http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54952
DJ Delorie dj at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dj at redhat dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54966
Bug #: 54966
Summary: Does LTO requires a larger inline-unit-growth?
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54964
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org 2012-10-18 06:57:50
UTC ---
The dependency file is created by the preprocessor, which isn't even run for a
.s file.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54964
Ami Fischman ami at fischman dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54952
Michele Galante m.galante at centrosistemi dot it changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54966
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-10-18
07:47:15 UTC ---
This seems related to pr48636. Could you try the patch in comment #20:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28456 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54967
Bug #: 54967
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE in check_loop_closed_ssa_use, at
tree-ssa-loop-manip.c:55
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54967
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54967
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54968
Bug #: 54968
Summary: spurious constexpr error,
20_util/tuple/comparison_operators/35480_neg.cc
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54969
Bug #: 54969
Summary: Bitfield test not optimised at -Os.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54967
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54970
Bug #: 54970
Summary: Missing DW_OP_GNU_implicit_pointer in debuginfo
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54969
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-18
08:45:04 UTC ---
I think this is just the standard copy-header not running at -Os issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54970
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54970
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-18
08:55:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 28478
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28478
gcc48-pr54970.patch
Untested fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54970
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28478|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54969
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54966
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54971
Bug #: 54971
Summary: SRA pessimizes debug info by not creating debug stmts
for fields without replacements
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54965
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54962
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54961
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|*86*-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54969
--- Comment #3 from Ralph Loader suckfish at ihug dot co.nz 2012-10-18
09:56:36 UTC ---
Re copy-header: adding -ftree-ch to the command line does not improve the code.
Replacing the bitwise test 'f 1' with a numeric test 'f 27', gcc -Os
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54959
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54954
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-18
10:15:37 UTC ---
i_6 = (intptr_t) MEM[(void *)x + 4B];
j_7 = (intptr_t) y;
_8 = i_6 == j_7;
forwprop will call fold with (intptr_t) MEM[(void *)x + 4B]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-18
10:19:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
i_6 = (intptr_t) MEM[(void *)x + 4B];
j_7 = (intptr_t) y;
_8 = i_6 == j_7;
forwprop will call fold with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25466
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-18
10:29:50 UTC ---
Yep, this is exactly the patch I have right now. It passed testing/bootstrap.
Will post to ML today for review.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54962
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-18
10:39:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
This is called by default_tree_diagnostic_starter FWIW; perhaps lto1 needs
its
own implementation of this?
Maybe yes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54962
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-18
10:40:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
This is called by default_tree_diagnostic_starter FWIW; perhaps lto1
needs its
own
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54965
--- Comment #3 from Siarhei Siamashka siarhei.siamashka at gmail dot com
2012-10-18 10:47:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
void combine_conjoint_xor_ca_float ()
{
combine_channel_t j = pd_combine_conjoint_xor, k =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54965
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-10-18 10:58:56 UTC ---
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012, siarhei.siamashka at gmail dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54965
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54972
Bug #: 54972
Summary: O2 breaks something in 4.6.3
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54972
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org 2012-10-18 11:25:00
UTC ---
lzo_gcc_test.cpp: In function ‘int main(int, char**)’:
lzo_gcc_test.cpp:44:44: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break
strict-aliasing rules
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54972
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-18
11:31:59 UTC ---
Apparently you didn't read http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/
Before reporting that GCC compiles your code incorrectly,
compile it with gcc -Wall -Wextra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54962
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-18
11:38:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
We stream the expanded location and allocate new line-map entries at LTO
read time.
Where?
I guess this precludes any
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41809
--- Comment #3 from Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com 2012-10-18
11:38:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 28481
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28481
Another testcase
Testcase which demonstrates more issues.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41809
Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tetra2005
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54972
--- Comment #3 from Seva Potapov random at adriver dot ru 2012-10-18 11:46:19
UTC ---
thanks for input guys, but for some reason I don't get same warnings as you:
$ g++-4.6 -Wall -Wextra lzo_gcc_test.cpp -llzo2
lzo_gcc_test.cpp:27:5: warning:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54954
Brendan Chandler bren at ragh dot us changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bren at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54850
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-18
11:54:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 28482
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28482
Candidate patch.
Could you both please test this patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54972
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54972
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-18
12:01:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
You need -Wstrict-aliasing=2.
And -O2
If the optimization passes don't run then they can't produce warnings.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54972
--- Comment #6 from Seva Potapov random at adriver dot ru 2012-10-18 12:07:40
UTC ---
thanks, guys, it seems that -Wstrict-aliasing=2 is not part of -Wall or -Wextra
i'll keep that in mind next time I encounter bug with gcc :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
Bug #: 54973
Summary: [bugzilla] make Before reporting a bug notice more
prominent
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
--- Comment #1 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2012-10-18
12:51:28 UTC ---
If you attach a mockup, I can easily write the corresponding code.
This new big notice should only be visible to users with no privileges, right?
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54974
Bug #: 54974
Summary: [ARM] Incorrect placement of constant pools
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-18
13:00:34 UTC ---
I was assuming it would be visible to everyone because it's harmless and can be
ignored (I'm sure many users will still ignore it!) but if other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54974
--- Comment #1 from Mans Rullgard mans at mansr dot com 2012-10-18 13:00:48
UTC ---
Created attachment 28484
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28484
Hack patch
This hack patch validates the analysis. A proper fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54974
Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54974
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-18
13:26:49 UTC ---
Here's a rubbishy mock up misusing fieldset and an existing CSS class, but it
makes it much easier to notice
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54975
Bug #: 54975
Summary: [C++11] cv-qualifiers of typedef-name are ignored in
lambda expression
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54971
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-18
13:35:05 UTC ---
From quick skimming of tree-sra.c, I'd say we could add another bool flag like
grp_to_be_replaced (say grp_to_be_debug_replaced), and in the else block
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
--- Comment #4 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2012-10-18
13:37:50 UTC ---
If everybody is happy with this mockup, I can push it live later today. Does it
need any formal approval?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54900
--- Comment #4 from Francesco Zappa Nardelli francesco.zappa.nardelli at gmail
dot com 2012-10-18 13:39:30 UTC ---
gcc version 4.8.0 20121018 (experimental) - which includes revision 192548 -
compiles this example correctly.
It also
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54954
--- Comment #5 from swalter at lexmark dot com 2012-10-18 13:41:13 UTC ---
Thanks for looking into this, Richard. I should have mentioned that you'll
need to build with optimization turned on.
Expected behavior:
test.c built with -O
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54973
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-18
13:48:34 UTC ---
I'm certainly not able to approve the change, it'll need some kind of
agreement from the lead maintainers, which is why I raised it on the mailing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53181
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-10-18
14:45:00 UTC ---
In the case of wrong_string, fold_comparison (called from cp_build_binary_op
via fold_if_not_in_template) cannot fold the comparison to a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-18
15:42:22 UTC ---
Hmm, the fix isn't enough:
int
main (void)
{
int x = 30;
int y = 31;
int *p = x + 1;
int *q = y;
return p == q;
}
$ gcc -O2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14430
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-18
15:51:56 UTC ---
Yeah, the #c9 testcase definitely isn't valid C.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
--- Comment #12 from gcc at robbertkrebbers dot nl 2012-10-18 15:59:00 UTC ---
What do you mean by invalid? It is certainly not undefined behavior. The
pointer x + 1 is allowed by (6.5.6p8 of C11), and the equality operator
should behave as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54976
Bug #: 54976
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr47975.c (internal compiler
error)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29633
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32322
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29633
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-18 17:02:21 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Oct 18 17:02:10 2012
New Revision: 192570
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=192570
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29633
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54884
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-18
17:09:19 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Oct 18 17:09:13 2012
New Revision: 192571
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=192571
Log:
2012-10-18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54977
Bug #: 54977
Summary: example3 not vectorized
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54971
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-18
17:37:25 UTC ---
I already have a work-in-progress patch based on your suggestions that
works for the testcase but need to think a bit more about less obvious
cases
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54978
Bug #: 54978
Summary: Add ability to provide vectorized functions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3187
Arunprasad ararunprasad at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54974
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54838
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2012-10-18 18:24:42
UTC ---
Created attachment 28486
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28486
another testcase
This ICE seems to happen quite often when testing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54930
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-18
18:30:40 UTC ---
patch posted for review http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01737.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54967
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-10-18
19:01:34 UTC ---
The ICE appears at revision 192538 and requires gcc to be configured with
--enable-checking=yes (default). I don't see it for gcc configured with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54830
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-18 19:24:36
UTC ---
Created attachment 28487
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28487
Reduced test case
This is the reduced test case. It shows that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54830
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54974
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-10-18
19:43:02 UTC ---
The test case started failing with r189790:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-07/msg00695.html
That patch merely enabled insn splitting at -O0, so I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54979
Bug #: 54979
Summary: no warning for useless comparison
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54979
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54501
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-18 22:48:49 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Oct 18 22:48:35 2012
New Revision: 192592
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=192592
Log:
/cp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54501
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
-object
--enable-linker-build-id --enable-languages=c,c++,lto --enable-plugin
--enable-version-specific-runtime-libs --with-tune=generic
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20121018 (experimental) [trunk revision 192560] (GCC)
$ g++ -flto -fpreprocessed -c 1.ii -o 1.o
$ g++ -flto -O1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3187
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54980
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko dimhen at gmail dot com 2012-10-18
23:05:38 UTC ---
192502 OK
$ g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54981
Bug #: 54981
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Different code generated with /
without `-g'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54906
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54900
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-18
23:46:04 UTC ---
I am leaving this PR open while I address the corner case presented by Jakub
somewhere in this thread:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54980
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko dimhen at gmail dot com 2012-10-18
23:51:33 UTC ---
more reduced
$ cat 1.ii
extern C class A
{
};
template int (*t_parser) () class B
{
virtual int parse ()
{
A a;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54980
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko dimhen at gmail dot com 2012-10-19
00:08:54 UTC ---
and more
$ cat 1.ii
class A
{
};
template int (*t_parser) () class B
{
virtual int parse ()
{
A a;
t_parser ();
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54965
--- Comment #5 from Siarhei Siamashka siarhei.siamashka at gmail dot com
2012-10-19 00:17:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
In the above case you probably want big_function_a to have all
calls inlined. You can then conveniently use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54982
Bug #: 54982
Summary: Uninitialised variable store_flag in
tree-ssa-loop-im.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
97 matches
Mail list logo
