http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57686
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=40958
--- Comment #14 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
---
(In reply to Janne Blomqvist from comment #13)
I believe a lot of progress has been made indeed.
However, the fundamental(?) issue of module sizes growing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52606
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47267
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25708
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
---
On 2013-06-24 09:11, gcc-bugs-h...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list.
To confirm that you would like
joop.boo...@boonen.org
removed from the gcc-bugs mailing list, please send an empty reply
to this address:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57693
Bug ID: 57693
Summary: The program logically failed in case of used int b +=
b++
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57693
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57694
Bug ID: 57694
Summary: [c++11] constexpr constructor do not work with const
address of own member
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57694
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=57693
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir vlad94009277 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
Both:
b += b++;
And
d += d++;
are undefined what value b and d is going to be as there are no sequence
point intbetween the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57653
--- Comment #14 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Allan McRae from comment #13)
The file /usr/include/stdc-predef.h is from glibc (v2.17 on Arch) and is
specifically mentioned as being preincluded in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57695
Bug ID: 57695
Summary: [c++11] generalized attributes with avr __progmem__
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57693
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=57695
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=52413
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=52413
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57695
Klaus Rudolph lts-rudolph at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57693
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=57696
Bug ID: 57696
Summary: Defined assignment for components not used when those
are ALLOCATABLE
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57518
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.0 |4.8.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57488
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57696
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
From Fortran 2008, 7.2.1.3 Interpretation of intrinsic assignments, paragraph
13 (excerpt):
For a noncoarray allocatable component the following sequence of operations is
applied.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57208
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=57689
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57686
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57685
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57676
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||oliverst at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57669
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57696
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=57668
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=57664
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57662
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=57661
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=57686
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57697
Bug ID: 57697
Summary: Segfault with defined assignment for components during
intrinsic assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57698
Bug ID: 57698
Summary: rev.200179 causes many errors (inlining failures) when
building Firefox
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #17 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com ---
Created attachment 30350
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30350action=edit
New testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
This doesn't make any sense to me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27332|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57639
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
(In reply to janus from comment #4)
The following patch fixes both variants:
... and regtests cleanly.
Confirmed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #19 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
I'm not going to work on this anyway, but really I'm not at all sure that
debug-mode is by design made for bigger configurations, thus makes sense to
give high priority to this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57656
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30352
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30352action=edit
patch
Fails at -O0 -fstrict-overflow as we fold
int t = 1 - (a - b) / c;
into
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think this is due to a horrible hack in the front end which adds implicit
extern C blocks around system headers, and a side-effect is that function
prototypes of the form 'T f()'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Yes it is, a huge abomination, I had no idea we had something like that. Then,
I don't know, I don't think it's going away any time soon, probably we should
bite the bullet and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
... by the way, I'm *very* surprised that nobody noticed this over the years:
the freestanding atexit is declared like this in cstdlib in 4.0.0!?!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57699
Bug ID: 57699
Summary: Disable empty parameter list misinterpretation in
libstdc++ headers when !defined(NO_IMPLICIT_EXTERN_C)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #21 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com ---
How can I help ?
My goal is to run our entire regression test suite with STL debugging switched
on as this is great for quality assurance. Having fought several problems, this
now
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've opened PR 57699 -- it would be nice not to have to write (void) in our
headers.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #22 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Get in touch with Francois and work on further improvements with him.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #4)
... by the way, I'm *very* surprised that nobody noticed this over the
years: the freestanding atexit is declared like this in cstdlib in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Of course. Since, AFAIK, we already had the sensible () with no void in like
2005, communities outside GCC must have workarounds in place, can wait a bit
more. Let's mark the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #4)
... by the way, I'm *very* surprised that nobody noticed this over the
years:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57539
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57358
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jun 24 12:51:43 2013
New Revision: 200369
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=200369root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-06-24 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, that will fix it right now.
In the longer term it would be nice to get a FE change.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57358
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57697
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30353
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30353action=edit
Test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57697
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Created attachment 30353 [details]
Test case
Should not this go to PR57696?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57697
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #2)
Should not this go to PR57696?
No. The examples are similar, but they expose rather different bugs.
PR57696 has already a test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57521
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It's if-conversion (we do not vectorize anything here). The predicates
are inserted correctly but the wrong ones are being used for the
predication. That is because the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57700
Bug ID: 57700
Summary: doc: improperly named node about Diagnostic Messages
Formatting
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57700
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57701
Bug ID: 57701
Summary: Incorrect optimisation of inlined function with inline
assembly when cross-compiling
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57701
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57643
Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57208
--- Comment #27 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30355
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30355action=edit
Proposed patch
I'd suggest this (yet untested) patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57698
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57702
Bug ID: 57702
Summary: Reassoc missed optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46982
--- Comment #5 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #4)
... So I think that the code in comment #0 is not legal.
Then, should not this PR closed as INVALID?
Yes, close as INVALID.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46982
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34928
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Bud,
What was the purpose of this construct?
What is the valid way to replace it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
1. you should never touch memory that lies outside the struct.
2. if you have to generate multiple accesses you should generate
code as if volatile was not used at all.
3.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42607
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=57703
Bug ID: 57703
Summary: Assembler function definition moved to a different
ltrans then call
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51535
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=50201
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=52328
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57670
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57704
Bug ID: 57704
Summary: std::char_traitschar::lt is not standards-compliant
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57208
--- Comment #28 from Martin Liška marxin.liska at gmail dot com ---
Patch solved the problem for chromium ;) I will test libreoffice tomorrow.
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #27)
Created attachment 30355 [details]
Proposed patch
I'd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57704
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57704
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57692
Steve Ellcey sje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57692
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=57701
--- Comment #2 from sqweek sqweek at gmail dot com ---
Sorry! The constraints were actually the first place I looked for a problem,
apparently my inexperience with assembly made me blind to the mistake :(
Thanks for your time.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57653
--- Comment #15 from Allan McRae allan at archlinux dot org ---
with -ffreestanding
LC_ENTER foo.c
LC_RENAME command-line
LC_ENTER foo.h
LC_LEAVE 0x0
LC_RENAME foo.c
- correct output printed here
LC_LEAVE 0x0
so std-predef.h is not included.
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57692
--- Comment #3 from Balaji V. Iyer bviyer at gmail dot com ---
[sorry, I accidentally hit the send...let's try this again...]
Hello Dominique Steve,
From what I can tell, this looks like a stack overflow issue. When I
try this change below,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42607
--- Comment #12 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #11)
What should we do with this PR?
See my comment #1 and #10. I think that the PR
should be closed with WONTFIX (because gcc does not
have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57692
--- Comment #4 from Balaji V. Iyer bviyer at gmail dot com ---
Hello Dominique and Steve,
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:24 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57692
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57699
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
eCos is open source so that should be fixed.
The easy fix for the libstdc++ headers is to use void as the argument.
98 matches
Mail list logo