
--- a/gcc/expr.c
+++ b/gcc/expr.c
@@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55186
Bug #: 55186
Summary: gcc.dg/const-uniq-1.c fails due to vector expected but
not being in the constant pool
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55186
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
83 matches
Mail list logo
