http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60598
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32413
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32413action=edit
gcc49-pr60598.patch
I've bootstrapped/regtested this version of the patch (feel free to
=cortex-a9
--with-arch=armv7-a --with-mode=arm --with-tune=cortex-a9 --with-fpu=vfpv3
--with-float=softfp
Thread model: single
gcc version 4.8.3 20140321 (prerelease) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60607
Bug ID: 60607
Summary: Missing lto command line option handling causes build
failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45932
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37436
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37436
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54051
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51744
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
extern void *memset (void *__s, int __c, size_t __n) __attribute__
((__nothrow__)) __attribute__ ((__nonnull__ (1)));
extern void
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51744
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It also (sadly) means this works with -fno-use-linker-plugin. It also means
that not outputting the UNDEF into the LTO symbol table for this case doesn't
work as the executable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51744
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.7.3, 4.8.3,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60606
Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||y.gribov at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60606
--- Comment #2 from D.Salikhov d.salikhov at samsung dot com ---
I suppose it is a bug as according to ARM Architecture Reference Manual,
A8.8.13 AND (immediate), pc is valid register for using in 'AND' instruction as
an input.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59626
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Seems to happen quite often when building packages with LTO (see PR51744 for
another major annoyance there).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60567
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60567
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miles at gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56775
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60607
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #35 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #34 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
I ran the test on Solaris 9 and 11 and looked at the resulting .sum
files.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60603
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60608
Bug ID: 60608
Summary: Template argument problem
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60577
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60577
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 21 11:52:50 2014
New Revision: 208746
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208746root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-03-21 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60608
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60609
Bug ID: 60609
Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] Error: value of 256 too large for
field of 1 bytes at 68242
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60609
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org ---
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/arm-linux-gnueabihf/4.8/lto-wrapper
Target: arm-linux-gnueabihf
Configured with: ../src/configure -v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60602
Nick Clifton nickc at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60609
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
--- Comment #18 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Mar 21 12:48:02 2014
New Revision: 208747
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208747root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-03-21 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60602
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton nickc at redhat dot com ---
Hi Rainer,
Given that the 2.9 target is deprecated, do we really care about this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60600
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60601
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60603
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59176
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Mar 21 12:59:35 2014
New Revision: 208748
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208748root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-03-21 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59176
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59626
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
But the function doesn't inline itself, that is why it uses the asm alias
and GCC shouldn't be looking through that and merging the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60610
Bug ID: 60610
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE in convert_regs_1, at
reg-stack.c:3064
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60610
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=60609
--- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32418
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32418action=edit
Reduced testcase
Reduced testcase. Looks prima-facie like lengths are messed up
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60611
Bug ID: 60611
Summary: friend function declaration rejected when the
namespace in which it is declared is not explicitely
specified in the declaration
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60612
Bug ID: 60612
Summary: Throwing exception, catching and rethrowing
(std::exception_ptr) in destructor leads to segfault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE|[4.8 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60600
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Well, this is ICE on code with undefined behavior. Function test
calls itself with a parameter which is a reference to an object of
type child2 and then static_casts it to a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60613
Bug ID: 60613
Summary: Invalid signed subtraction ubsan diagnostics
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60613
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=57715
Václav Zeman vhaisman at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vhaisman at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57715
--- Comment #4 from Václav Zeman vhaisman at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #2)
This PR might have the same reason as PR60567.
Namely, your GCC has not been compiled on a system with working linker
plugin - and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57715
--- Comment #5 from Václav Zeman vhaisman at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Václav Zeman from comment #4)
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #2)
This PR might have the same reason as PR60567.
Namely, your GCC has not been compiled on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60600
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Or we might produce a call to __builtin_unreachable (we already do
that in ipa_get_indirect_edge_target_1 in similar cases) or
__builtin_abort. Tough decision, although I'll
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56963
--- Comment #7 from Václav Zeman vhaisman at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 32422
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32422action=edit
preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56963
--- Comment #6 from Václav Zeman vhaisman at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #5)
This PR might have the same reason as PR60567.
Namely, your GCC has not been compiled on a system with working linker
plugin - and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56963
--- Comment #8 from Václav Zeman vhaisman at gmail dot com ---
BTW, the current version with which I have reduced the test case is this:
`-- g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60614
Bug ID: 60614
Summary: -Wtype-limits fails to warn on unsigned bitfields
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60600
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60613
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32423
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32423action=edit
gcc49-pr60613.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60598
--- Comment #7 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rth
Date: Fri Mar 21 15:31:25 2014
New Revision: 208749
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208749root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/60598
* ifcvt.c (dead_or_predicable):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60598
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60612
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
-quiet -dumpbase efiemu.c -m64 -mcmodel=large
-mno-red-zone -mtune=generic -march=x86-64 -auxbase-strip efiemu64_c.o -O2
-Wall -version -o efiemu.s
GNU C (GCC) version 4.9.0 20140321 (experimental) (i586-linux)
compiled by GNU C version 4.8.2 20140115 (Red Hat 4.8.2-11), GMP version
5.1.2, MPFR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42328
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Clang accepts the code in comment 0, but GCC 4.9 and icc 13.0.1 still give the
same errors as stated here in 2009
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60612
tasptz at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60611
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60612
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60615
Bug ID: 60615
Summary: bad location in error from initializer
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60616
Bug ID: 60616
Summary: bad location from -Wunused-parameter
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60610
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=60617
Bug ID: 60617
Summary: [4.8 Regression]
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60384
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Mar 21 16:35:26 2014
New Revision: 208752
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208752root=gccview=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-03-21 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60384
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60610
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=60610
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32425
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32425action=edit
gcc49-pr60610.patch
Completely untested patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60618
Bug ID: 60618
Summary: ICE when building openssh on hppa w/-ftrapv in gcse.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60520
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #32399|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57272
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=60612
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
When I step through std::rethrow_exception() in gdb it goes from line 215 to
line 223, so skips over the call to get_terminate(), so dep-terminateHandler
is null and so is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60612
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*Sigh* -- ignore that. After line 223 it jumps back to 216 then continues back
to 223 again with the right values in *dep. I thought I was debugging an
unoptimised libstdc++.so but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60587
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Mar 21 18:54:06 2014
New Revision: 208755
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208755root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/60587
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60587
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60560
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60610
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60610
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 21 21:24:31 2014
New Revision: 208756
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208756root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/60610
* config/i386/i386.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60148
--- Comment #14 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Mar 21 22:14:36 2014
New Revision: 208757
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208757root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-03-21 Jerry DeLisle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60148
--- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Mar 21 22:19:44 2014
New Revision: 208759
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208759root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-03-21 Jerry DeLisle jvdeli...@gcc.gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60148
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60604
--- Comment #1 from Steve Ellcey sje at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32428
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32428action=edit
New reduced test case
Here is a new reduced test case that calls no libm functions. I am
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60604
Steve Ellcey sje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60612
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60604
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|mips*-*-* |mips*-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60619
Bug ID: 60619
Summary: new -solve-sign-conflicts at -Wsign-compare cases
(easy work)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60619
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Well your option violates C promotion rules. Basically the warning is there as
some folks don't understand how promotion works in C when it comes to comparing
unsigned and signed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60619
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kleinsorge aleks at physik dot tu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
Well your option violates C promotion rules. Basically the warning is there
as some folks don't understand how promotion
92 matches
Mail list logo
