http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56198
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56198
Bug #: 56198
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Go profiledbootstrap error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56178
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
--- Comment #16 from Antony Polukhin 2013-02-04
07:29:16 UTC ---
*** Bug 56191 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56191
--- Comment #5 from Antony Polukhin 2013-02-04
07:29:16 UTC ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 51452 ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56191
--- Comment #4 from Antony Polukhin 2013-02-04
07:28:04 UTC ---
Oh, thanks for clarification!
Initially I was confused by the fact that std::is_nothrow_constructible checks
for destructor, but I thought that it is a 'noexcept()' bug. Now
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5142
Antony Polukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||antoshkka at gmail dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56191
Antony Polukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51483
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou 2013-02-04
07:15:31 UTC ---
> Can't build Ada/gnat-4.7 on Ubuntu 12.10 because of SPARK issue, although
> there
> are long and complicated directions for how to build Ada/gnat-4.7 on Ubuntu,
> some work
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56148
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-04
07:02:05 UTC ---
Of course not, the other PR was an ICE (and got fixed already months ago), this
one is rejection of (questionable) code, the compiler doesn't crash on it and
it is still present
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56148
--- Comment #2 from Sérgio Basto 2013-02-04 03:12:35
UTC ---
Hi again,
this is not a duplicated bug of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55512 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56148
Sérgio Basto changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sergio at serjux dot com
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka 2013-02-04 00:16:44
UTC ---
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
>
> --- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres
> 2013-02-01 13:59:11 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > > > Thus,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51483
cynt6007 at vandals dot uidaho.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cynt6007 at va
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53352
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acn1 at cam dot ac.uk
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55108
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55108
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson 2013-02-03
23:24:37 UTC ---
On armv5tel-linux-gnueabi this bug is reproducible with gcc-4.6 but not with
gcc-4.7 or 4.8.
The wrong-code was made latent for 4.7.0 by r179556 aka PR38885, a
missed-opt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55269
peter at colberg dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52480
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo 2013-02-03 22:29:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > As of rev 195493 the test case for this PR is failing again.
>
> In fact, now it doesn't work for little and big endian.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #16 from Alexander Kobets 2013-02-03
22:02:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> But no error is printed when I use -mpreferred-stack-boundary=4 on 64-bit CPU.
> Only when defined 0, then printed:
> error: -mpreferred-stack-b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56197
Bug #: 56197
Summary: [SH] Use calculated jump address instead of using a
jump table
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #15 from Alexander Kobets 2013-02-03
21:56:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Not fake, but the default and smallest value, i.e. for x86_64 ABI we don't
> allow lowering the value to smaller than ABI required alignments. O
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56191
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-02-03
21:05:17 UTC ---
N.B. you don't need to CC yourself on bugs, the reporter always gets sent
changes to the bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56195
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56193
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2013-02-03
17:40:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 29343
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29343
Patch including testcase.
Here is a small patch. I'm not ure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56191
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56193
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56196
Bug #: 56196
Summary: Assertion failure on aspect clause
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: antoine.balest...@gmail.com
Using GCC 4.8.0 as of 20130203 :
$ xgcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/home/merki
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56194
Bug #: 56194
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/init/const9.C -std=c++98
scan-assembler-not rodata
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56193
Bug #: 56193
Summary: ios_base should replace operator void* with explicit
operator bool in C++11 onwards.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56185
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Starke
2013-02-03 16:24:56 UTC ---
This issue does not appear with isl backend as in the configuration below.
However, I still need ppl to build gcc.
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=D:\Programme\msys\mingw64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56192
Bug #: 56192
Summary: global operator new() vs member operator new()
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #47 from Jack Howarth 2013-02-03
15:16:50 UTC ---
posted proposed patch and regression testresults at...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg00055.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-02/msg00251.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-03
14:57:19 UTC ---
Not fake, but the default and smallest value, i.e. for x86_64 ABI we don't
allow lowering the value to smaller than ABI required alignments. Only for
32-bit i?86 code it is al
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56191
Bug #: 56191
Summary: Destructor affects noexcept detection
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56190
Bug #: 56190
Summary: GCC fails deducing a "void(*)(int, float, double)" to
a "void(*)(T..., float, double)" with T={int}
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Versi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #13 from Alexander Kobets 2013-02-03
13:48:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> That is completely irrelevant. The noreturn function is usually defined in
> some other CU, so you don't know what compiler flags it will be com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50627
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56054
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig 2013-02-03
13:15:24 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Feb 3 13:15:18 2013
New Revision: 195695
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195695
Log:
2013-02-03 Thomas Koenig
Bac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50627
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig 2013-02-03
13:15:24 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Feb 3 13:15:18 2013
New Revision: 195695
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195695
Log:
2013-02-03 Thomas Koenig
Ba
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-03
13:07:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > You're wrong. That is to maintain the ABI, which for x86_64 says that the
> > stack is 16-byte aligned. Consider e.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #11 from Alexander Kobets 2013-02-03
12:39:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> You're wrong. That is to maintain the ABI, which for x86_64 says that the
> stack is 16-byte aligned. Consider e.g. the noreturn function using
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56189
Bug #: 56189
Summary: Infinite recursion with noexcept when instantiating
function template
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56188
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab 2013-02-03 11:52:12
UTC ---
Created attachment 29341
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29341
ipa-pta-10.c.053i.pta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56188
Bug #: 56188
Summary: [4.8 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-pta-10.c
scan-ipa-dump pta "ESCAPED = { (ESCAPED )?(NONLOCAL
)?}"
Classification: Unclassified
Produ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56180
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-03
09:22:05 UTC ---
When you were calling ungetc with uninitialized char, that is invoking
undefined behavior, anything can happen at that point.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-03
09:07:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> 1) I agree for "push rbx" seves reg. But "sub rsp,8" is completely trash,
> because stack frame do not used at all, not for save reg, nor anything ot
48 matches
Mail list logo
