http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60090
Bug ID: 60090
Summary: For expression without ~, gcc -O1 emits comparison of
promoted ~unsigned with unsigned
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
--- Comment #45 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The bug here is that lto-cgraph.c still checks DECL_COMDAT as a condition if
symbol is duplicated or partitioned. We really need to get the logic into
lto-cgraph.c and use same test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60091
Bug ID: 60091
Summary: Misleading error messages in rank-2 pointer assignment
to rank-1 target
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60090
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60086
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60090
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
C++ folds while parsing and here for both -O0 -O we get
y.c: In function ‘int fn1(unsigned char, unsigned char)’:
y.c:3:18: warning: comparison of promoted ~unsigned with unsigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60090
--- Comment #3 from Chengnian Sun chengniansun at gmail dot com ---
Thanks, Marek.
May I ask another question on the Gcc optimizations and warnings? Is there a
policy that the warnings should be independent of the optimization levels? That
is,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60013
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27557
--- Comment #14 from Siddhesh Poyarekar siddhesh at redhat dot com ---
I spoke to Jason last week and have now confirmed that the first fragment
indeed works correctly with 4.8. Declaring a variable threadprivate *after* it
is defined is not yet
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60077
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=60078
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
Eric,
could it be that the Finalize procedure is missing some sort of spin lock?
ed@w-ed:~/gnu/gcc-build/gcc/testsuite/ada/acats/tests/c7/c761007$ cat
c761007_0.adb
-- --
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60086
--- Comment #2 from Marcin Krotkiewski marcin.krotkiewski at gmail dot com ---
Jakub, thank you for your comments.
GCC right now only handles __restrict on function parameters, so in this
case the aliasing info isn't known. While the loop is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60090
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I believe we strive for the warnings be independent of the optimization level,
but it's not always possible, we have tons of bugs where -Wuninitialized
depends on the optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60086
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60089
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60086
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
As of posix_memalign the issue is not so much that of alias analysis (we could
handle it but we don't have a builtin right now) but that of alignment analysis
which doesn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
Bug ID: 60092
Summary: posix_memalign not recognized to derive alias and
alignment info
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: alias,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paulo J. Matos from comment #10)
(In reply to Paulo J. Matos from comment #8)
Made a mistake. With the attached test, the final gimple before expand for
the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
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=60093
Bug ID: 60093
Summary: ICE on testsuite/c-c++-common/ubsan/overflow-*.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60089
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60093
Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59150
--- Comment #7 from Sebastian Huber sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de ---
Your patch fixed the problem on arm-rtems:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-02/msg00303.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60077
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60094
Bug ID: 60094
Summary: gcc.target/arm/ftest-armv7em-thumb.c fails
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60094
Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60062
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 6 10:54:20 2014
New Revision: 207549
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207549root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/60062
* tree.h (opts_for_fn): New
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59150
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 6 10:59:30 2014
New Revision: 207551
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207551root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/59150
* tree-vect-data-refs.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60089
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
You'd need to disable complex lowering at the GIMPLE level and see what
support is missing from RTL expansion for example.
For the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
--- Comment #13 from Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
Note that {1, +, 1}_1 is unsigned. The issue is that while i is short
i++ is really i = (short)((int) i + 1) and thus only the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60094
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
--- Comment #14 from Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com ---
Something like this which looks much simpler hits the same problem:
extern int arr[];
void
foo32 (int limit)
{
short i;
for (i = 0; (int)i limit; i++)
arr[i] += 1;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32064
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32064action=edit
part #1, aliasing
I've implemented the aliasing parts (and the builtin obviously).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
could it be that the Finalize procedure is missing some sort of spin lock?
There are already explicit delays in the test, so very likely not.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, pa...@matos-sorge.com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
--- Comment #14 from Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60094
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
trunk revision 207409
Well, in this case, I'll repeat this test next week.(In reply to ktkachov from
comment #2)
Bernd, which revision is this?
I thought this would have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60080
Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60095
Bug ID: 60095
Summary: Dubious diagnostics for attempted surrogate call
function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
--- Comment #8 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #7)
could it be that the Finalize procedure is missing some sort of spin lock?
There are already explicit delays in the test, so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
--- Comment #16 from Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #15)
Exactly the same problem. C integral type promotion rules make
that i = (short)((int)i + 1) again. Note that (int)i + 1
does not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hack: when the return value of posix_memalign is ignored, if the platform
supports it, replace with a call to aligned_alloc (C11), which has an easier
interface.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60090
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
Created attachment 32065
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32065action=edit
possible fix
well, I don't know if the Finalize method are supposed
to be called
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59984
--- Comment #3 from Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com ---
Vectorizer dump snippet for main:
foo.simdclone.0 (vect__12.7_3, vect_cst_.8_53, vect_cst_.8_53,
vect_cst_.9_51, vect_cst_.9_51);
GIMPLE_NOP
vect_v1.12_37 = MEM[(int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60090
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #5)
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-11/msg00253.html
Exactly. I hope I can tackle at least a part of it in next stage 1.
In those
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
--- Comment #17 from Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #15)
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, pa...@matos-sorge.com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
--- Comment #14 from Paulo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32066
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32066action=edit
part #2, C11 aligned_alloc
It was noted that aligned_alloc is standard enough to be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #4)
Hack: when the return value of posix_memalign is ignored, if the platform
supports it, replace with a call to aligned_alloc (C11), which has
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, pa...@matos-sorge.com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
--- Comment #17 from Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com ---
(In
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #4)
Hack: when the return value of posix_memalign is ignored, if the platform
supports it,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, pa...@matos-sorge.com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
--- Comment #16 from Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com ---
(In
well, I don't know if the Finalize method are supposed
to be called in a sequential manner, which GNAT does obviously not
guarantee.
But how about this, for a fix?
That can't be a fix, only a workaround hiding a potential issue.
Your patch is completely changing the semantic and purpose of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60032
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Feb 6 13:25:38 2014
New Revision: 207553
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207553root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/60032
gcc/
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
--- Comment #10 from charlet at adacore dot com charlet at adacore dot com ---
well, I don't know if the Finalize method are supposed
to be called in a sequential manner, which GNAT does obviously not
guarantee.
But how about this, for a fix?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60096
Bug ID: 60096
Summary: c++11 lambda reference capture mistake
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
--- Comment #11 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
(In reply to char...@adacore.com from comment #10)
well, I don't know if the Finalize method are supposed
to be called in a sequential manner, which GNAT does obviously
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
According to the specification this is wrong. Note that changing errno
is hindering optimization. For example
int foo (int *p)
{
What is the test supposed to do?
Looks at the top of c761007.a, you'll find answers to this question.
could you explain, why the test fails when the delay is added to the
unmodified test case?
Sorry, I'm not following you here, I do not know which delay you would
add where (and why).
Arno
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
--- Comment #12 from charlet at adacore dot com charlet at adacore dot com ---
What is the test supposed to do?
Looks at the top of c761007.a, you'll find answers to this question.
could you explain, why the test fails when the delay is added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60097
Bug ID: 60097
Summary: spurious warning about command line option
-Wno-mismatched-tags
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60080
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
I just tried the patch on i386-pc-solaris2.10 and the SEGVs are gone.
Thanks for the quick fix.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60087
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Feb 6 13:57:37 2014
New Revision: 207554
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207554root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c/60087
c-family/
* c-common.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60087
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60096
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This looks invalid to me, you return a closure that holds a dangling reference
to a function parameter that has gone out of scope.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
--- Comment #13 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
(In reply to char...@adacore.com from comment #12)
could you explain, why the test fails when the delay is added to the
unmodified test case?
Sorry, I'm not following
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #9)
Ok, my manpage says
RETURN VALUE
aligned_alloc(), memalign(), valloc(), and pvalloc() return a
pointer
to the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19377
Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abel at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
If a function is not allowed to change errno this must be explicitly
documented.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #11)
If a function is not allowed to change errno this must be explicitly
documented.
That means
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-alias.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60096
--- Comment #2 from Feng Wang feng.w...@uni-ulm.de ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
This looks invalid to me, you return a closure that holds a dangling
reference to a function parameter that has gone out of scope.
Sorry, my
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #11)
If a function is not allowed to change errno this must be explicitly
documented.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60096
Feng Wang feng.w...@uni-ulm.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60098
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60098
Bug ID: 60098
Summary: DSE fails to DSE errno settings
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59992
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 6 15:47:12 2014
New Revision: 207562
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207562root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR debug/59992
* var-tracking.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #32 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 6 15:52:17 2014
New Revision: 207563
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207563root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/59575
* config/arm/arm.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 6 15:52:36 2014
New Revision: 207564
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207564root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/59575
* config/arm/arm.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59992
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The testcase has been fixed, but unfortunately --enable-checking=yes,rtl
insn-recog.c still takes about an hour to var-track.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60032
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So fixed?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59984
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19377
--- Comment #10 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrey Belevantsev from comment #9)
Another test case of the same issue (both clang and icc compile this fine):
It is not the same issue as the protected keyword is not involved.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59585
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58784
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60079
Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58699
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60089
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
Is the complex multiplication instruction C99 Annex G-conforming, or could
it only be used for -fcx-limited-range?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59585
--- Comment #4 from Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com ---
Yup, thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59776
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60099
Bug ID: 60099
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60099
--- Comment #1 from David Kredba nheghathivhistha at gmail dot com ---
I am sorry, revision 207472.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
--- Comment #46 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32067
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32067action=edit
Path I am testing
Hi,
this is patch I am testing. It synchronizes the logic in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60099
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58785
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58847
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60099
--- Comment #3 from David Kredba nheghathivhistha at gmail dot com ---
Here it shows line number too.
./testcase.i:62:1: internal compiler error
Going to attach original ii file.
In check.sh I used in addition -I and -include that I deleted from
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
