[Bug middle-end/58101] Wrong out-of-bounds warning under -Os

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58101 Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at

[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc

[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 --- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- I just saw that Janus has already posted a patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-08/msg00026.html , which is probably sufficient for 4.8. But for 4.9 [at least as follow up], see

[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 --- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #10) (In reply to janus from comment #7) The following patch makes the error go away, but (as expected) causes a failure of proc_ptr_result_8.f90 in the

[Bug target/58065] ARM MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT is wrong

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58065 Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug go/57194] go binaries give no debug info in ELF executable errno -1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57194 Christopher Meng cickumqt at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cickumqt at

[Bug c++/54080] [C++11] g++ crashes when compiling the following file

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54080 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug regression/58084] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr8081.c -O2 -flto -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=none (internal compiler error)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58084 Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|

[Bug c/58103] New: Error in handling of command line parameters in main(int argc, char *argv[]), in case of ???..?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58103 Bug ID: 58103 Summary: Error in handling of command line parameters in main(int argc, char *argv[]), in case of ???..? Product: gcc Version: 4.8.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/58048] [4.8/4.9 Regression] internal compiler error: Max. number of generated reload insns per insn is achieved (90)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58048 Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug c/58103] Error in handling of command line parameters in main(int argc, char *argv[]), in case of ???..?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58103 Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c/58103] Error in handling of command line parameters in main(int argc, char *argv[]), in case of ???..?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58103 --- Comment #2 from heinz.dob...@fh-hagenberg.at --- Hello Marek! Thank you for your fast response. BUT: Why does it work when I compile this C program with, e.g., the Microsoft C compiler (cl). By the way: echo ??? prints ??? (Windows). Best

[Bug c/58103] Error in handling of command line parameters in main(int argc, char *argv[]), in case of ???..?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58103 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Sorry, I don't know neither Microsoft compiler nor Windows enough to answer that.

[Bug c/58103] Error in handling of command line parameters in main(int argc, char *argv[]), in case of ???..?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58103 --- Comment #4 from heinz.dob...@fh-hagenberg.at --- Thanks, maybe some other person has an idea for this problem ;-) H -Original Message- From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org [mailto:gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org] Sent: Donnerstag, 08. August

[Bug libstdc++/56193] ios_base should replace operator void* with explicit operator bool in C++11 onwards.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56193 David Abdurachmanov david.abdurachmanov at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug target/56979] ICE in output_operand: invalid operand for code 'P'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56979 --- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org --- Fixed with PR target/56979 * arm.c (aapcs_vfp_allocate): Decompose the argument if the suggested mode for the assignment isn't compatible with the registers

[Bug target/57431] ICE in simplify_const_unary_operation vld1_dup_s64/vst1_s64

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57431 Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug c/58103] Error in handling of command line parameters in main(int argc, char *argv[]), in case of ???..?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58103 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- This has nothing to do with GCC anyway.

[Bug fortran/43366] [OOP][F08] Intrinsic assign to polymorphic variable

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43366 Bug 43366 depends on bug 46321, which changed state. Bug 46321 Summary: [OOP] Polymorphic deallocation http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46321 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/46321] [OOP] Polymorphic deallocation

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46321 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/51160] [OOP] Memory leak with abstract type

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51160 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/55057] [OOP] wrong result with abstract type

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55057 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/55057] [OOP] wrong result with abstract type

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55057 --- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to janus from comment #8) (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #7) It has been fixed between revisions 194721 and 195140. I can confirm that it is fixed on trunk, so let's

[Bug libstdc++/58104] New: std::call_once appears to fail on standard code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58104 Bug ID: 58104 Summary: std::call_once appears to fail on standard code Product: gcc Version: 4.8.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug libstdc++/58104] std::call_once appears to fail on standard code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58104 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- Works for me. Are you using the -pthread flag? You haven't actually said what fails, what fails to execute?

[Bug c++/58105] New: wrong code generation for multiversioned functions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58105 Bug ID: 58105 Summary: wrong code generation for multiversioned functions Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug middle-end/58106] New: ICE: in ipa_edge_duplication_hook, at ipa-prop.c:2839

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58106 Bug ID: 58106 Summary: ICE: in ipa_edge_duplication_hook, at ipa-prop.c:2839 Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug libstdc++/58104] std::call_once appears to fail on standard code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58104 --- Comment #2 from DBarto at visionpro dot com --- I added the -pthread flag and nothing changed. The code failed to execute at the point noted in the assembly output. David On Aug 8, 2013, at 9:10 AM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug libstdc++/58104] std::call_once appears to fail on standard code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58104 --- Comment #3 from DBarto at visionpro dot com --- /opt/local/bin/g++-mp-4.7 -std=c++11 -Wall -Wextra -pthread -g use_once.cpp -o use_once ./use_once 571_ ./use_once Segmentation fault: 11 gdb use_once (gdb) r Starting program:

[Bug middle-end/58106] ICE: in ipa_edge_duplication_hook, at ipa-prop.c:2839

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58106 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0

[Bug fortran/51945] Diagnose wrong default initialization of DTs in a DT declaration

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51945 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug fortran/49213] [OOP] gfortran rejects structure constructor expression

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49213 --- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- With the patch in comment #16 the 'Internal Error' when compiling the code in comment #15 disappears, but appears when compiling the test in pr51945 with the type-declaration

[Bug fortran/58085] Wrong indexing of an array in ASSOCIATE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58085 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug fortran/58064] Cannot compile gcc-4.8.1 by gcc-3.4.6

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58064 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug driver/42955] undecorated cross-compiler gcc fails to find cc1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42955 --- Comment #8 from Brooks Moses brooks at gcc dot gnu.org --- FWIW, there was some interesting discussion of this on http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15823. In particular, Joseph Myers argues that the bug is installing the files in

[Bug libstdc++/58104] std::call_once appears to fail on standard code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58104 --- Comment #4 from barto at visionpro dot com --- Adding the -pthread flag allows the code to compile and execute on Linux. MacOS still fails to execute.

[Bug fortran/51945] Diagnose wrong default initialization of DTs in a DT declaration

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51945 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c/56824] pragma GCC diagnostic push/pop regression for GCC diagnostic ignored -Waggregate-return

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56824 Magnus Reftel magnus.reftel at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||4.7.3

[Bug fortran/51945] Diagnose wrong default initialization of DTs in a DT declaration

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51945 --- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Applying the patches from PR 49213 (comments 8, 10 and 16), I get the following: 1) test case with comment: same as before (error with t2) 2) test case with uncommented line: c0.f90:15.16:

[Bug rtl-optimization/58079] internal compiler error: in do_SUBST, at combine.c:711

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58079 --- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Patch applied to trunk.

[Bug rtl-optimization/58079] internal compiler error: in do_SUBST, at combine.c:711

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58079 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/51945] Diagnose wrong default initialization of DTs in a DT declaration

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51945 --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- The following patch should somewhat improve the situation: Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c === --- gcc/fortran/resolve.c(revision

[Bug fortran/44978] derived types are resolved more than once

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|extended derived types are |derived types are resolved

[Bug c++/58107] New: missing destructor call after thrown exception in lambda capture

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58107 Bug ID: 58107 Summary: missing destructor call after thrown exception in lambda capture Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/58101] Wrong out-of-bounds warning under -Os

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58101 --- Comment #3 from Luis A Lozano llozano at google dot com --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2) Perhaps a dup of PR41847. Fails even with -O2, -O3, -Ofast, no only -Os. -fno-tree-vrp makes it go away... I dont think it is a

[Bug fortran/51945] Diagnose wrong default initialization of DTs in a DT declaration

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51945 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug rtl-optimization/58048] [4.8/4.9 Regression] internal compiler error: Max. number of generated reload insns per insn is achieved (90)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58048 Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vmakarov at

[Bug driver/42955] undecorated cross-compiler gcc fails to find cc1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42955 --- Comment #9 from Brooks Moses brooks at gcc dot gnu.org --- Patch posted: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00490.html

[Bug fortran/51945] Diagnose wrong default initialization of DTs in a DT declaration

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51945 --- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Btw, here is a variant which triggers an internal error similar to comment 3, but already with a clean trunk: type t integer :: i = 3 end type t type my_t integer :: i = t() end type

[Bug fortran/44978] derived types are resolved more than once

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978 --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to janus from comment #3) For another example, see PR 51945. In this case, the double resolution seems to be related to the default initialization. Here is a reduced test case from this

[Bug libstdc++/58104] std::call_once appears to fail on standard code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58104 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- Failed to execute and segmentation fault are not the same thing, it would help if you actually say what the problem is!

[Bug libstdc++/58104] std::call_once appears to fail on standard code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58104 --- Comment #6 from barto at visionpro dot com --- Compiling the code listed in the original bug report with gcc4.8 using the -pthread flag the program fails to complete execution due to a segmentation fault while attempting to acquire a

[Bug rtl-optimization/58048] [4.8/4.9 Regression] internal compiler error: Max. number of generated reload insns per insn is achieved (90)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58048 --- Comment #10 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de --- (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #9) so this test case has no chance to pass on a target without avx. maybe this should be added to the test case then? /* {