http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55388
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55313
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-22
09:08:57 UTC ---
OK, the problem is that we change the prefix at installation time (by setting
the prefix variable on the make install command line).
This works
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55432
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-22
09:54:07 UTC ---
It is, in mainline and 4.7.2. To be safe, I'm adding the testcase and then will
close the PR.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55434
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-22
09:57:02 UTC ---
Note that in any case patches should be posted to gcc-patches.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54222
--- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-22
10:00:24 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Thu Nov 22 10:00:13 2012
New Revision: 193721
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193721
Log:
libgcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55429
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-22
10:06:05 UTC ---
Me: I very often run the testsuite serially on Linux.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55432
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-22 10:23:07 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Nov 22 10:23:03 2012
New Revision: 193723
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193723
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55432
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #49 from Alexander Potapenko glider at google dot com 2012-11-22
10:43:03 UTC ---
The new interposition library should work on 10.6.
But ASan itself doesn't work on 10.5, at least I remember some problems with
its compilation.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55418
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-22
10:46:31 UTC ---
The issue seems indeed trivial, but note that we are already assigning false to
trivial_p in the conditional, thus I guess we should remove the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55388
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-22
11:02:43 UTC ---
Richard, did you already start to investigate seriously? If no, I can take it
over if you want, it's SPARC and I have a big share in the problematic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55379
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-22
11:14:18 UTC ---
For -static one could perhaps use --wrap ld option to wrap various symbols, but
we'd need special libasan_static.a for that. Not worth it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55379
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54895
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55429
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-11-22
12:27:58 UTC ---
Me: I very often run the testsuite serially on Linux.
Does this mean that you have run a serial testsuite of libstdc++-v3 after
r193542 and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55437
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55436
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55436
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785
--- Comment #38 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-22
13:05:38 UTC ---
yet another variant...
void
f (int i, long *a, long *b)
{
int sum = 0;
for (; --i = 0; a++, b++)
{
b[i] = 0;
#define PART(I) if (t())
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55313
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55137
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-22
14:42:06 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 22 14:42:00 2012
New Revision: 193727
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193727
Log:
PR c++/55137
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
Richard Perrin rcp at sentientmeat dot ca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-22
15:04:23 UTC ---
Still, you reported the issue as fixed in 4_7-branch, thus unless you think
it's a regression, it seems highly unlikely that it will be fixed in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55379
--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-22
15:17:26 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Nov 22 15:17:21 2012
New Revision: 193728
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193728
Log:
Issue an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55379
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55379
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55137
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55442
Bug #: 55442
Summary: G++ uses up all my RAM when compiling a constexpr with
exponential call graph
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55442
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55388
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20121122 (experimental) (GCC)
---
The command line was:
c++ -std=c++0x noexcept_operator_constexpr.ice.ii
That triggers the following output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55388
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-22
18:26:05 UTC ---
In fact the miscompilation is already eliminated by replacing the call to
adjust_address with adjust_bitfield_address in store_bit_field. Not clear
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54895
--- Comment #5 from niXman i.nixman at gmail dot com 2012-11-22 18:37:55 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #4)
This is most likely a duplicate of already fixed PR/55268.
I checked upon the 193725 revision.
The first test gives the same
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54895
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55014
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55014
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54895
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55443
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54895
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-22
19:08:14 UTC ---
So it works everywhere? ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54895
--- Comment #9 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-22 19:11:12
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
So it works everywhere? ;)
Well, it doesn't work for all targets providing different calling-conventions
for functions. Eg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54895
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-22
19:14:03 UTC ---
I don't know, I'm still finding the Known to work field pretty weird, to be
honest.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54895
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|4.4.0, 4.5.0, 4.6.0, 4.7.0, |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55444
Bug #: 55444
Summary: Rejects valid code with USE ISO_C_BINDING in BLOCK
DATA
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55198
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-23
00:39:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 28763
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28763
Testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55198
--- Comment #5 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-23
00:40:06 UTC ---
Created attachment 28764
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28764
Patch
Testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55438
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8 Regression]: |[4.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55430
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-23
01:29:13 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Nov 23 01:29:07 2012
New Revision: 193742
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193742
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55445
Bug #: 55445
Summary: Always defined __SEH__ when build from trunk
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55354
--- Comment #22 from Dmitry Vyukov dvyukov at google dot com 2012-11-23
07:16:14 UTC ---
For dynamic libraries that are loaded into a non-instrumented executable
(e.g.
swig so preloaded into python process), we statically link the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55354
--- Comment #23 from Dmitry Vyukov dvyukov at google dot com 2012-11-23
07:27:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
(In reply to comment #20)
What I see is that it also affect code generation (register allocation). Do
we
need to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52910
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-11-23 07:42:38
UTC ---
Current mainline compiles f13 to:
f13:
vpxor%xmm0, %xmm0, %xmm0
xorl%eax, %eax
.L36:
vmovdqac2(%rax), %xmm2
addq$16,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53071
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-11-23 07:49:41
UTC ---
Resulting asm is quite different w/ current mainline:
_Z4testU8__vectorxS_S_:
vmovdqa%xmm2, -24(%rsp)
vpsrlq$32, %xmm0, %xmm3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55388
--- Comment #12 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-23 07:55:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Richard, did you already start to investigate seriously? If no, I can take it
over if you want, it's SPARC
55 matches
Mail list logo
