http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52738
--- Comment #1 from Mateusz Kielar matek09 at gmail dot com 2012-03-30
06:30:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
I configured libgomp with --enable-tls=no and build it as static library. But
I
get segmentation fault when I use such OpenMP
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52788
Bug #: 52788
Summary: -fbounds-check fails for 2-rank allocatable arrays
when reading
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52788
--- Comment #1 from Edouard.Canot at irisa dot fr 2012-03-30 07:11:41 UTC ---
For a one dimensional allocatable array, gfortran leads to a correct behavior
when reading, i.e. it detects the bounds overflow.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52782
Lobivia jan.karv at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51980
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-30
07:58:49 UTC ---
Your testcase is broken - it doesn't honour reinterpret_casts properly . This
is a better testcase.
#include arm_neon.h
uint32x4_t sqrlen4D_16u8(
r2, r3, d23
bx lr
.size sqrlen4D_16u8, .-sqrlen4D_16u8
.ident GCC: (GNU) 4.8.0 20120330 (experimental)
.section.note.GNU-stack,,%progbits
This probably makes it a dup of PR48941 but it's starting to look more
promising now.
Eric, could you try the 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52765
--- Comment #9 from christophe.lyon at st dot com 2012-03-30 08:39:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #0)
I am not sure this is really a bug (is building libstdc++ at -O0
supported?),
Yes, the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52772
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52777
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52779
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52780
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52786
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-30
09:21:00 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 30 09:20:54 2012
New Revision: 186000
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186000
Log:
2012-03-30 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52786
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52772
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52780
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52765
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-30
09:59:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
I have experimented with this configure option. I didn't know about it: what
is
the intended way of using the debug libraries?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52754
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-30
10:22:45 UTC ---
We indeed should not create negative array indices (well, out-of-bound array
indices). The issue why this happens is that we transform
const unsigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52754
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-30
10:45:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 27042
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27042
alternative patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51294
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52758
--- Comment #1 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-30 11:07:51 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Mar 30 11:07:46 2012
New Revision: 186008
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186008
Log:
PR libgfortran/52758
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52754
--- Comment #8 from Matthias Kretz kretz at kde dot org 2012-03-30 11:13:59
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
alternative patch
Just tested it on the 4.7-20120324 snapshot and all bogus warnings are gone, as
are the crashes. No regressions in my
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52754
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-30
11:31:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Created attachment 27042 [details]
alternative patch
I'm not against it, but what if the source code and/or some other pass result
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52754
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-03-30 11:41:35 UTC ---
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52754
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52756
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-30
13:26:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
DOM jump threading threads the loop latch edge:
if (latch-aux)
{
/* First handle the case latch edge is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52772
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-30
13:40:31 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 30 13:40:17 2012
New Revision: 186011
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186011
Log:
2012-03-30 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52754
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-30
13:41:31 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 30 13:41:24 2012
New Revision: 186012
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186012
Log:
2012-03-30 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52754
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52772
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52789
Bug #: 52789
Summary: gfortran sets -Wunused-parameter in the C sense as
well as the Fortran sense
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #2 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2012-03-30
14:30:20 UTC ---
I short-circuited the overflow check in libcpp in case the literal was resolved
in C++ FE as a raw literal. The raw literal should be able to take any
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52787
Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52790
Bug #: 52790
Summary: Problems using x86_64-w64-mingw-w32-gfortran with
mcmodel=large and medium
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
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=52784
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-apple-darwin10 |i386-apple-darwin10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52789
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-03-30
15:12:38 UTC ---
So?
Note that you have also
[macbook] f90/bug% gfc -Wall pr52789.f90
pr52789.f90:1.14:
subroutine s(x)
1
Warning: Unused dummy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52791
Bug #: 52791
Summary: structure should always be returned by passing a
hidden argument with ms_abi, x86_64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52792
Bug #: 52792
Summary: this pointer and return pointer are passed in wrong
order when ms_abi is used (x86_64)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52758
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-30 15:37:58 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Mar 30 15:37:51 2012
New Revision: 186014
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186014
Log:
PR libgfortran/52758
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52758
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52784
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-apple-darwin10 |i386
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40942
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52784
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52789
--- Comment #2 from Mat Cross mathewc at nag dot co.uk 2012-03-30 16:22:34
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
So?
If I RTM I see:
-Wunused-parameter
Contrary to gcc's meaning of -Wunused-parameter, gfortran's implementation
of this option
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52756
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52689
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52667
Thomas Schwinge tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2012-03-30
17:34:36 UTC ---
Agreed. Testing a patch. This will have the advantage over libcpp that long
double will also be tested for overflow.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52793
Bug #: 52793
Summary: [4.8 Regression] 483.xalancbmk in SPEC CPU 2006 failed
to build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52727
--- Comment #13 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-30
18:00:45 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Fri Mar 30 18:00:37 2012
New Revision: 186018
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186018
Log:
PR debug/52727
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52727
--- Comment #14 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-30
18:23:10 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Fri Mar 30 18:23:06 2012
New Revision: 186019
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186019
Log:
PR debug/52727
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52794
Bug #: 52794
Summary: gcc.dg/tree-prof/pr52027.c fails on
x86_64/i386-apple-darwin*
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52680
--- Comment #4 from Matt Kline mkline at cs dot wisc.edu 2012-03-30 19:19:03
UTC ---
Where should I specify that flag? _GLIBCXX_USE_NANOSLEEP is still undefined
when I build gcc with
configure CFLAGS='-O3' --disable-bootstrap --disable-multilib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52762
Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52794
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-03-30
19:22:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 27046
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27046
testcase from radar://10960042 generated on x86_64-apple-darwin11
The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52795
Bug #: 52795
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/pr34999.c compilation,
-fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE on
{x86_64,i386}-apple-darwin{10,11} at -m64
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52794
Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27046|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52795
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-03-30
19:40:43 UTC ---
Created attachment 27048
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27048
testcase from radar://10960042 generated on x86_64-apple-darwin11 (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52762
--- Comment #8 from Dâniel Fraga fragabr at gmail dot com 2012-03-30 19:54:47
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Happens in java script, which does JITed code.
My guess is that one of the transition points between JITed code and C code
does not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52787
--- Comment #2 from niXman i.nixman at gmail dot com 2012-03-30 19:55:51 UTC
---
Based to your e-mail on gcc-help, you left out a very important piece of
information.
Yes, Ian. I had to mention it.
And yes, I'm not saying that libitm is supported
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52787
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
();
}
$ g++-4.7pre --version
g++-4.7pre (GCC) 4.7.1 20120330 (prerelease)
...
$ g++-4.7pre -Wall -std=c++11 test.cc -g3 -o test ./test
-85
0
121
Disassembling with gdb shows:
Dump of assembler code for function Wrapperchar::Wrapper():
0x00400a70 +0: push %rbp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52797
Bug #: 52797
Summary: Revision 185913 causes ICE in get_loop_body, at
cfgloop.c:831 on PowerPC
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52797
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52797
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-03-30
21:16:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 27049
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27049
Preprocessed file streambuf.ii
.cc shows that gcc-4.7 calls the default constructor for
pack uses like new Type(args...), while gcc-4.6 didn't. So 4.7 doesn't have the
std::list bug. I tested this with valgrind-3.6.0:
$ g++-4.6.x --version
g++-4.6.x (GCC) 4.6.4 20120330 (prerelease)
$ g++-4.6.x -Wall -std=c++0x 46_vs_47.cc -g3
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey Yasskin jyasskin at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-30
21:22:30 UTC ---
And 4.8.0 20120330 matches 4.7's behavior for both test cases.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52798
Bug #: 52798
Summary: __builtin_object_size() based overflow check is a
false positive due to parameter optimisation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52798
--- Comment #1 from Sebastian Andrzej Siewior gcc at breakpoint dot cc
2012-03-30 21:54:33 UTC ---
Created attachment 27051
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27051
.i test case
++-4.8pre (GCC) 4.8.0 20120330 (experimental)
$ g++-4.8pre -std=c++11 emplace.cc -c -o /dev/null
In file included from .../include/c++/4.8.0/deque:67:0,
from emplace.cc:1:
.../include/c++/4.8.0/bits/deque.tcc: In instantiation of ‘std::deque_Tp,
_Alloc::iterator std::deque_Tp, _Alloc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52800
Bug #: 52800
Summary: eglibc build broken with internal compiler error in
cfgloop .
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52800
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-30
23:34:41 UTC ---
Richi - probably yours -
svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@185913 broken
svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@185910 good
regards,
Ramana
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52801
Bug #: 52801
Summary: improve selective typedef unwrapping
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49152
--- Comment #22 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-31
00:25:50 UTC ---
Is there a final verdict on this? Jonathan, Paolo, did you change your mind?
Or do you still think this should be fixed but you don't believe there is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52802
Bug #: 52802
Summary: Equality rewrites pessimizes code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49152
--- Comment #23 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-31
00:34:58 UTC ---
BTW, I think this example was mentioned some where already, but I cannot find
it now. From http://clang.llvm.org/diagnostics.html
manuel@gcc12:~$ cat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52799
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39858
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52799
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-03-31 01:57:20 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sat Mar 31 01:57:14 2012
New Revision: 186036
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186036
Log:
2012-03-30
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52799
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-03-31 01:57:00 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sat Mar 31 01:56:55 2012
New Revision: 186035
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186035
Log:
2012-03-30
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52799
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49152
--- Comment #24 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-03-31
02:03:02 UTC ---
Personally, I don't believe Gaby is open to other solutions outside the
full-fledged caret diagnostics context, thus for the time being at least I'm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49152
--- Comment #25 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-03-31
02:15:19 UTC ---
And, hey, I'm of course speaking only for myself, you are welcome to pursue a
compromise solution. For example, I don't know, if we could identify a
82 matches
Mail list logo
