https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62057
Bug ID: 62057
Summary: __builtin_offsetof works but std::offsetof doesn't
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62057
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51726
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62055
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62058
Bug ID: 62058
Summary: Undefined behaviour in tree-data-ref.c with options
-O1 -ftree-loop-vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62059
Bug ID: 62059
Summary: signed integer overflow in diagnostic.c adjust_line
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62035
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62035
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053
Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aivchenk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61619
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62060
Bug ID: 62060
Summary: g++.dg/tsan/cond_race.C triggers heap-use-after-free
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61341
Dmitry trtrmitya at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trtrmitya at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62032
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri Aug 8 10:21:12 2014
New Revision: 213755
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213755root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR lto/62032
* lto/lto-lang.c (lto_init): Switch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62061
Bug ID: 62061
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/lto/20100302
cp_lto_20100302_0.o-cp_lto_20100302_1.o link, -flto
-fabi-version=2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62060
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62061
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 33273
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33273action=edit
Object files
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62004
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |vries at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62030
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62030
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62004
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62060
--- Comment #2 from Maxim Ostapenko chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #1)
Tentative patch:
...
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tsan/cond_race.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tsan/cond_race.C
index a937614..90dfb19
++ --disable-multilib
--program-suffix=-4.9.2
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.2 20140808 (prerelease) (GCC)
compiler/linker flags used:
g++-4.9.2 -c 20140725-reg_vs_mem.cpp -g -std=c++11 -Wall -Wextra -Werror
-Wundef -Wshadow -O3 -fno-tree-vectorize
g++-4.9.2 -o 20140725-reg_vs_mem 20140725-reg_vs_mem.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62062
--- Comment #1 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 33274
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33274action=edit
source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62062
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Your inline asm is broken.
This sounds like a missing partial store not being optimized. Not something we
do right now. Refernces are pointers really, syntax hides the semantics.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62062
--- Comment #3 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
Your inline asm is broken.
How? In unaliased_storeb()? That's for only proving that the redundant
loads/stores are not an artifact of aliasing, and is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62060
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33275
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33275action=edit
script to find differences
It seems we're missing more changes:
...
$ ./find.sh
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62035
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
Marc, do you think it's possible to warn about such return of local
addresses?
It doesn't seem easy. Here are some random thoughts.
At
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62063
Bug ID: 62063
Summary: g++ disregards template specialization and skips
try/catch blocks
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28901
Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62063
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Ferenc Géczi from comment #0)
Created attachment 33276 [details]
Source code for reproducing the reported issue
g++ disregards that template specialization might
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62063
--- Comment #2 from Ferenc Géczi ferenc.geczi at ericsson dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
(In reply to Ferenc Géczi from comment #0)
Created attachment 33276 [details]
Source code for reproducing the reported issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62061
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
This ICE can be triggered also on x86_64 Fedora 20 by passing
-fno-use-linker-plugin to testsuite flags:
make check-c++ RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board=unix/-fno-use-linker-plugin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62064
Bug ID: 62064
Summary: Private inheritance and conversion function id in
class member access
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57612
--- Comment #1 from Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
You can see the thread here:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/343858/
My proposed patch didn't handle C++, which seems like
something it probably should do.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62060
Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kcc at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61817
--- Comment #1 from Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I sent a patch for this at
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.patches/316794
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61817
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chengniansun at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61861
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59850
--- Comment #34 from Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33277
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33277action=edit
initial patch
This is my current patch. I'm uploading it for safekeeping
as I probably
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62060
Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62064
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62065
Bug ID: 62065
Summary: ada/sysdep.c:868: possible coding error ?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62066
Bug ID: 62066
Summary: config/arm/arm.c:25298: possible missing call to
va_end ?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62067
Bug ID: 62067
Summary: lto-lang.c:549: too many calls to va_end on some code
paths ?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62068
Bug ID: 62068
Summary: libjava/prims.cc:807: possible missing call to va_end
?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62068
Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61641
--- Comment #6 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The patch does what it's supposed to but it's not right:
.LVL58:
comib, 0,%r28,.L70
nop
.L74:
.L80:
.begin_brtab
.word .L73-.L80
.word
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62068
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
There is no such requirement for va_start/va_end. You are probably thinking of
pthread_cleanup_push/pop.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62068
--- Comment #3 from Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It was documented that way on some systems.
Eg: http://www.cs.rit.edu/~hpb/Man/_Man_SunOS_4.1.3_html/html3/varargs.3.html
Perhaps that isn't operative language any more;
I guess I'm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62069
Bug ID: 62069
Summary: ICE: in int_cst_value, at tree.c:10625
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62070
Bug ID: 62070
Summary: [GCC-4.10.0] ICE: verify_ssa failed
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62068
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
varargs isn't stdargs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62068
--- Comment #5 from Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #4)
varargs isn't stdargs.
Doh. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62068
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #2)
There is no such requirement for va_start/va_end.
I am not sure what you mean here. I checked K R 2
and va_start and va_end seem to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62071
Bug ID: 62071
Summary: [4.10 Regression] ICE: in before_dom_children, at
tree-ssa-pre.c:4411
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62070
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62068
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
Please reread comment#1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62070
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904
--- Comment #11 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I agree. I will post a patch to add this test-case and let the maintainers
decide if this is necessary.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61641
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62072
Bug ID: 62072
Summary: [4.9/4.10 regression] No SFINAE performed for function
type
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62073
Bug ID: 62073
Summary: Segmentation fault with tree vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
66 matches
Mail list logo