[Bug libstdc++/58098] New: wrong return value of normal_distribution::min()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58098 Bug ID: 58098 Summary: wrong return value of normal_distribution::min() Product: gcc Version: 4.8.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug fortran/58099] New: over-zealous Error pointer error checking in gfortran 4.8

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 Bug ID: 58099 Summary: over-zealous Error pointer error checking in gfortran 4.8 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/58099] over-zealous Error pointer error checking in gfortran 4.8

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 --- Comment #1 from Daniel Price daniel.price at monash dot edu --- Created attachment 30623 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30623action=edit relevant module

[Bug tree-optimization/58095] SIMD code requiring auxiliary array for best optimization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58095 --- Comment #4 from Siavash Eliasi siavashserver at gmail dot com --- In the end, here is what I really like GCC to generate for me. Same output as function (bar) for function (foo) when using GCC with -O3 -march=core2 switches: #include

[Bug target/58065] ARM MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT is wrong

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58065 --- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de --- Patch was posted here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00350.html

[Bug fortran/58099] over-zealous Error pointer error checking in gfortran 4.8

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 Andrew McLeod andy at gwentswordclub dot co.uk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andy at

[Bug libstdc++/58098] wrong return value of normal_distribution::min()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58098 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug libstdc++/58098] wrong return value of normal_distribution::min()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58098 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED

[Bug libstdc++/58098] wrong return value of normal_distribution::min()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58098 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/58099] [F03] over-zealous procedure pointer error checking in gfortran 4.8

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug fortran/58099] [F03] over-zealous procedure pointer error checking in gfortran 4.8

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 --- Comment #4 from Andrew McLeod andy at gwentswordclub dot co.uk --- Hi Janus, I think you should read the part of the standard I quoted again? It clearly specifies that the procedure target may be pure even if the procedure pointer is not

[Bug tree-optimization/58039] -ftree-vectorizer makes a loop crash on a non-aligned memory

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58039 --- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se --- Your code performs mis-aligned uint16_t stores, which x86 allows. The vectorizer turns those into larger and still mis-aligned `movdqa' stores, which x86 does not allow, hence the

[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid

[Bug fortran/58100] New: Spurious DO loop at (1) will be executed zero times warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58100 Bug ID: 58100 Summary: Spurious DO loop at (1) will be executed zero times warning Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 --- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- My first suspicion is that the regression was introduced by this commit: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revisionrevision=195133 which was the fix for PR54286.

[Bug target/58092] BEQ (Branch on equal) jumps to wrong address (executes conditional code!)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58092 --- Comment #7 from Rafał Miłecki zajec5 at gmail dot com --- I compiled two versions of gcc on my own: 1) gcc-4.6.4.tar.bz2 2) gcc-linaro-4.6-2012.12.tar.bz2 For both of them I've used binutils-2.22.tar.bz2 test.o compiled with

[Bug libstdc++/58098] wrong return value of normal_distribution::min()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58098 --- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com --- Note: it's indeed debatable whether lowest or -infinity is better. For now I'm going to minimally change our code to use lowest, because we use max the other side, and

[Bug c++/46206] using typedef-name error with typedef name hiding struct name

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46206 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug target/58092] BEQ (Branch on equal) jumps to wrong address (executes conditional code!)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58092 --- Comment #8 from Rafał Miłecki zajec5 at gmail dot com --- I found link to bug repository on https://support.linaro.org/home and reported that issue to Linaro developers: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/+bug/1209171 Hope they'll handle

[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 --- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- The following patch makes the error go away, but (as expected) causes a failure of proc_ptr_result_8.f90 in the testsuite ... Index: gcc/fortran/expr.c

[Bug target/58092] BEQ (Branch on equal) jumps to wrong address (executes conditional code!)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58092 Rafał Miłecki zajec5 at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/57850] Option -fdump-translation-unit not working

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57850 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||steven at

[Bug libstdc++/58098] wrong return value of normal_distribution::min()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58098 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 --- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- I have just verified that the combined patches of comment 7 and 8 regtest cleanly.

[Bug tree-optimization/58088] [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE in gcc.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58088 --- Comment #9 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Proposed patch posted at: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00361.html

[Bug target/58092] BEQ (Branch on equal) jumps to wrong address (executes conditional code!)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58092 Rafał Miłecki zajec5 at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |FIXED --- Comment

[Bug target/56979] ICE in output_operand: invalid operand for code 'P'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56979 Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug c/58101] New: Wrong out-of-bounds warning under -Os

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58101 Bug ID: 58101 Summary: Wrong out-of-bounds warning under -Os Product: gcc Version: 4.8.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug other/12081] Gcc can't be compiled with -mregparm=3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081 Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||meissner at

[Bug other/12081] Gcc can't be compiled with -mregparm=3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081 --- Comment #28 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Michael Meissner from comment #27) The patch from Oleg Endo breaks the PowerPC build. .../gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c: In function ‘void rs6000_emit_swdiv(rtx_def*,

[Bug other/12081] Gcc can't be compiled with -mregparm=3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081 --- Comment #29 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #28) (In reply to Michael Meissner from comment #27) The patch from Oleg Endo breaks the PowerPC build. .../gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c: In

[Bug other/12081] Gcc can't be compiled with -mregparm=3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081 --- Comment #30 from Michael Meissner meissner at linux dot vnet.ibm.com --- On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 07:22:32PM +, olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081 --- Comment #29 from Oleg Endo olegendo

[Bug c++/58102] New: rejects valid initialization of constexpr object with mutable member

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58102 Bug ID: 58102 Summary: rejects valid initialization of constexpr object with mutable member Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/54864] Decltype in nested class

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54864 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/54366] [meta-bug] decltype issues

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54366 Bug 54366 depends on bug 54864, which changed state. Bug 54864 Summary: Decltype in nested class http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54864 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/58083] [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE with lambda as default parameter of a template function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58083 Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/54864] Decltype in nested class

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54864 --- Comment #3 from Nathan Ridge zeratul976 at hotmail dot com --- Since gcc and clang can't both be right, I filed http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16828 .

[Bug c++/55434] const array with elements initialized by constructor marked non-const in debug info

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55434 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug middle-end/58101] Wrong out-of-bounds warning under -Os

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58101 Luis A Lozano llozano at google dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |major ---

[Bug c++/55434] const array with elements initialized by constructor marked non-const in debug info

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55434 --- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com --- With C++11 constexpr things are fine. I think this is an indication that before fiddling with dwarf2out we should make sure const is handled like constexpr, in C++98 mode too,