http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55088
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27
06:42:10 UTC ---
The language specific tar balls are no longer produced. I don't know if we
should close this bug as fixed or won't fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55078
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-10-27 07:05:26 UTC
---
Fails for me, too, so likely universal. Seems ordering issue with the inliner
patches. Works in my tree - I will work out what fix solved it and fix it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54961
--- Comment #4 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-10-27 07:06:25
UTC ---
Steven, has there been any new progress on this PR?
In addition to the failure in this PR, I also get (-O2 -m32) that may be
related to the failure in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54961
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-10-27 07:11:00
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Steven, has there been any new progress on this PR?
In addition to the failure in this PR, I also get (-O2 -m32) that may be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54402
--- Comment #6 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-10-27 07:23:47
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
As Uros says in bug 54507, the reflect test from libgo is another example.
Actually, on alpha it is text/template test.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34283
--- Comment #6 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-10-27 07:33:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
Still present on x86_64. -O2 -march=corei7:
movd%rsi, %xmm1
pinsrq $1,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34283
--- Comment #7 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27 07:49:00 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat Oct 27 07:48:55 2012
New Revision: 192872
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=192872
Log:
PR target/34283
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34283
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54466
--- Comment #9 from dodji at seketeli dot org dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-10-27 07:59:12 UTC ---
A candidate patch has been sent to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg02472.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32204
etherice scottbaldwin at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19398
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32204
--- Comment #8 from etherice scottbaldwin at gmail dot com 2012-10-27
08:52:10 UTC ---
In MSVC's defense, the standard is vague (or insufficient) in this regard for
'friend class' declarations. It says:
If a friend declaration appears in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55095
Bug #: 55095
Summary: Wshift-overflow
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55096
Bug #: 55096
Summary: Wconversion-nul does not work in C
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55078
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-10-27 09:18:09 UTC
---
Actually, this seems like another latent problem in devirtualization. We
assert because estimate_edge_devirt_benefit works out we can devirtualize the
call,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55078
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54404
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27 11:31:10
UTC ---
Author: iains
Date: Sat Oct 27 11:31:06 2012
New Revision: 192874
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=192874
Log:
gcc/testsuite:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54961
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27
13:03:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Steven, has there been any new progress on this PR?
Workin' on it this weekend.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32204
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27
13:13:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
In MSVC's defense, the standard is vague (or insufficient) in this regard for
'friend class' declarations. It says:
If
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54673
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52855
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-10-27
13:26:47 UTC ---
The ICE is fixed by the patch for PR50099. See especially
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50099#c6 which shows the same ICE
in Perl as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55095
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55092
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51257
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55097
Bug #: 55097
Summary: typedef not recognized in templated class
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55042
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27 13:36:24
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sat Oct 27 13:36:20 2012
New Revision: 192877
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=192877
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32204
--- Comment #10 from etherice scottbaldwin at gmail dot com 2012-10-27
13:39:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Jonathan- You're right on all counts. Thanks for clarifying (and apologies for
getting a bit off-topic).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54760
--- Comment #13 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27
13:41:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
(In reply to comment #9)
Log:
PR target/54760
* config/sh/sh.c (bdesc): Remove thread pointer built-ins.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54473
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|mikpe at it dot uu.se |
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55042
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55097
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55034
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27
14:03:19 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Sat Oct 27 14:03:10 2012
New Revision: 192878
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=192878
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55034
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55034
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55042
--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-10-27 14:05:12
UTC ---
static bool ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED
perhaps?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52945
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55098
Bug #: 55098
Summary: c++11: move constructor doesn't run at all (but with a
hammer)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55042
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27 14:39:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
static bool ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED
perhaps?
Yeah, that would also do the job. Do you insist? :)
Personally, I don't care,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55098
--- Comment #1 from Lisp2D lisp2d at lisp2d dot net 2012-10-27 15:01:42 UTC
---
May be it is optimisation, but without instruction and with side effects.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55098
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55014
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-10-27
15:09:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
may be this bus same as http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54957
there have a path in that post can solve this bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54957
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55098
Lisp2D lisp2d at lisp2d dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55098
--- Comment #4 from Lisp2D lisp2d at lisp2d dot net 2012-10-27 15:24:06 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #3)
My opinion is to enable elide-constructors in -sdt=c++11.
Programers in this standard use own move-constructors with own-side
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55099
Bug #: 55099
Summary: Surprising 'PROCEDURE attribute conflicts with INTENT
attribute' error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55098
--- Comment #5 from Lisp2D lisp2d at lisp2d dot net 2012-10-27 15:46:39 UTC
---
OK. Right path is: DON'T return anything.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55098
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55098
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27
16:03:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_value_optimization
Use -fno-elide-constructors to disable constructor elision
And
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54404
--- Comment #16 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu 2012-10-27 16:34:19 UTC ---
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 11:31:10AM +, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54404
--- Comment #15 from Iain
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54980
Dmitry G. Dyachenko dimhen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55055
Dmitry G. Dyachenko dimhen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55100
Bug #: 55100
Summary: FORALL: If the RHS is scalar, not array temporary is
needed
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55099
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54971
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55099
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55101
Bug #: 55101
Summary: Invalid implicit conversion in initialization when
source type is a template argument type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55095
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55095
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27
18:39:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Is there any function to compute how many bits are required to store a value?
For positive values it's easy, something like
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55101
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55102
Bug #: 55102
Summary: The options -flto and -On do not behave as described
in GCC docs
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55077
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27
19:48:25 UTC ---
Problem: We do not want to warn for expressions. From the clang testcases:
// Expressions, such as those that indicate rounding-down, should NOT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55046
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55046
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27
20:43:59 UTC ---
It doesn't help to return NULL_RTX when allocno is zero.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54030
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-27
21:25:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I reviewed it because I know that part of the Makefile and I am
familiar with what they want to do.
Waht would be a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51106
davem at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davem at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55097
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-10-27
23:10:45 UTC ---
Very likely Dup of PR55058: Rev184000 for both.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52387
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-28
00:35:41 UTC ---
Tobias, any further information on this one?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55093
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-10-28 03:22:31
UTC ---
A small testcase:
[hjl@gnu-tools-1 pr55093]$ cat x.ii
__extension__ typedef struct {
}
_G_fpos_t;
typedef unsigned int hashval_t;
typedef union tree_node *tree;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54526
--- Comment #4 from Richard Smith richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk
2012-10-28 05:21:40 UTC ---
The fix does not appear to be correct. C++11 changed the lexing rules, not the
parsing rules for template argument lists. For instance,
69 matches
Mail list logo
