http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53015
Bug #: 53015
Summary: free_pi_tree(): Unresolved fixup is back
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53016
Bug #: 53016
Summary: memcpy optimization can cause unaligned access on ARM
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53016
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-04-17
08:14:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 27175
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27175
reduced test case
Gets alignment faults with both -mthumb and -marm (+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53016
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53011
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53015
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=52680
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51033
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2012-04-17
10:22:07 UTC ---
Created attachment 27176
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27176
subscript
This patch (a simple copy of a paragraph from the C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52599
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51033
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=47762
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53011
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-17
11:00:36 UTC ---
EH cleanup turns a loop nest of two into a single loop with multiple latches
by forwarding through an empty EH region.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53017
Bug #: 53017
Summary: Integer constant not constant enough for vector_size
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52715
Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53017
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49843
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51033
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2012-04-17
11:59:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
If it is indeed a copy, you should move the code c-common.c and share it. The
C-family FEs should share as much code as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51033
--- Comment #13 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-17
12:13:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
On the other hand, here I am copying a small block of code in the middle of a
function. Making just that paragraph common
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53018
Bug #: 53018
Summary: problem with c++0x
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53018
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53018
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-17
12:32:35 UTC ---
Jack, please read the link:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#need
and follow the instructions there.
Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51033
--- Comment #14 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2012-04-17
13:06:40 UTC ---
Created attachment 27178
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27178
subscript 2 (Manuel-compliant)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52604
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51033
--- Comment #15 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-17
13:23:11 UTC ---
:) Thanks for making me happy and sorry for being a PITA.
Are you planning to send it to gcc-patches for approval or are you not happy
with it yet?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53011
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-17
13:42:56 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 17 13:42:48 2012
New Revision: 186529
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186529
Log:
2012-04-17 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53011
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53015
--- Comment #2 from brainschrat at gmx dot de 2012-04-17 13:46:29 UTC ---
Ok, thanks for your explanation!
Currently, I have one case that always fails and will try the delta approach.
Manually trying to narrow it down would drive me nuts, but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18437
--- Comment #6 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-17 13:54:36
UTC ---
Author: matz
Date: Tue Apr 17 13:54:26 2012
New Revision: 186530
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186530
Log:
PR tree-optimization/18437
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51033
--- Comment #16 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2012-04-17
13:57:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
Are you planning to send it to gcc-patches for approval or are you not happy
with it yet?
There is the problem of moving
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38543
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-17
14:11:43 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 17 14:11:34 2012
New Revision: 186533
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186533
Log:
PR c++/38543
* pt.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50830
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-17
14:11:24 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 17 14:11:13 2012
New Revision: 186532
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186532
Log:
PR c++/50830
* pt.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50303
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-17
14:11:04 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 17 14:10:54 2012
New Revision: 186531
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186531
Log:
PR c++/50303
* pt.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51033
--- Comment #17 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-17
14:11:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
(In reply to comment #15)
Are you planning to send it to gcc-patches for approval or are you not happy
with it yet?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53016
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52977
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #75 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-04-17 14:47:27
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #74)
We still have an unresolved issue here: we're effectively reversing the order
in which the ctors are run across translation units.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #76 from Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhnikov at google dot com 2012-04-17
15:18:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #75)
Can you provide a testcase?
// foo.h
struct Foo {
Foo(Foo *other) : x(other-x) { }
Foo() : x(42) { }
int x;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50303
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38543
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.0 |4.7.1
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50830
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #77 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-04-17 15:41:04
UTC ---
I believe .init_array keeps the same order of .ctors within
the same translation unit. The proposed --reverse-init-array
switch will only reverse the order
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52890
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-17
15:45:47 UTC ---
The last case is caused by IPA-SRA, -fno-ipa-sra helps, I belive. All
pre-requesite patches are committed now so I'll concentrate on this
now and hopefully
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53020
Bug #: 53020
Summary: __atomic_fetch_or doesn't generate `1 insn` variant
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53020
--- Comment #1 from Yukhin Kirill kirill.yukhin at intel dot com 2012-04-17
16:23:26 UTC ---
Instead, of single `locked` instruction, it generates:.L2:
movl%eax, %ecx
orl $1, %ecx
lock cmpxchgl %ecx, (%edx)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53016
Jeffrey Quesnelle jquesnelle at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52680
--- Comment #9 from Matt Kline mkline at cs dot wisc.edu 2012-04-17 16:35:51
UTC ---
Yes it is. Sorry for misclassifying it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49423
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51033
--- Comment #18 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2012-04-17
16:41:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
And now I should actually bootstrap and run the testsuite ;-)
Good luck!
It worked fine, same failures as I got the other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53020
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53016
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|mikpe at it dot uu.se |
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53020
--- Comment #3 from Yukhin Kirill kirill.yukhin at intel dot com 2012-04-17
17:00:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Uh...
Index: config/i386/sync.md
===
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53016
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey Quesnelle jquesnelle at gmail dot com 2012-04-17
17:08:22 UTC ---
Hmm, even explicit casts to new void*/char* types doesn't fix it:
const child_t * child3 = (const child_t*)( (const char*)(parentptr) + 4 + size
+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #78 from Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhnikov at google dot com 2012-04-17
17:16:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #77)
I believe .init_array keeps the same order of .ctors within
the same translation unit.
I may be missing something, but I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53003
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-17 17:20:17 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Apr 17 17:20:02 2012
New Revision: 186541
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186541
Log:
/cp
2012-04-17
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53016
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-04-17
17:27:20 UTC ---
The problem is the fact that you attach explicit child_t/parent_t types to
pointers not aligned accordingly. Casting those typed pointers to void*
doesn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52599
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-17 17:20:16 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Apr 17 17:20:02 2012
New Revision: 186541
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186541
Log:
/cp
2012-04-17
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52599
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53020
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-17 17:39:12 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Apr 17 17:39:06 2012
New Revision: 186543
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186543
Log:
PR target/53020
* config/i386/sync.md
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53020
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-17 17:35:30 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Apr 17 17:35:23 2012
New Revision: 186542
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186542
Log:
PR target/53020
* config/i386/sync.md
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53003
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-17 17:45:35 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Apr 17 17:45:25 2012
New Revision: 186544
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186544
Log:
/cp
2012-04-17
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53003
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51712
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53020
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #79 from Cary Coutant ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-17
18:00:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #77)
I believe .init_array keeps the same order of .ctors within
the same translation unit. The proposed --reverse-init-array
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51712
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Nieder jrnieder at gmail dot com 2012-04-17
18:13:08 UTC ---
I am not convinced clang's heuristic is the right one. For example, the
following code trips clang's warning, but the test is still not redundant. The
main
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #80 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-04-17 18:12:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #79)
As Paul noted, this is a moot point in practice for .ctors, since GCC emits
only a single .ctors entry per TU, but it could be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52953
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|meng at g dot clemson.edu |
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #81 from ccoutant at google dot com 2012-04-17 18:52:11 UTC ---
As Paul noted, this is a moot point in practice for .ctors, since GCC emits
only a single .ctors entry per TU, but it could be significant for assembly
code or for TUs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #82 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-04-17 19:02:22
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #81)
Didn't I just do that?
Let me ask it again:
The proposed --reverse-init-array switch will only reverse the order across
translation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52733
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-04-17
19:03:19 UTC ---
Per se, the issue is now moot because both in mainline and in 4_7-branch we
don't use std::log(2.0) anymore. Still, something may well be flaky, at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52733
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-04-17
19:26:16 UTC ---
For the record: on Lion things seem in pretty good shape for current gcc-4_7:
builds is fine and std::log(2.0L) also works at any optimization level.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50673
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-17
19:30:38 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Apr 17 19:30:29 2012
New Revision: 186548
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186548
Log:
2012-04-17 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38199
--- Comment #20 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-17
19:30:39 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Apr 17 19:30:29 2012
New Revision: 186548
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186548
Log:
2012-04-17 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53021
Bug #: 53021
Summary: [4.8 Regression] bootstrap failure on Linux/ia32
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53022
Bug #: 53022
Summary: gimple check fail in gimple_assign_rhs1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53021
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-04-17 19:57:44
UTC ---
unique_base_value calls gen_rtx_ADDRESS which overrides
dwarf_file_data created by lookup_filename in dwarf2out.c:
/* Check to see if the file name that was
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53023
Bug #: 53023
Summary: file_table_last_lookup is used, but never set
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53021
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-17 20:09:11 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Tue Apr 17 20:09:01 2012
New Revision: 186549
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186549
Log:
gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53023
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-04-17 20:19:34
UTC ---
This patch sets file_table_last_lookup:
diff --git a/gcc/dwarf2out.c b/gcc/dwarf2out.c
index 7e2ce58..d5783c2 100644
--- a/gcc/dwarf2out.c
+++ b/gcc/dwarf2out.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #83 from ccoutant at google dot com 2012-04-17 20:10:07 UTC ---
Didn't I just do that?
Let me ask it again:
The proposed --reverse-init-array switch will only reverse the order across
translation units, while keeping the same
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #84 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-04-17 20:28:25
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #83)
Paul suggested to me offline that maybe you're asking about
translation units with several .ctors or .init_array sections. Since
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53024
Bug #: 53024
Summary: Power of 2 requirement on vector_size not documented
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52841
--- Comment #7 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-17 21:06:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 27180
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27180
return earlier in cp_parser_alias_declaration
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52841
--- Comment #8 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-17 21:08:13 UTC ---
It is related to alias declarations. It seems that we do not recover properly
from a failure in cp_parser_alias_declaration, in the block introduced by this
check: if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #86 from ccoutant at google dot com 2012-04-17 21:09:15 UTC ---
I have seen codes like:
void (*const init_array []) (void)
__attribute__ ((section (.init_array), aligned (sizeof (void * =
{
init_0,
init_1,
init_2
};
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #85 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-04-17 21:06:55
UTC ---
Just as a quick reminder, the reversed ctor execution order is big performance
problem for C++ Apps inlcuding Mozilla and Chrome ;)
So whatever we do, I would
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #87 from ccoutant at google dot com 2012-04-17 21:52:12 UTC ---
Just as a quick reminder, the reversed ctor execution order is big performance
problem for C++ Apps inlcuding Mozilla and Chrome ;)
So whatever we do, I would preffer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25943
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51712
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-17
21:27:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I am not convinced clang's heuristic is the right one. For example, the
following code trips clang's warning, but the test is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28492
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29455
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #88 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-04-17 22:15:04
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #86)
I have seen codes like:
void (*const init_array []) (void)
__attribute__ ((section (.init_array), aligned (sizeof (void
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53025
Bug #: 53025
Summary: [C++11] noexcept operator depends on copy-elision
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #89 from Taras Glek tglek at mozilla dot com 2012-04-17 23:58:00
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #87)
Just as a quick reminder, the reversed ctor execution order is big
performance
problem for C++ Apps inlcuding Mozilla and Chrome
version 4.8.0 20120417 (experimental) (GCC)
(built, I believe, at revision 186523)
It would take some effort to construct minimal code to reproduce this segfault,
but the following details are available now...
user@host:~$ valgrind /path/to/cc1plus -std=c++11 -O2 -g0 -Wall ...
...
==18469
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51570
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regression] FAIL: |[4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #90 from Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhnikov at google dot com 2012-04-18
00:50:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #89)
Your solution will reverse order of reference of .init_array entries with
regards to the linker commandline.
Linking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46770
--- Comment #91 from Taras Glek tglek at mozilla dot com 2012-04-18 01:27:58
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #90)
Or that you kept the link command fixed, but switching to init_array gave
you significant speed up, which you don't want to lose?
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
