[Bug fortran/58225] New: In show_locus at fortran/error.c:391 pointer beyond end of line

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58225 Bug ID: 58225 Summary: In show_locus at fortran/error.c:391 pointer beyond end of line Product: gcc Version: 4.8.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/58226] New: negative subscript pos at fortran/options.c:1205

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58226 Bug ID: 58226 Summary: negative subscript pos at fortran/options.c:1205 Product: gcc Version: 4.8.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug fortran/58225] In show_locus at fortran/error.c:391 pointer beyond end of line

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58225 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug tree-optimization/58223] [4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58223 Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug tree-optimization/58223] [4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58223 Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at

[Bug tree-optimization/58223] [4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58223 Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||4.7.3

[Bug tree-optimization/58227] New: wrong code (hangs) at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58227 Bug ID: 58227 Summary: wrong code (hangs) at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/57932] Aligned stack wastes more than k bytes (as needed), if preferred stack boundary k=2**n, n=4

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57932 Markus Eisenmann meisenmann@fh-salzburg.ac.at changed: What|Removed |Added Target|IA-32/x86-64|i386

[Bug tree-optimization/58227] wrong code (hangs) at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58227 Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at

[Bug tree-optimization/58209] [4.7 Regression] ICE in extract_range_from_binary_expr, at tree-vrp.c:2294

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58209 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||4.8.2, 4.9.0

[Bug tree-optimization/58227] wrong code (hangs) at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58227 --- Comment #2 from Zhendong Su su at cs dot ucdavis.edu --- But similar to 58143, because of short circuiting (since a == 0), the expression 0 -2147483647 - h ? 0 : 1 shouldn't be evaluated at all, correct? Or maybe I'm mistaken? Thanks for

[Bug tree-optimization/58228] New: wrong code (with vectorization?) at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58228 Bug ID: 58228 Summary: wrong code (with vectorization?) at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/58227] wrong code (hangs) at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58227 Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug tree-optimization/58223] [4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58223 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot

[Bug tree-optimization/58227] [4.9 Regression] wrong code (hangs) at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58227 Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||4.8.1

[Bug tree-optimization/58228] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong code (with vectorization?) at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58228 Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug fortran/58113] [4.9 Regression] gfortran.dg/round_4.f90 FAILs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58113 Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/58143] [4.8/4.9 regression] wrong code at -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143 Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #30681|0 |1

[Bug tree-optimization/58143] [4.8/4.9 regression] wrong code at -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- No, that is wrong as well.

[Bug tree-optimization/58228] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong code (with vectorization?) at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58228 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/58229] New: Memory leak with overloaded operator

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58229 Bug ID: 58229 Summary: Memory leak with overloaded operator Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug libmudflap/58230] New: mutliple test fail in german language version

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58230 Bug ID: 58230 Summary: mutliple test fail in german language version Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/58218] -mcmodel=medium cause assembler warning ignoring incorrect section type for .lbss

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58218 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221 --- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org --- No significant change in results for regress-446 - regress-444 for r201882 from r201874 (some libstdc++ changes pass again, but others now fail). Maybe r201883 is the winner;

[Bug c/58231] New: Using post-decrement as a boolean expression in if statement leads to crash

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58231 Bug ID: 58231 Summary: Using post-decrement as a boolean expression in if statement leads to crash Product: gcc Version: 4.6.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c/58231] Using post-decrement as a boolean expression in if statement leads to crash

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58231 Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING

[Bug c++/50436] Crash or hang on invalid template code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50436 --- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com --- Currently both hang for me (after a rather useful error message). We can certainly do better, of course. Interesting that the error messages produced by clang and icc are

[Bug c++/55677] Virtual inheritance, 'this' pointer used as constructor parameter, parameter specialized in derived method, generated binary dumps core

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55677 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |WORKSFORME

[Bug c++/55677] Virtual inheritance, 'this' pointer used as constructor parameter, parameter specialized in derived method, generated binary dumps core

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55677 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/58143] [4.8/4.9 regression] wrong code at -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143 --- Comment #12 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11) No, that is wrong as well. Because it is too destructive? Maybe. I think this is a general problem here. 1. the undefined

[Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221 Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2013-08-23

[Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221 Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kkojima at

[Bug tree-optimization/58143] [4.8/4.9 regression] wrong code at -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143 --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Because the bug is in lim, so hacking around it in other parts of the compiler and removing desirable optimizations just to mitigate the bug is not the right way to fix it. Either

[Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot

[Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221 --- Comment #5 from Teresa Johnson tejohnson at google dot com --- Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. Kaz, are you planning to apply your patch, or do you want me to test it and commit it? I'm kicking off x86_64 tests with it right now, but I

[Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221 --- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Teresa Johnson from comment #5) Kaz, are you planning to apply your patch, or do you want me to test it and commit it? I'm kicking off x86_64 tests with it right

[Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221 --- Comment #7 from Teresa Johnson tejohnson at google dot com --- On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:49 AM, kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221 --- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima

[Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221 --- Comment #8 from Teresa Johnson tejohnson at google dot com --- Tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, and also reproduced the failure listed in PR rtl-optimization/58220 and verified the fix with it. Committed as r201941: Index: final.c

[Bug tree-optimization/58223] [4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58223 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Ok, so what happens here is that rdg_build_partitions builds two partitions, that essentially means we split the loop in the original test case into two loops: for (b = 0; b 2;

[Bug fortran/58229] [F03] Memory leak with allocatable function result

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58229 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug fortran/57798] [4.8 Regression] Incorrect handling of sum over first dimension of a product of automatic arrays

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57798 Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regression]|[4.8 Regression]

[Bug libmudflap/58232] New: False mudflap positive on std::setw

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58232 Bug ID: 58232 Summary: False mudflap positive on std::setw Product: gcc Version: 4.8.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libmudflap

[Bug c++/57610] Reference initialized with temporary instead of sub-object of conversion result

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57610 Hubert Tong hstong at ca dot ibm.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hstong at ca dot

[Bug fortran/58233] New: null pointer cm in gfc_conv_structure at fortran/trans-expr.c:6132

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58233 Bug ID: 58233 Summary: null pointer cm in gfc_conv_structure at fortran/trans-expr.c:6132 Product: gcc Version: 4.8.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/57610] Reference initialized with temporary instead of sub-object of conversion result

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57610 --- Comment #9 from Hubert Tong hstong at ca dot ibm.com --- CWG 1604 may address the issues with performance and slicing mentioned in CWG 1287 which led to CWG 1650.

[Bug preprocessor/39029] #pragma once is not exported from the precompiled headers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39029 Johan Boulé bohan.gnu at retropaganda dot info changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED

[Bug inline-asm/58234] New: In-line asm version of __FD_ZERO in /usr/include/bits/select.h

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58234 Bug ID: 58234 Summary: In-line asm version of __FD_ZERO in /usr/include/bits/select.h Product: gcc Version: 4.4.7 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug inline-asm/58234] In-line asm version of __FD_ZERO in /usr/include/bits/select.h

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58234 Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c/58235] New: Missing diagnostic on assignment to array in c89

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58235 Bug ID: 58235 Summary: Missing diagnostic on assignment to array in c89 Product: gcc Version: 4.8.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug target/58208] dequestd::string 32-bit -O3 bug

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58208 Tammy Hsu tammy at Cadence dot COM changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |major --- Comment #2

[Bug inline-asm/58234] In-line asm version of __FD_ZERO in /usr/include/bits/select.h

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58234 --- Comment #2 from Larry Baker baker at usgs dot gov --- Andrew, Thank you for your prompt reply. Fair enough. Can you direct me to where glibc bugs are reported? I have already filed a bug report with Intel. The in-line asm is not quite

[Bug target/58208] dequestd::string 32-bit -O3 bug

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58208 Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug inline-asm/58234] In-line asm version of __FD_ZERO in /usr/include/bits/select.h

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58234 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Larry Baker from comment #2) Andrew, Thank you for your prompt reply. Fair enough. Can you direct me to where glibc bugs are reported? Except there is no bug in

[Bug c/58235] Missing diagnostic on assignment to array in c89

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58235 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org --- This seems correct: See also bug 461. non-lvalue arrays do not decay to pointers in C90/C89.

[Bug inline-asm/58234] In-line asm version of __FD_ZERO in /usr/include/bits/select.h

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58234 --- Comment #4 from Larry Baker baker at usgs dot gov --- Actually, there is: the useless movl instead of a movq of the updated address pointer into __d1 on x86_64. But, that is a benign flaw. Can you answer either of my questions?

[Bug c/58235] Missing diagnostic on assignment to array in c89

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58235 --- Comment #2 from Olivier Gay olivier.gay at a3 dot epfl.ch --- Still, constraint of assignment (c90, 6.3.16) requires the left operand of assignment to be a modifiable lvalue. But c object array is not a modifiable lvalue as arrays are not

[Bug inline-asm/58234] In-line asm version of __FD_ZERO in /usr/include/bits/select.h

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58234 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org --- Can you tell me how it is possible to specify the clobber side effects without requiring output constraints? It is too hard if you have inputs in those registers too. You could

[Bug inline-asm/58234] In-line asm version of __FD_ZERO in /usr/include/bits/select.h

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58234 --- Comment #6 from Larry Baker baker at usgs dot gov --- Thank you. The example I found (mov_blk) that does not use output constraints, but specifies that the input registers are clobbered, is from a 2003 document. It too fails using today's

[Bug libgcc/58061] internal compiler error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58061 --- Comment #3 from Whitequill Riclo whitequill at abstractions dot me --- I can not proceseed with a project due to this bug, is there anything I can do in the mean time?

[Bug c/58235] Missing diagnostic on assignment to array in c89

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58235 farouk jouti farouk.jouti at live dot co.uk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||farouk.jouti

[Bug c/58235] Missing diagnostic on assignment to array in c89

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58235 --- Comment #4 from farouk jouti farouk.jouti at live dot co.uk --- the link contains all the necessary information about the bug (just check the comments and answers) ;)

[Bug libstdc++/56779] [4.8/4.9 Regression] libstdc++.so: undefined reference to `libintl_textdomain'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56779 --- Comment #4 from Dâniel Fraga fragabr at gmail dot com --- Nobody?

[Bug c++/54485] g++ should diagnose default arguments in out-of-line definitions for template class member functions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54485 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED