http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53156
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-04-29
06:59:14 UTC ---
Author: hp
Date: Sun Apr 29 06:59:09 2012
New Revision: 186940
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186940
Log:
PR target/53156
* config/cris/cris.md (an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53089
--- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-04-29
06:07:51 UTC ---
Looks fixed to me. H.J. or Honza, close?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53158
Bug #: 53158
Summary: [C++11] Bogus error in loop condition
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520
Rich Felker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugdal at aerifal dot cx
--- Comment #31 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53157
Bug #: 53157
Summary: within lambda, error: lvalue required as unary ‘&’
operand
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53156
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53156
Bug #: 53156
Summary: [4.8 Regression]: gcc.target/cris/peep2-andu2.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52593
--- Comment #9 from Rich Felker 2012-04-29 01:21:59
UTC ---
Reported to glibc bug tracker as bug #14032:
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14032
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52593
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-04-29 00:16:38 UTC ---
If you have a bug in glibc's libm, please make sure there is an open bug
report for it in glibc Bugzilla, component "math"; I don't see anything
there about sqrt.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53125
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-04-29
00:08:54 UTC ---
I'll look at this PR in a week.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52593
--- Comment #7 from Rich Felker 2012-04-28 23:21:51
UTC ---
This bug seems to have been fixed with the addition of the
-fexcess-precision=standard feature, which is now set by default with -std=c99
or c11, and which disables the builtin sqrt base
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53134
--- Comment #8 from Rich Felker 2012-04-28 23:14:57
UTC ---
I agree, sadly, that WONTFIX is probably the most appropriate action. At least,
like Andrew said, we're getting to the point where assuming it's okay to build
with -msse2 and -mfpmath=ss
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772
--- Comment #20 from eggert at gnu dot org 2012-04-28 22:40:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> > intmax_t i = (whatever);
> > if (INT_MAX < i && i <= LONG_MAX)
> Have you actually seen that?
No, I just now invented that example. It was ba
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772
--- Comment #19 from Marc Glisse 2012-04-28
22:16:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> I'm afraid that false positives would still be likely.
> For example, suppose we're on a platform where
> INT_MAX = LONG_MAX < INTMAX_MAX. Then:
>
> intm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772
--- Comment #18 from eggert at gnu dot org 2012-04-28 21:53:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> I expect the remaining false positives to be very
> rare. i>=INT_MIN&&isomething are common, but
> isomething seems less likely.
I'm afraid that fal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53155
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-28
21:53:21 UTC ---
-j by itself fails but -j with a number passes. This is what I use which is
why it works.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53155
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse 2012-04-28
21:49:43 UTC ---
laptop-mg /tmp/m $ cat Makefile
all:
$(MAKE) plouf
plouf:
echo $(MFLAGS) "$(filter -j, $(MFLAGS))"
laptop-mg /tmp/m $ make -j
make plouf
make[1]: Entering directory `/tmp/m'
ec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53155
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Not parallel: test for -j |Not parallel: test for -j
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53155
Bug #: 53155
Summary: Not parallel: test for -j fails
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50616
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53148
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52988
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
AssignedTo|redi at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53154
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53152
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-04-28
19:54:51 UTC ---
printing the types was basically PR 49152
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53144
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.1
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-28 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772
--- Comment #17 from Marc Glisse 2012-04-28
18:49:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> I understand now, and I think you are right. We don't have a warning for
> "((int)x) < INT_MIN" or ((int)x) > INT_MAX but I think it should go to
> Wtype-lim
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53144
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2012-04-28 15:53:10
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
>
> H.J., can you try bisecting this?
Sure. BTW, I created a new git based bisect tool. It works
quite well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53144
Paolo Bonzini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53153
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47857
Olaf van der Spek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|VERIFIED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|DUPLIC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39029
--- Comment #5 from Johan Boulé 2012-04-28
14:15:17 UTC ---
I believe my original bug report does not stand as a valid bug. Bug #47857 has
been marked as duplicate but is not: it's a spurious warning. Also, Olaf showed
a test case that seems prob
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse 2012-04-28
13:18:25 UTC ---
Created attachment 27260
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27260
Wrap using gmp
I find it easier to use bignum and wrap at the end, instead of checking for
each operat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772
--- Comment #16 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-28
13:07:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
>
> No, there could be a warning that the first test is always false, another one
> that the second one is always false, but adding a third warning th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772
--- Comment #15 from Marc Glisse 2012-04-28
12:55:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> >
> > Except that this version would warn for xINT_MAX, whereas this
> > belongs to other warnings. So testing the triviality of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772
--- Comment #14 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-28
12:49:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
>
> Except that this version would warn for xINT_MAX, whereas this
> belongs to other warnings. So testing the triviality of the first ranges seems
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53131
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse 2012-04-28
12:45:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> It seems a pretty small warning, but I guess #1 and #2 could
> be split up, if that helps get #2 in.
I think it is the opposite actually, #2 is more controver
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse 2012-04-28
12:40:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> But there is something strange, because it is warning "it is always false",
> which is obviously not true. So I think at some moment it is doing some
> trans
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772
--- Comment #12 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-28
12:37:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > It forgets to check first whether the first 2 ranges are trivial.
>
> Or easier, instead of checking:
> if (TREE_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse 2012-04-28
12:33:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> It forgets to check first whether the first 2 ranges are trivial.
Or easier, instead of checking:
if (TREE_CODE (tem) != INTEGER_CST)
it could check in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-28
12:32:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> For : x>=INT_MIN && x<=INT_MAX
> the code creates a range for x>=INT_MIN, another range for x<=INT_MAX, merges
> them into a single range, checks that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53131
--- Comment #5 from dcb 2012-04-28 12:17:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Could you give a sample? -Wlogical-op merges 2 unrelated warnings:
> *) x && 2 (you would expect a boolean, not 2, so maybe x&2 was meant)
> *) x<0 && x>0 (not so likel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53131
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53154
Bug #: 53154
Summary: Template class not shadowed by member declaration
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53147
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53131
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-28
10:37:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> >
> > Do the warnings indicate bugs or not?
>
> Yes. I checked the first ten.
And what do the kernel people say? Do they want Wlogical-op enabled?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53134
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53147
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-28
10:05:26 UTC ---
[/var/tmp/llvm/llvm/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Analysis/UninitializedValues.cpp :
172:56] D.147621 = clang::CFGBlock::front (block);
[/var/tmp/llvm/llvm/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Analysis/Un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53147
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-28
10:02:39 UTC ---
[/var/tmp/llvm/llvm/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Analysis/UninitializedValues.cpp :
172:56] D.147621 ={v} {CLOBBER};
[/var/tmp/llvm/llvm/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/PointerIntPair.h : 69:73]
D.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51020
--- Comment #3 from Alexey Kravets 2012-04-28
09:53:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 27259
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27259
Reset starred flag patch.
This patch seems to solve this problem. It has been tested on 4.6.3 (Lina
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53147
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-04-28 09:38:04 UTC ---
Please add -fno-strict-aliasing to both invocations above to avoid
misunderstandings.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53147
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-04-28 09:31:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 27258
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27258
testcase
$ g++ -w -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fPIC
-march=native -c U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53153
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53153
Bug #: 53153
Summary: ice in tree_low_cst, at tree.c:6569
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53147
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53131
--- Comment #2 from dcb 2012-04-28 07:29:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > I am somewhat surprised that -Wlogical-op isn't part of either -Wall
> > or possibly -Wextra.
>
> It could be in -Wextra for GCC 4.8.
Rig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53147
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-28
07:27:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Started with:
This really sounds like a temp variable is escaping the scope. Which means the
code in clang is undefined.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53152
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53147
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-04-28 07:04:13 UTC ---
Started with:
6458ce4faada4b1b64d3823d52cfdf8e6b9cb7f8 is the first bad commit
commit 6458ce4faada4b1b64d3823d52cfdf8e6b9cb7f8
Author: jason
Date: Sun Nov 13 00:44:39 2011 +0
59 matches
Mail list logo
