http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58779
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-*-linux-gnu |x86
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58813
--- Comment #6 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
I found that
export MALLOC_PERTURB_=256
produces a quiet NaN. I'll use this one in my .bashrc
It seems to me that the earlier symptom of malfunctioning
is in symbol.c:5001 dummies =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58779
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
combine pass is converting:
(insn 21 20 22 4 (parallel [
(set (reg:SI 73)
(minus:SI (reg:SI 64 [ a.2 ])
(reg:SI 59 [ iftmp.3 ])))
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58779
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 31067
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31067action=edit
Proposed patch that removes MINUS overflow checks
Patch in testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58838
Bug ID: 58838
Summary: mullw sets condition code incorrectly.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58833
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58742
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks. For reference, as noted by Jakub and confirmed by Richard, we will also
need at some point a gimple version for:
int *
fx (int *b, int *e)
{
ptrdiff_t p = e - b;
return b +
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58822
--- Comment #4 from Michi Henning michi at triodia dot com ---
Hmmm... Trying this on a different machine, it works perfectly. It looks like
there is something screwed up with the gcc installation on the machine where
I'm seeing this.
So, please
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58817
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
Transforming VLAs that way isn't a good idea, at least if the size isn't
really small, at least when the VLA isn't in a scope that dies at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58822
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Thanks. Note that, in general, tarballs, using make, etc, is not fine:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#report Please, just a single preprocessed .ii file.
I'm keeping the bug open for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58834
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58822
--- Comment #6 from Michi Henning michi at triodia dot com ---
My apologies, I'm a newbie in the gcc bug world. Will try to mend my ways!
Cheers,
Michi.
PS: I'll work on this more tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure that gcc is not to
blame. There is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58822
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Ok, thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58816
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58815
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Thanks Janis. In C++11 we have *explicit* conversion operators. Would they
help? A safe approach woould providing the operators only in c++11 mode.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58815
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Something like:
Index: include/decimal/decimal
===
--- include/decimal/decimal(revision 203915)
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58815
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #6)
I also would like to encourage using explicit conversion functions. This is
explicitly suggested in the updated C++11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58772
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
Paolo, does libstdc++ provide a custom allocator for aligned memory?
PR 55727
Is this issue going to be resolved with C++1y?
There is a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58772
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Personally, I would not object to experimentation like that in PR55727, but it
should happen in a separate allocator, not new_allocator. Still, I'm under the
impression that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58791
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #31043|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58839
Bug ID: 58839
Summary: Regression: dereferencing void in
shared_ptr(unique_ptr u) constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58840
Bug ID: 58840
Summary: Problem compiling gcc 4.7.3 using gcc 4.4.6
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58841
Bug ID: 58841
Summary: std::bad_alloc not thrown with -fsanitize=address
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58842
Bug ID: 58842
Summary: libgfortran configuration error in 32-bit mode for GCC
4.8 with MacPorts universal installation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58839
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58806
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
You cannot find the PR because it's already implemented via the fn spec
attribute (conveniently not user-accessible because bike-shedding
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58841
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58816
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Oct 22 11:46:59 2013
New Revision: 203919
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203919root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-10-22 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58816
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58843
Bug ID: 58843
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE with broken destructor
call
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58839
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58830
Mikael Pettersson mikpelinux at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58844
Bug ID: 58844
Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE with invalid use of ##
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58844
Volker Reichelt reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
Bug ID: 58845
Summary: Operator || and broken for vectors
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
Volker Reichelt reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58833
--- Comment #2 from Stefan Teleman stefan.teleman at oracle dot com ---
Hi Eric,
Thank you very much for answering so quickly!
--Stefan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58813
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 06:40:22AM +, zeccav at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58813
--- Comment #6 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39589
Szikra István steven.spark+dev at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58846
Bug ID: 58846
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE redeclaring __dso_handle
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47477
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Another testcase:
short a[1024], b[1024];
void
foo (void)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i 1024; i++)
{
short c = (char) a[i] + 5;
long long d = (long long) b[i] + 12;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58830
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson mikpelinux at gmail dot com ---
Started with r193882.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47477
--- Comment #17 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
What optimization you expect here? I see by the new type-demotion pass some
changes in optimized tree-output:
foo ()
{
int i;
short int _4;
char _5;
unsigned short _6;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47477
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #17)
What optimization you expect here? I see by the new type-demotion pass some
changes in optimized tree-output:
This one is for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58806
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #3)
I should look at where exactly the difference between memcpy and init plays a
role.
It is in call_may_clobber_ref_p_1 that memcpy takes a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58847
Bug ID: 58847
Summary: ARM: emit NEON alignment hints for 32/16-bit accesses
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58815
--- Comment #9 from Janis Johnson janis at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I haven't paid attention to decimal float since leaving IBM, so it was very
interesting to see the updated C++11 working paper. It makes sense to me to
use C++11 functionality in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58815
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58813
--- Comment #8 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
If I use the option -fmax-errors=1 the ICE disappears, but using this
option as a default
would potentially increase the time needed to get an error free code.
A code containing many
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58815
--- Comment #11 from ulf q1 at oxyba dot de ---
i see evil implicit conversion.
i modified lines 254, 337 and 421 to
explicit operator long long() const { return (long long)__val; }
like suggested in n3407.
#includedecimal/decimal
int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58815
--- Comment #12 from Janis Johnson janis at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I obviously don't know C++ very well and the decimal float support in libstdc++
is very ugly. It would be nice if someone rewrites it in actual C++ someday;
the tests should help
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58838
David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58838
--- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Index: rs6000.md
===
--- rs6000.md (revision 203930)
+++ rs6000.md (working copy)
@@ -2699,7 +2699,7 @@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58838
--- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31071
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31071action=edit
Disable mullw. dot form in 64 bit mode
Revised patch that also disables splitters.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58815
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Thus, let's make a decision: either this is a bug, importance minor as
submitted, about conversions to integer, as appeared to be, or it's a catch all
bug about all the issues
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58838
David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58779
--- Comment #7 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Oct 22 18:35:53 2013
New Revision: 203935
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203935root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/58779
* config/i386/i386.c (put_condition_code)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58779
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58779
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Fixed on trunk sofar.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58815
--- Comment #14 from ulf q1 at oxyba dot de ---
i am happy with the explicit operator in std::decimal for now. however sooner
or later there will be another one who puzzels over other issues (traits,
limits, and all the functions that dont know
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58848
Bug ID: 58848
Summary: constexpr function allows throw
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58848
--- Comment #1 from mib.bugzilla at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 31073
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31073action=edit
simpler test case gets compilation error (good)
both test cases should get a compilation error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58815
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
A maintainer is also needed in order to *categorize* those potential issues and
plan the work: for example C++11 (+ C++14), which are the primary standards
which we are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58806
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31074
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31074action=edit
experimental patch
This optimizes the testcase in comment #0 if I mark g with the attribute
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58831
Mikael Pettersson mikpelinux at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58842
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
The error GNU Fortran is not working is often related to problems with one
(or several) of the gmp, mpfr, or mpc libraries. You may have a look at the
following PRs: pr30960,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58849
Bug ID: 58849
Summary: complex number, memory is corrupted
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58849
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||mingw32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56552
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey sje at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31076
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31076action=edit
Proposed patch I tested
Andrew, is this still on your TODO list? I have attached a patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58724
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Pending patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg01166.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58810
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Pending patches (two options) here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg01737.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58647
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Pending patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg01659.html
(alternately the check could be inside cxx_eval_component_reference itself)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58607
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58700
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Pending patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg00880.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58850
Bug ID: 58850
Summary: Conversion error in chrono
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58822
Michi Henning michi at triodia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58822
Michi Henning michi at triodia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58822
--- Comment #10 from Michi Henning michi at triodia dot com ---
Created attachment 31078
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31078action=edit
main.ii illustrating the segfault
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58822
Michi Henning michi at triodia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #31066|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58822
--- Comment #12 from Michi Henning michi at triodia dot com ---
Output from gcc -v:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.8/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58822
--- Comment #13 from Michi Henning michi at triodia dot com ---
Just had a collegue of mine reproduce the problem with the attached archive on
a machine that was installed from the Saucy .iso image, so I think this bug is
real. It's not just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58793
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Oct 23 05:44:02 2013
New Revision: 203945
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203945root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-10-23 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
82 matches
Mail list logo
