[Bug target/65030] [5 Regression] ICE (RTL flag check) on arm-linux-gnueabihf

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65030 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug target/65031] [5 Regression] ICE (segfault) on arm-linux-gnueabihf

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65031 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug target/65035] [5 Regression] ICE (segfault) on arm-linux-gnueabihf

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65035 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug target/65036] [5 Regression] ICE (RTL flag check) on arm-linux-gnueabihf

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65036 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug preprocessor/65037] New: cpp inserts spurious newlines

2015-02-12 Thread jsynacek at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65037 Bug ID: 65037 Summary: cpp inserts spurious newlines Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: preprocessor

[Bug preprocessor/65037] cpp inserts spurious newlines

2015-02-12 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65037 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug lto/65015] LTO produces randomly ordered debug information

2015-02-12 Thread conchur at web dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65015 --- Comment #5 from conchur at web dot de --- Thanks for the patches. I've rebuild the gcc package (which took the whole afternoon + night on my machine) and can verify that the mini testcases are now working perfectly fine. I've also tried this

[Bug preprocessor/65037] cpp inserts spurious newlines

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65037 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug libstdc++/65033] C++11 atomics: is_lock_free result does not always match the real lock-free property

2015-02-12 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- See PR54005 for some of the history.

[Bug c++/65017] valgrind error in get_constraint_for_address_of

2015-02-12 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65017 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug gcov-profile/61889] [5 Regression] gcov-tool.c uses nftw, ftw.h

2015-02-12 Thread terry.guo at arm dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889 Terry Guo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||terry.guo at arm dot com --- Comment #35 fro

[Bug lto/65015] LTO produces randomly ordered debug information

2015-02-12 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65015 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to conchur from comment #5) > Thanks for the patches. I've rebuild the gcc package (which took the whole > afternoon + night on my machine) and can verify that the mini testcases are > now working

[Bug middle-end/32667] block copy with exact overlap is expanded as memcpy

2015-02-12 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32667 --- Comment #10 from Richard Biener --- One way to "fix" this is to emit the memcpy as if (p != q) memcpy (p, q, ...); but of course that comes at a cost in code-size and runtime for no obvious good reason (in practice).

[Bug lto/64837] lto plugin doesn't call ld_plugin_release_input_file

2015-02-12 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64837 --- Comment #19 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #18) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #17) > > (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #16) > > > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #15) > > > > (In repl

[Bug gcov-profile/61889] [5 Regression] gcov-tool.c uses nftw, ftw.h

2015-02-12 Thread ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889 --- Comment #36 from Kai Tietz --- Well, I guess that you missed to reconfigure gcc. By checking current source is the include of ftw.h guarded by HAVE_FTW_H check, which get defined by configure if header is found.

[Bug gcov-profile/61889] [5 Regression] gcov-tool.c uses nftw, ftw.h

2015-02-12 Thread ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889 --- Comment #37 from Kai Tietz --- I confirm that in libgcc we still have an issue ... Could you please make a new report for libgcc's libgcov-util.c for it. Thanks in advance

[Bug ipa/65034] [5 Regression] ICE (segfault) on arm-linux-gnueabihf

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65034 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug ipa/65034] [5 Regression] ICE (segfault) on arm-linux-gnueabihf

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65034 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug libgcc/65038] New: Unable to find ftw.h for libgcov-util.c

2015-02-12 Thread terry.guo at arm dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65038 Bug ID: 65038 Summary: Unable to find ftw.h for libgcov-util.c Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: blocker Priority: P3 Component: libgcc

[Bug middle-end/32667] block copy with exact overlap is expanded as memcpy

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32667 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #11

[Bug gcov-profile/61889] [5 Regression] gcov-tool.c uses nftw, ftw.h

2015-02-12 Thread terry.guo at arm dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889 --- Comment #38 from Terry Guo --- (In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #37) > I confirm that in libgcc we still have an issue ... > Could you please make a new report for libgcc's libgcov-util.c for it. > > Thanks in advance Reported it at http

[Bug tree-optimization/65014] [5 Regression] ice with error: type mismatch in shift expression

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65014 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Feb 12 09:45:27 2015 New Revision: 220640 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220640&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/65014 * fold-const.c (fold_binary_loc): When

[Bug sanitizer/65019] [5 Regression] Compare debug failure with -fsanitize=alignment,object-size,vptr -O3

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65019 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Feb 12 09:48:44 2015 New Revision: 220641 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220641&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR sanitizer/65019 * ubsan.c (ubsan_expand_objsize_ifn): Always re

[Bug c/57653] [4.8/4.9 Regression] filename information discarded when using -imacros

2015-02-12 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57653 --- Comment #28 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Feb 12 09:48:56 2015 New Revision: 220642 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220642&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-02-11 Richard Biener Backport from mainline 2014-07-2

[Bug c++/65039] New: g++ 5 segmentation fault when compiling with -O2 optimization

2015-02-12 Thread truckman at FreeBSD dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65039 Bug ID: 65039 Summary: g++ 5 segmentation fault when compiling with -O2 optimization Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pr

[Bug ipa/65039] [5 Regression] g++ 5 segmentation fault when compiling with -O2 optimization

2015-02-12 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65039 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/65040] New: [5 Regression] gcc-5 -Wformat broken

2015-02-12 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040 Bug ID: 65040 Summary: [5 Regression] gcc-5 -Wformat broken Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c/65040] [5 Regression] gcc-5 -Wformat broken

2015-02-12 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |5.0

[Bug target/65031] [5 Regression] ICE (segfault) on arm-linux-gnueabihf

2015-02-12 Thread ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65031 --- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan --- Appears to work with r220637. Checking if dup of PR65003.

[Bug target/65030] [5 Regression] ICE (RTL flag check) on arm-linux-gnueabihf

2015-02-12 Thread ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65030 --- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan --- Works with r220637 - may well be a dup of PR65003. Checking.

[Bug c/65040] [5 Regression] gcc-5 -Wformat broken

2015-02-12 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/65036] [5 Regression] ICE (RTL flag check) on arm-linux-gnueabihf

2015-02-12 Thread ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65036 --- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan --- May well be - works with r220637

[Bug target/65035] [5 Regression] ICE (segfault) on arm-linux-gnueabihf

2015-02-12 Thread ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65035 --- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan --- Works with r220637 - may well be

[Bug c/65040] [5 Regression] gcc-5 -Wformat broken

2015-02-12 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug c/65040] [5 Regression] gcc-5 -Wformat broken

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug c/65040] [5 Regression] gcc-5 -Wformat broken

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2) > Taking. I think check_format_types needs a small tweak to look thru > NOP_EXPRs. Well, more like do some lame VR computation and not warn if the signedness does

[Bug c/65040] [5 Regression] gcc-5 -Wformat broken

2015-02-12 Thread mark at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040 Mark Wielaard changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 f

[Bug ipa/65039] [5 Regression] g++ 5 segmentation fault when compiling with -O2 optimization

2015-02-12 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65039 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- I reproduced this with an out-of-date trunk build, but using today's trunk it compiles OK, so seems to be fixed.

[Bug target/59375] internal compiler error: in expand_shift_1, at expmed.c:2245

2015-02-12 Thread olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59375 --- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo --- Any updates regarding this problem?

[Bug c/65040] [5 Regression] gcc-5 -Wformat broken

2015-02-12 Thread fche at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040 Frank Ch. Eigler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fche at redhat dot com --- Comment #6

[Bug ipa/65039] [5 Regression] g++ 5 segmentation fault when compiling with -O2 optimization

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65039 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug sanitizer/65019] [5 Regression] Compare debug failure with -fsanitize=alignment,object-size,vptr -O3

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65019 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/65014] [5 Regression] ice with error: type mismatch in shift expression

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65014 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/64979] [4.8 Regression] stdarg optimization not able to find escape sites in phi nodes

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64979 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Feb 12 12:17:41 2015 New Revision: 220645 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220645&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2015-02-09 Jakub Jelinek PR targe

[Bug target/64979] [4.8 Regression] stdarg optimization not able to find escape sites in phi nodes

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64979 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug lto/64837] lto plugin doesn't call ld_plugin_release_input_file

2015-02-12 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64837 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/64990] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] wrong code at -O1, -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64990 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/61047] [4.9/5 Regression] wrong code at -O1 on x86_64-linux

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61047 --- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek --- *** Bug 64990 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug target/65032] [5 Regression] ICE in reload_combine_note_use, at postreload.c:1556 on i686-linux-gnu

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65032 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug testsuite/64930] [5 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/atomic-p7.c scan-assembler-times isync 12

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64930 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Feb 12 13:14:47 2015 New Revision: 220646 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220646&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR testsuite/64930 * gcc.target/powerpc/atomic-p7.c: Adjust expec

[Bug testsuite/64930] [5 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/atomic-p7.c scan-assembler-times isync 12

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64930 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/62630] [5 regression] gcc.dg/graphite/vect-pr43423.c FAILs

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62630 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug target/65032] [5 Regression] ICE in reload_combine_note_use, at postreload.c:1556 on i686-linux-gnu

2015-02-12 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65032 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |5.0

[Bug ipa/65028] [5 Regression] 450.soplex in SPEC CPU 2006 is miscompiled

2015-02-12 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Priority|P3

[Bug target/65036] [5 Regression] ICE (RTL flag check) on arm-linux-gnueabihf

2015-02-12 Thread ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65036 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/65003] [5 Regression] -fsection-anchors ICE

2015-02-12 Thread ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65003 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comme

[Bug target/65035] [5 Regression] ICE (segfault) on arm-linux-gnueabihf

2015-02-12 Thread ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65035 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/65003] [5 Regression] -fsection-anchors ICE

2015-02-12 Thread ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65003 --- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan --- *** Bug 65035 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug tree-optimization/65027] failure to emit diagnostic when optimizing using undefined behaviour

2015-02-12 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65027 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/65003] [5 Regression] -fsection-anchors ICE

2015-02-12 Thread ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65003 --- Comment #7 from Ramana Radhakrishnan --- *** Bug 65030 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug target/65030] [5 Regression] ICE (RTL flag check) on arm-linux-gnueabihf

2015-02-12 Thread ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65030 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/65031] [5 Regression] ICE (segfault) on arm-linux-gnueabihf

2015-02-12 Thread ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65031 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/65003] [5 Regression] -fsection-anchors ICE

2015-02-12 Thread ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65003 --- Comment #8 from Ramana Radhakrishnan --- *** Bug 65031 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug lto/63607] run fail with -flto -mfloat-abi=softfp for armeb-linux-gnueabi-gcc

2015-02-12 Thread ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63607 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug ipa/65028] [5 Regression] 450.soplex in SPEC CPU 2006 is miscompiled

2015-02-12 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added CC|mjambor at suse dot cz |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug rtl-optimization/55342] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [LRA,x86] Non-optimal code for simple loop with LRA

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55342 --- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek --- The #c10 issue went away with r204212 I believe.

[Bug c++/60994] gcc does not recognize hidden/shadowed enumeration as valid nested-name-specifier

2015-02-12 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- Another example, with a function template: struct s { static int i; }; template int s() { return s::i; } p.cc: In function ‘int s()’: p.cc:9:10: error: ‘s’ is not a class, namespace, or enumeration

[Bug lto/65012] [5 Regression] systemd fails to build at least on ppc64el, powerpc, arm-inux-gnueabihf and aarch64 with -flto (ICE)

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65012 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/60994] gcc does not recognize hidden/shadowed enumeration as valid nested-name-specifier

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8

[Bug libstdc++/64443] [5 Regression] New std::string implementation breaks tests on AArch64.

2015-02-12 Thread belagod at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64443 Tejas Belagod changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/65041] New: Improve -Wclobbered

2015-02-12 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65041 Bug ID: 65041 Summary: Improve -Wclobbered Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-end Assignee:

[Bug c/39589] make -Wmissing-field-initializers=2 work with "designated initializers" ?

2015-02-12 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39589 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/60994] gcc does not recognize hidden/shadowed enumeration as valid nested-name-specifier

2015-02-12 Thread momchil.velikov at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994 --- Comment #9 from Momchil Velikov --- https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg00659.html(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8) > Have you pinged your patch? If a patch isn't reviewed within a week or two, > you should ping it on gcc

[Bug c++/65042] New: gcc5 has a template depth problem that was fine in gcc4

2015-02-12 Thread karl at kleinpaste dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042 Bug ID: 65042 Summary: gcc5 has a template depth problem that was fine in gcc4 Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority

[Bug libstdc++/64797] 22_locale/conversions/string/2.cc FAILs

2015-02-12 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64797 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- I think this is probably a bug in the test. I was expecting "Stop\\xff\\xff" to cause a conversion error, but it is successfully converted to a wide string.

[Bug rtl-optimization/42575] arm-eabi-gcc 64-bit multiply weirdness

2015-02-12 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42575 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com

[Bug libstdc++/64275] Warnings when linking GCC go1: "(virtual table of) type 'struct X' violates one definition rule"

2015-02-12 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64275 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/65042] gcc5 has a template depth problem that was fine in gcc4

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug sanitizer/64984] [5 Regression] ICE in check_noexcept_t with ubsan

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64984 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Feb 12 15:38:33 2015 New Revision: 220649 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220649&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR sanitizer/64984 * except.c (check_noexcept_r): Return NULL for

[Bug sanitizer/64984] [5 Regression] ICE in check_noexcept_t with ubsan

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64984 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/64224] [ARM] -mapcs -marm uses deprecated forms (as of ARMv7-A) of LDM in epilogues

2015-02-12 Thread mshawcroft at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64224 mshawcroft at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug testsuite/64930] [5 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/atomic-p7.c scan-assembler-times isync 12

2015-02-12 Thread torvald at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64930 --- Comment #12 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Alan Modra from comment #9) > My point was that if you write a testcase that specifically tests for > consume and get acquire code then that is a fail. The code generated is > using

[Bug c++/65043] New: Expected narrowing conversion during list initialization of bool from double

2015-02-12 Thread yaghmour.shafik at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65043 Bug ID: 65043 Summary: Expected narrowing conversion during list initialization of bool from double Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norm

[Bug go/64999] s390x libgo test failure in TestMemoryProfiler

2015-02-12 Thread ian at airs dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999 --- Comment #11 from Ian Lance Taylor --- libbacktrace is all about stack backtraces. It is not about handling exceptions. libbacktrace handles inlined calls and hand written trampolines, assuming the DWARF information is correct. libbacktrace

[Bug libstdc++/65033] C++11 atomics: is_lock_free result does not always match the real lock-free property

2015-02-12 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug go/64999] s390x libgo test failure in TestMemoryProfiler

2015-02-12 Thread ian at airs dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999 --- Comment #12 from Ian Lance Taylor --- I should add that for purposes of Go, it's not all that important that libbacktrace does not yet handle sibling calls, because the Go compiler turns on -fno-optimize-sibling-calls by default (https://gcc.

[Bug libstdc++/65033] C++11 atomics: is_lock_free result does not always match the real lock-free property

2015-02-12 Thread rth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033 Richard Henderson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassign

[Bug c++/65042] gcc5 has a template depth problem that was fine in gcc4

2015-02-12 Thread mcepl at cepl dot eu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042 --- Comment #2 from Matěj Cepl --- Created attachment 34741 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34741&action=edit preprocessed file

[Bug debug/55541] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] unable to see local variables due extra lexical block was generated

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55541 --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Feb 12 18:09:59 2015 New Revision: 220650 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220650&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR debug/55541 * cp-tree.h (BLOCK_OUTER_CURLY_BRACE_P): Define.

[Bug c++/65042] gcc5 has a template depth problem that was fine in gcc4

2015-02-12 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/65042] gcc5 has a template depth problem that was fine in gcc4

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- What command line options are used? With explicit -ftemplate-depth=25 (or even 27) it indeed fails, succeeds with 28, but the default is 900 AFAIK. Have those command line options changed in any way since th

[Bug libstdc++/65042] gcc5 has a template depth problem that was fine in gcc4

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org Compone

[Bug debug/55541] [4.8/4.9 Regression] unable to see local variables due extra lexical block was generated

2015-02-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55541 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||5.0 Summary|[4.8/4.9/5 Regres

[Bug libstdc++/65042] gcc5 has a template depth problem that was fine in gcc4

2015-02-12 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek --- Yeah, the default is 900. (C++11 recommends 1024 AFAIK.) >From what I can see they used /usr/lib64/ccache/g++ -v -save-temps -g3 -O0 -DDEBUG -ftemplate-depth-25 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -pthread -Idefault/src/main

[Bug libstdc++/65033] C++11 atomics: is_lock_free result does not always match the real lock-free property

2015-02-12 Thread bin.x.fan at oracle dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033 --- Comment #5 from Bin Fan --- (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #3) > (In reply to Bin Fan from comment #0) > > 2. g++ tries to make lock-free property per-type, but the libatomic.so > > implementation does not match. > > This. We alway

[Bug libstdc++/65033] C++11 atomics: is_lock_free result does not always match the real lock-free property

2015-02-12 Thread rth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033 --- Comment #6 from Richard Henderson --- (In reply to Bin Fan from comment #5) > So after the fix, atomic_is_lock_free will always return 0 for > size=3,align=1 atomic struct objects? Yes. > I understand currently libatomic tries to make an at

[Bug fortran/64932] [4.9/5 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_descriptor_data_get for generated finalizer

2015-02-12 Thread pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64932 --- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas --- Author: pault Date: Thu Feb 12 19:30:53 2015 New Revision: 220654 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220654&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-02-12 Paul Thomas PR fortran/64932 * trans-stmt.c (gfc_tran

[Bug c++/64959] SFINAE in UDLs

2015-02-12 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64959 --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Thu Feb 12 20:21:34 2015 New Revision: 220656 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220656&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/64959 * parser.c (lookup_literal_operator): Return all cand

[Bug middle-end/64966] [5 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure with -O -fschedule-insns --param=max-sched-ready-insns=0

2015-02-12 Thread law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64966 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug debug/64935] [5 Regression] compare debug failure during building of Linux kernel

2015-02-12 Thread law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64935 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz --- Comment #12

  1   2   >