http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58331
Bug ID: 58331
Summary: [OOP] Bogus rank checking with explicit-/assumed-size
arrays and CLASS
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #32 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
Ok, now I dared to propose my patch on the gcc-patches list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00363.html
as I can see now both tests fail even on gcc-4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #196 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #195)
Today there was two fixes for bugs that produce undefined symbols like one
you see.
Does the problem still exist on current
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24702
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I wouldn't hold your breath unfortunately. There are at least two opposing
views on how to fix ADL within the standard committee and no consensus on
what (if anything) should be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58326
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58329
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
I wouldn't be surprised.
I don't have assembler output or preprocessed source yet. There is
some alias
support in gas for HP-UX but I believe it may not work when we have a
call
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #33 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
My point is that
- mode = TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (tem));
- if (TREE_CODE (tem) == MEM_REF
- mode != BLKmode
- ((align = get_object_alignment (tem))
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58294
Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kcc at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54855
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Just adding a link to the latest message of the conversation, for future
reference:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg00824.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58326
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think the issue is latent - the bitmap with changed blocks fed to
rewrite_into_loop_closed_ssa is the blocks scanned for _uses_, but as
far as I can see unloop sets the blocks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Most recent discussion about this:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2013-07/msg00105.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58294
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
Chung-Ju Wu jasonwucj at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jasonwucj at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58332
Bug ID: 58332
Summary: error: inlined_to pointer is set but no predecessors
found
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58332
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58333
Bug ID: 58333
Summary: performance regression when using -std=c++0x
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58094
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Sep 6 10:13:37 2013
New Revision: 202316
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202316root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/58094
* cgraph.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58294
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #5)
Thanks, I saw this problem too while compiling chromium but then it went
away and we didn't really managed to simplify it to a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58334
Bug ID: 58334
Summary: preprocessor behavior diffs under line continuation
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58294
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
The fix is to preserve this nonthrowing. That's how I made it work
Yes, this was my first tought, too.
for the abnormal edge case. Thus, wrap it in a NOTHROW region?
I think we would
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58199
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58311
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Sep 6 10:33:48 2013
New Revision: 202317
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202317root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/58311
* ipa-devirt.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #8 from Kirill Yukhin kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Fri Sep 6 10:36:30 2013
New Revision: 202318
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202318root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/58269
* config/i386/i386.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58311
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58329
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 58293 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58293
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58294
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #7)
The fix is to preserve this nonthrowing. That's how I made it work
Yes, this was my first tought, too.
for the abnormal edge
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58294
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
Well, must_not_throw would work, too.
It will wind up in producing EH receiver with terminate, probably not what we
want.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org ---
patch for the remainder of the fix posted at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00384.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58294
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #9)
Well, must_not_throw would work, too.
It will wind up in producing EH receiver with terminate, probably not what
we want.
I think it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
My x86_64-linux builds too are broken in libobj/sendmsg.c. Thus the issue isn't
limited to *-darwin.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #10)
My x86_64-linux builds too are broken in libobj/sendmsg.c. Thus the issue
isn't limited to *-darwin.
hmm there appears to be a second
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
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=58252
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=34547
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57043
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58329
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=58269
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Yes, confirmed that on x86_64-linux r202286 is the culprit.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58329
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 6-Sep-13, at 3:54 AM, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
I hoped that the targets
either do not have runtime interposition in dynamic libraries or
they do
have working notion of alias.
The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58294
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
Better terminate if the region indeed did throw (usually it's just
not optimized good enough).
I tihnk that is difference in between throw() and nothrow attribute.
The first produce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Yes, confirmed that on x86_64-linux r202286 is the culprit.
See pr58139 comments #6 to #11.
I have successfully bootstrapped r202312 on x86_64-apple-darwin10 with the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58329
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
The PA-RISC HP-UX linker interposes import and export stubs in dynamic
libraries.
Whether there is a working notion of alias is somewhat unclear and
involves digging
into the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
--- Comment #4 from Ling-hua Tseng uranus at tinlans dot org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
So perhaps you should just look at combiner dump and see what insns it tried
and failed to match and see if you couldn't add some of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58335
Bug ID: 58335
Summary: S/390: reload vs lra regression - testcase
builtin-in-setjmp
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #13)
Yes, confirmed that on x86_64-linux r202286 is the culprit.
See pr58139 comments #6 to #11.
@@ -34466,7 +34467,7 @@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #14)
assuming that the patch above is applied to deal with pr58139,
Indeed!
Are you saying that:
- if (TARGET_MACHO)
-{
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Therefore, we can conclude that the original case tried by the combiner is
the best way to merge/reduce the redundant zero extension insn.
Yes and, although x86 is the dominant
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58336
Bug ID: 58336
Summary: internal compiler error when using a static int for
the size of a char array within a class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58336
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
I can't reproduce this on x86_64 neither -m64 nor -m32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58094
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Sep 6 15:02:03 2013
New Revision: 202337
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202337root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/58094
* ipa-inline.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58304
Harsha harsha.patankar at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
at nitro dot med.uc.edu
--- Comment #16 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ---
Trunk still ICEs on x86_64-apple-darwin12...
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc49-4.9.0-1000/gcc-4.9-20130906/libobjc/sendmsg.c:848:1:
internal compiler error: in check_rtl, at lra.c:2034
}
^
using...
r202335
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Without adding an attribute, can we identify those operator new that may not
return 0? Is DECL_IS_OPERATOR_NEW !TREE_NOTHROW good enough, or completely
wrong? I am basing this on:
If
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54452
Harsha harsha.patankar at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harsha.patankar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58338
Bug ID: 58338
Summary: Add noexcept to functions with a narrow contract
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58298
Yufeng Zhang yufeng at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yufeng at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58337
Bug ID: 58337
Summary: Mangling of nullptr_t values do not follow ABI
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #17 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jack Howarth from comment #16)
Trunk still ICEs on x86_64-apple-darwin12...
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc49-4.9.0-1000/gcc-4.9-20130906/libobjc/sendmsg.c:848:1:
internal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #18 from Mike Stump mikestump at comcast dot net ---
On Sep 6, 2013, at 8:43 AM, howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
* i386.c (ix86_hard_regno_mode_ok): AVX modes are valid only when
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58338
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
... patches welcome!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58201
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58304
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
FYI, I don't think installing texinfo may have done the trick. More likely, you
had a tree with temporary glitches, can happen, when many changes are
committed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #21 from Mike Stump mikestump at comcast dot net ---
Don't know… I'd assume there exists a paper somewhere that says it. :-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58329
--- Comment #8 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30755
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30755action=edit
Assembler output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58317
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Smolsky oleg at smolsky dot net ---
Hey Jonathan, here is a simpler and more natural way to rewrite your example:
struct A {
static int f() { return 0; }
A(int) { }
};
int main() {
A a(A::f()); // it is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58295
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #5)
Yes and, although x86 is the dominant architecture, it shouldn't be allowed
to penalize all the others. I think we should restrict the effect
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #20 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #19)
The full commit where this was added to llvm is at
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.cvs/153081 and references
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58186
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340
--- Comment #1 from Gerald Pfeifer gerald at pfeifer dot com ---
Created attachment 30757
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30757action=edit
Assembly file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58339
Bug ID: 58339
Summary: ASSOCIATE construct to arrays: Wrong results (pointer
to array/array descriptor issue?)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58269
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mike Stump from comment #18)
On Sep 6, 2013, at 8:43 AM, howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
* i386.c (ix86_hard_regno_mode_ok): AVX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58329
--- Comment #7 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30754
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30754action=edit
Preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58327
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58338
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58341
--- Comment #2 from Kristian Spangsege kristian.spangsege at gmail dot com ---
And more importantly, here:
http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#1206
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58331
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Untested patch:
--- a/gcc/fortran/interface.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/interface.c
@@ -2135 +2135,2 @@ compare_parameter (gfc_symbol *formal, gfc_expr *actual,
- || (actual-rank != 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58341
--- Comment #1 from Kristian Spangsege kristian.spangsege at gmail dot com ---
Important related information here:
http://en.cppreference.com/w/Talk:cpp/algorithm/copy_backward
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58327
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||*-*-mingw*
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58317
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Smolsky oleg at smolsky dot net ---
Also, clang gives a warning:
struct A {
int f() const { return 1000; }
A(int arg) : member(arg) { }
int member;
};
namespace {
int func(const A a)
{
return a.f();
}
}
int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58317
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
If the actual topic is warning for self-initialization, or something like that,
we have one or even two bugs already in Bugzilla ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58324
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58341
Bug ID: 58341
Summary: Doc conflicts with standard on forbidden range of
`result` in copy_backward()
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340
Bug ID: 58340
Summary: [4.9 regression] gcc/cp/pt.c:7064:1: internal compiler
error: in propagate_threaded_block_debug_into, at
tree-ssa-threadedge.c:623
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130906 (experimental) [trunk revision 202308] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -m32 -O2 -c small.c
$ gcc-trunk -O2 -c small.c
$ gcc-4.8 -O2 -g -c small.c
$ gcc-trunk -O2 -g -c small.c
small.c: In function ‘main’:
small.c:8:5: internal compiler error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58340
--- Comment #4 from Zhendong Su su at cs dot ucdavis.edu ---
I wasn't able to reproduce the ICE using the given testcase (pt.ii) with trunk
revision 202308, but I encountered an ICE (at -O2 and -O3 with -g) in the same
source location. It's
--with-mpfr=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--with-mpc=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --with-cloog=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130906 (experimental) [trunk revision 202308] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -O0 small.c
$ gcc-4.8 -O1 small.c
$ gcc-trunk -O1 small.c
small.c
--with-mpfr=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--with-mpc=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --with-cloog=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130906 (experimental) [trunk revision 202308] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -O0 -c small.c
$ gcc-4.8 -O1 -c small.c
$ gcc-trunk -O1 -c small.c
--with-gmp=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --with-mpfr=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--with-mpc=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --with-cloog=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130906 (experimental) [trunk revision 202308] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -O0 -c small.c
$ gcc-trunk -O2 -c
/local/gcc-trunk
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130906 (experimental) [trunk revision 202308] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -O0 -c small.c
$ gcc-trunk -O1 -c small.c
small.c: In function ‘main’:
small.c:20:5: internal compiler error: Floating point exception
int main ()
^
0x924b2f crash_signal
93 matches
Mail list logo
