http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58098
Bug ID: 58098
Summary: wrong return value of normal_distribution::min()
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
Bug ID: 58099
Summary: over-zealous Error pointer error checking in gfortran
4.8
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Price daniel.price at monash dot edu ---
Created attachment 30623
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30623action=edit
relevant module
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58095
--- Comment #4 from Siavash Eliasi siavashserver at gmail dot com ---
In the end, here is what I really like GCC to generate for me. Same output as
function (bar) for function (foo) when using GCC with -O3 -march=core2
switches:
#include
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58065
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
Patch was posted here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00350.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
Andrew McLeod andy at gwentswordclub dot co.uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andy at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58098
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58098
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58098
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #4 from Andrew McLeod andy at gwentswordclub dot co.uk ---
Hi Janus,
I think you should read the part of the standard I quoted again? It clearly
specifies that the procedure target may be pure even if the procedure pointer
is not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58039
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
Your code performs mis-aligned uint16_t stores, which x86 allows. The
vectorizer turns those into larger and still mis-aligned `movdqa' stores, which
x86 does not allow, hence the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58100
Bug ID: 58100
Summary: Spurious DO loop at (1) will be executed zero times
warning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
My first suspicion is that the regression was introduced by this commit:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revisionrevision=195133
which was the fix for PR54286.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58092
--- Comment #7 from Rafał Miłecki zajec5 at gmail dot com ---
I compiled two versions of gcc on my own:
1) gcc-4.6.4.tar.bz2
2) gcc-linaro-4.6-2012.12.tar.bz2
For both of them I've used binutils-2.22.tar.bz2
test.o compiled with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58098
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Note: it's indeed debatable whether lowest or -infinity is better. For now I'm
going to minimally change our code to use lowest, because we use max the other
side, and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46206
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58092
--- Comment #8 from Rafał Miłecki zajec5 at gmail dot com ---
I found link to bug repository on https://support.linaro.org/home and reported
that issue to Linaro developers:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/+bug/1209171
Hope they'll handle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The following patch makes the error go away, but (as expected) causes a failure
of proc_ptr_result_8.f90 in the testsuite ...
Index: gcc/fortran/expr.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58092
Rafał Miłecki zajec5 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57850
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58098
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I have just verified that the combined patches of comment 7 and 8 regtest
cleanly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58088
--- Comment #9 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Proposed patch posted at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00361.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58092
Rafał Miłecki zajec5 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56979
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58101
Bug ID: 58101
Summary: Wrong out-of-bounds warning under -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081
Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081
--- Comment #28 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Michael Meissner from comment #27)
The patch from Oleg Endo breaks the PowerPC build.
.../gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c: In function ‘void
rs6000_emit_swdiv(rtx_def*,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081
--- Comment #29 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #28)
(In reply to Michael Meissner from comment #27)
The patch from Oleg Endo breaks the PowerPC build.
.../gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c: In
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081
--- Comment #30 from Michael Meissner meissner at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 07:22:32PM +, olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081
--- Comment #29 from Oleg Endo olegendo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58102
Bug ID: 58102
Summary: rejects valid initialization of constexpr object with
mutable member
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54864
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54366
Bug 54366 depends on bug 54864, which changed state.
Bug 54864 Summary: Decltype in nested class
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54864
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58083
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54864
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Ridge zeratul976 at hotmail dot com ---
Since gcc and clang can't both be right, I filed
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16828 .
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55434
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58101
Luis A Lozano llozano at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55434
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
With C++11 constexpr things are fine. I think this is an indication that before
fiddling with dwarf2out we should make sure const is handled like constexpr, in
C++98 mode too,
41 matches
Mail list logo