http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54693
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-07
07:50:07 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Nov 7 07:50:01 2012
New Revision: 193281
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193281
Log:
PR debug/54693
* tree-flow.h (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55226
Bug #: 55226
Summary: [C++11] ICE regression in regard to anonymous unions
and constexpr
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55211
--- Comment #27 from Eric Botcazou 2012-11-07
07:37:05 UTC ---
> Longer term we do need a fix for this. It is very clear that IRA is
> allocating
> odd registers at times for DImode pseudos on 32-bit, and the only reason it
> works is th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55225
Bug #: 55225
Summary: Fail to build lgammaq.c from trunk with mingw-w64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
--- Comment #16 from Michal Malecki 2012-11-07
07:17:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #14)
> > GCC "rejects" it by doing ICE. I don't think this is the right thing that
> > GCC
> > should do.
>
> No it doesn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55211
--- Comment #26 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-07 07:11:44 UTC ---
Ok, it seems it is not possible to expression the even integer register
condition using register classes. Therefore I will revert the "U" constraint
removal.
I tri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43350
--- Comment #6 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-07 05:44:52 UTC ---
That's basically what -m32 -mcpu=v9 is Jan.
The compiler just isn't taking advantage of it as well as it can due to how the
sparc backend is designed.
We have acce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52748
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Ridge 2012-11-07
04:32:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Clang deemed this issue important enough to warrant a new entry ("Incomplete
> retrn types", under "Declared type of an expression") in their C++11 sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52748
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Ridge 2012-11-07
04:31:24 UTC ---
Clang deemed this issue important enough to warrant a new entry ("Incomplete
retrn types", under "Declared type of an expression") in their C++11 status
page.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55139
--- Comment #1 from Andi Kleen 2012-11-07
04:03:53 UTC ---
This is an interesting one. This is the gcc code:
enum memmodel
{
MEMMODEL_RELAXED = 0,
MEMMODEL_CONSUME = 1,
MEMMODEL_ACQUIRE = 2,
MEMMODEL_RELEASE = 3,
MEMMODEL_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55218
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-11-07
02:13:32 UTC ---
(After reading the linked post.) Somewhat related: maybe the changes.html text
should say "bootloader" or "startup code" instead of kernel because everyone
just thinks it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #16 from David Edelsohn 2012-11-07
01:27:00 UTC ---
G++ should create one specially named _GLOBAL__I_N_X function per
constructor. collect2 sorts the constructors based on the N priority
number encoded in the name.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55195
--- Comment #14 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2012-11-07 00:53:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> It appears that I need to provide the min length instead of the max
> length
> in the opaque condition.
It's more like, this is the o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51850
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51850
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-07 00:42:26 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Nov 7 00:42:19 2012
New Revision: 193278
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193278
Log:
2012-11-06 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55195
--- Comment #13 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-11-07 00:39:01 UTC ---
On 6-Nov-12, at 10:40 AM, amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I see now that you get INT_MAX substituted as the maximum length if
> the
> value is unknown.
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-11-07
00:08:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> GCC "rejects" it by doing ICE. I don't think this is the right thing that GCC
> should do.
No it doesn't it gives an error, see comment 4.
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43350
--- Comment #5 from Jan Engelhardt 2012-11-07 00:00:01
UTC ---
Dave, what do you think about a new mode for SPARC similar to -mx32, in other
words, "-m64+ILP32"?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
--- Comment #14 from Michal Malecki 2012-11-06
23:32:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> if the DR makes it ill-formed and GCC rejects it is this FIXED?
GCC "rejects" it by doing ICE. I don't think this is the right thing that GCC
sh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55191
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49220
--- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-11-06
23:21:46 UTC ---
I'll post it when the usual tests on x86 and sh are done.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54917
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54917
--- Comment #16 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06 22:44:59 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Nov 6 22:44:47 2012
New Revision: 193262
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193262
Log:
2012-11-06 Janus Weil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55211
--- Comment #25 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06 22:32:40 UTC ---
Just an update. I know what the exact problem is. Actually it's a combination
of things.
Because of the way that IRA maintains it's hard reg sets, it can end up
t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43350
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-06 22:15:02
UTC ---
There is no x32 mode in hardware. Since x32 runs in 64-bit mode
and only OS limits x32 address space to 32-bit, x32 process has
full access to 64-bit insns, just like 64-bit process.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55224
Bug #: 55224
Summary: [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/tailcall-1.c
scan-assembler jmp
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55219
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-11-06 21:52:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 28627
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28627
callgraph
A callgraph is attached.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #15 from Adi 2012-11-06 21:49:47 UTC
---
This is a follow up on comment 14.
It seems that -fPIC dramatically improved the way constructors are called. It
seems that the linker has some logic and is initializing the globals fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #39 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-06
21:33:57 UTC ---
Ok thanks. I guess depending on the complexity of the fixes we can apply some
only to mainline first and reconsider the 4_7 branch later. Please do your best
to work on both is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55219
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #38 from François Dumont 2012-11-06
21:22:48 UTC ---
Sure, I will. However I don't expect this problem to have any relation with the
performance subject of this PR.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54756
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06 21:19:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Draft patch:
In fact this causes a number of testsuite failures:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_array_3.f03 -O0 (test for excess errors)
FAI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-11-06
21:05:35 UTC ---
if the DR makes it ill-formed and GCC rejects it is this FIXED?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52343
--- Comment #3 from Larry Evans 2012-11-06
20:55:19 UTC ---
Created attachment 28626
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28626
compilation of test file with 2 compilers and 2 values of macro.
The error is shown when -DUS
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52343
--- Comment #2 from Larry Evans 2012-11-06
20:53:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 28625
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28625
test file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54685
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|SUSPENDED
--- Comment #4 from Oleg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |NEW
Summary|[C++0x] I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55223
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55223
Bug #: 55223
Summary: [C++11] Default lambda expression of a templated class
member
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55211
--- Comment #24 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06 18:07:46 UTC ---
On several occasions, in both public and private emails, I have in fact
expressed my displeasure with how the configure system and the sparc backend
treat things based
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47440
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47440
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2012-11-06 18:03:40
UTC ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Tue Nov 6 10:29:23 2012
New Revision: 193229
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193229
Log:
* config/i386/i386-protos.h (emi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43350
--- Comment #3 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06 18:00:30 UTC ---
Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with the i386 backend to say whether the
situation is identical there for x32 code generation. But if it were the case,
it would
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54693
--- Comment #17 from Alexandre Oliva 2012-11-06
17:59:04 UTC ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Tue Nov 6 17:58:52 2012
New Revision: 193251
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193251
Log:
PR debug/54693
* tree-ssa-threadedg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54756
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06 17:58:36 UTC ---
Draft patch:
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/resolve.c(revision 193224)
+++ gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54413
--- Comment #13 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-11-06
17:54:31 UTC ---
The patch tests clean on x86_64-linux.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55195
--- Comment #12 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2012-11-06 17:25:30 UTC ---
One way to get the maximum right would be to change genattrtab:max_attr_value
too process umax and/or smax, and use that to encapsulate the symbol_ref.
longer term,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55137
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-06
17:11:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 28624
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28624
gcc48-pr55137.patch
Untested patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54497
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55130
Dmitry Gorbachev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #14 from Adi 2012-11-06 16:22:37 UTC
---
Regarding the __attribute__ ((init_priority ())).
Are you sure this works on AIX at namespace level. I think it might work on
linux. But on AIX I see no way of that ever working.
H
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43350
Jan Engelhardt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55137
--- Comment #7 from Sebastian Huber
2012-11-06 15:50:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> What I mean that for your testcase while you have s: .zero 8
> instead of s: .long 4, 16399, there is also dynamic initialization:
> movl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55195
--- Comment #11 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2012-11-06 15:40:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> The insn is actually a millicode call (branch) which needs to be able
> to reach stub table. Different variants are generated depending o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55137
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-06
15:37:09 UTC ---
What I mean that for your testcase while you have s: .zero 8
instead of s: .long 4, 16399, there is also dynamic initialization:
movl$4, s(%rip)
movl$16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55137
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Huber
2012-11-06 15:34:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> enum E { E1 = -1 + (int) (sizeof (int) - 1) };
> errors while it used to be accepted before.
> Dunno if that is valid or not.
> If it is valid, th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55137
--- Comment #4 from Sebastian Huber
2012-11-06 15:31:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The change is that now the struct is dynamically initialized rather than
> statically as it used to.
What do you mean with dynamically initialize
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55219
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55137
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4
--- Comment #3 from Jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55216
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov 2012-11-06
15:06:50 UTC ---
> Enhancement request to produce a warning is filed as PR 52365.
Correction: PR 53265.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55216
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55137
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55168
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49220
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2012-11-06 14:46:59
UTC ---
Kaz, can you please submit the patch from comment #1 to the mailing list?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #13 from David Edelsohn 2012-11-06
14:46:34 UTC ---
> Because if you have a function declared as inline in a header file that gets
propagated to multiple source files is ok, but in my case that inline keyword
was removed by som
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55220
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-11-06
14:39:31 UTC ---
Ah, it compiles OK if GCC is built with --disable-checking, but fails otherwise
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41993
--- Comment #9 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06 14:31:00 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Nov 6 14:30:52 2012
New Revision: 193242
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193242
Log:
PR middle-end/41993
* gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55220
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|4.7.3, 4.8.0|
Summary|[c++11] Inte
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53808
--- Comment #1 from Rafael Avila de Espindola 2012-11-06 13:53:00 UTC ---
I can see two options for fixing this
1) producing a copy of the destructor when we devirtualize and not
devirtualizing if we cannot emit one.
2) making the destru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55220
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.3
--- Comment #2 from Jon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55222
Bug #: 55222
Summary: weird unstable "array subscript is above array bounds"
warning
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55033
--- Comment #4 from Sebastian Huber
2012-11-06 13:18:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Would this be testable on powerpc-apple-darwin8?
See also
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg02051.html
The -mcpu=8540 -msdata=eab
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55220
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55221
Bug #: 55221
Summary: [regression] gcc-4.6-20121102/gcc/rtl.h:2105: error:
'FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER' undeclared here (not in a
fnction)
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55220
Bug #: 55220
Summary: [c++11] Internal error when doing partial template
specialization on variadic template
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55195
--- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-11-06 12:26:06 UTC ---
On 5-Nov-12, at 11:20 AM, amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I take back that statement about this being straightforward. We
> need valid
> minimum and maxim
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #24 from Oleg Endo 2012-11-06
11:55:47 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Tue Nov 6 11:55:43 2012
New Revision: 193236
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193236
Log:
PR target/54089
* config/sh/sh.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53221
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54847
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47505
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54917
--- Comment #15 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06 10:15:46 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Nov 6 10:15:42 2012
New Revision: 193226
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193226
Log:
2012-11-06 Janus Weil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54756
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-06 10:10:35 UTC ---
Related test case:
module moda
implicit none
type t
real, pointer :: p => null()
end type t
contains
pure subroutine s1(a,b)
type(t), intent(in) ::
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49220
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54693
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55033
David Fang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fang at csl dot cornell.edu
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41993
--- Comment #8 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-11-06
09:16:41 UTC ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Tue Nov 6 09:16:34 2012
New Revision: 193210
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193210
Log:
PR target/41993
* mode-swit
87 matches
Mail list logo
