http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56897
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2013-04-10 06:43:14
UTC ---
Attached the diff against trunk.
Please post patches to gcc-patches mailing list, as described in [1].
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56898
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2013-04-10 06:43:52
UTC ---
Please post patches to gcc-patches mailing list, as described in [1].
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56883
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-10
06:53:47 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 10 06:35:48 2013
New Revision: 197661
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=197661root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backported
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56895
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56899
Bug #: 56899
Summary: Wrong constant folding
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56813
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56899
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56899
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56899
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2013-04-10
07:45:20 UTC ---
What's the target? I can't reproduce on x86_64, armv5tel, or m68k.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56899
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-10 07:49:24
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
What's the target? I can't reproduce on x86_64, armv5tel, or m68k.
I've reproduced it with -O2 on x86_64-linux-gnu using
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56899
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56899
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-10
08:05:52 UTC ---
Better testcase:
__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void
foo (int v)
{
int x = -214748365 * (v - 1);
if (x != -1932735285)
__builtin_abort
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56824
Magnus Reftel magnus.reftel at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56894
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56899
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
29847
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29847
vrp87.c.127t.vrp2
spawn /daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20130410/Build/gcc/xgcc
-B/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20130410/Build/gcc/
/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20130410/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp87.c
-fno-diagnostics-show-caret -O2 -fdump-tree
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56900
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org 2013-04-10 08:23:59
UTC ---
Created attachment 29848
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29848
vrp87.c.128t.cddce2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56899
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-10
08:24:46 UTC ---
That said, removing that hunk completely would remove it even for the case
where the type has defined overflow, shouldn't we remove it just for undefined
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56901
Bug #: 56901
Summary: [4.9 regression] lambda with implicit capture by
reference
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56901
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Ridge zeratul976 at hotmail dot com 2013-04-10
08:30:23 UTC ---
Tested with r197663.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56901
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52748
Nathan Ridge zeratul976 at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56900
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56899
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-10
09:29:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
That said, removing that hunk completely would remove it even for the case
where the type has defined overflow, shouldn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56901
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56902
Bug #: 56902
Summary: Fails to SLP with mismatched +/- and negatable
constants
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56903
Bug #: 56903
Summary: gcc is 4.8.0 fails to compile netdev.c from the linux
kernel [internal compiler error: Maximum number of LRA
constraint passes is achieved]
Classification:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55524
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56904
Bug #: 56904
Summary: rejection of legal code in c++11 mode. (maybe
namespace lookup problem)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56903
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56903
Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56903
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56903
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56903
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-10
12:02:27 UTC ---
Slightly cleaned up testcase:
/* PR rtl-optimization/56903 */
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options -Os } */
/* { dg-additional-options
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56904
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37132
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-10
13:08:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Draft patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00560.html
The draft patch fails for dummy arguments as the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56905
Bug #: 56905
Summary: [C++11][DR 1130] std::copy_exception should be removed
or no longer be used
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56881
--- Comment #4 from devspam at moreofthesa dot me.uk 2013-04-10 14:49:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 29850
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29850
Full source of the problem program, both in original form and fully
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56878
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-10
14:58:00 UTC ---
Hmm, it seems to be a rather unfortunate choice of aligning x vs. v1 which
seems to only depend on the order in which the data-refs appear in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56881
--- Comment #5 from devspam at moreofthesa dot me.uk 2013-04-10 15:02:54 UTC ---
The tarball which I've attached also provides its own test case – compile it
then pass it one of its own source files. It'll either segfault or not
depending on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56906
Bug #: 56906
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/opt/vt4.C -std=gnu++* scan-assembler-not
_ZTV.A
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56878
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-10
15:05:44 UTC ---
Like with the simple
Index: gcc/tree-vect-data-refs.c
===
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56907
Bug #: 56907
Summary: C_LOC shall not call internal-PACK when an array
argument is used
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56908
Bug #: 56908
Summary: Spurious warning when XOR-ing uint8_t values
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56909
Bug #: 56909
Summary: [4.8 regression] Ada: s-atopri.adb:multiple undefined
references on mingw32
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56872
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56909
--- Comment #1 from Arthur Zhang mail2arthur at gmail dot com 2013-04-10
16:32:49 UTC ---
Less undefined references if add '--with-arch=i486 --with-tune=i686' to
configure.
s-atopri.o: In function
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56900
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56910
Bug #: 56910
Summary: Syntax error seemingly sneaks through gcc
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56911
Bug #: 56911
Summary: [4.8 Regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/enum25.C:14:19: ICE: in
finish_class_member_access_expr, at cp/typeck.c:2673
with -fpic
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56911
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56824
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56911
Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
) 4.8.1 20130410 (prerelease) [gcc-4_8-branch revision 197677]
~/gcc-build-48/gcc/cc1plus -fpic -std=c++11 enum25.C
int main()
enum25.C:17:8: error: ‘enum class D::Y’ is not a member of ‘C’
c.D::Y; // { dg-error not a member }
^
(Which is expected error).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56911
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2013-04-10 18:42:07 UTC ---
gcc version 4.8.0 (GCC) in my case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56895
--- Comment #12 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2013-04-10 19:56:00 UTC ---
Just double checked and the original testcase still ICEs.
markus@x4 tmp % cat test.cpp
#include iostream
extern struct A { bool foo (); A bar ();
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56895
--- Comment #13 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2013-04-10 20:04:03 UTC ---
struct B
{
void operator (B ());
void operator (int);
};
B b;
struct A
{
bool foo ();
A bar ();
};
A *a;
template
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56912
Bug #: 56912
Summary: scheduler change breaks linux kernel LTO build with
4.8
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56077
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-11
00:38:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
The fix has been reverted on the 4.6 and 4.7 branches.
I think it should also be reverted on the 4.8 branch, see PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56912
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-11
00:39:29 UTC ---
No simple test case unfortunately as it is LTO
Actually it should not be hard to get a testcase if you use mutli-delta. I
have reduced some LTO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56913
Bug #: 56913
Summary: [C++11] SFINAE for ill-formed pointer-to-member
operators with incompatible ref-qualifiers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56914
Bug #: 56914
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56914
--- Comment #1 from Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira vini.ipsmaker at gmail dot
com 2013-04-11 01:01:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 29852
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29852
The preprocessed source file.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56913
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56842
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56904
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56904
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-11
02:54:34 UTC ---
See also DR 125:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#125
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56077
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-11
05:37:30 UTC ---
No, it shouldn't be reverted, silent wrong code is IMHO more severe than LTO
only ICE.
69 matches
Mail list logo
