[Bug tree-optimization/56354] [4.8 Regression] -O2 creates incorrect for loop code

2013-02-16 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56354 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at

[Bug c++/54276] Lambda in a Template Function Undefined Reference to local static

2013-02-16 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54276 --- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2013-02-16 09:24:11 UTC --- ... and 4.7.3 too.

[Bug sanitizer/56330] ICE: verify_gimple failed: gimple_bb (stmt) is set to a wrong basic block with -fsanitize=address

2013-02-16 Thread dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56330 --- Comment #7 from Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-16 09:30:10 UTC --- FWIW, I have posted the patch for this to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg00795.html

[Bug sanitizer/56330] ICE: verify_gimple failed: gimple_bb (stmt) is set to a wrong basic block with -fsanitize=address

2013-02-16 Thread dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56330 --- Comment #8 from Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-16 09:33:01 UTC --- Author: dodji Date: Sat Feb 16 09:32:56 2013 New Revision: 196102 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=196102 Log: [asan] Fix for

[Bug middle-end/55030] [4.8 Regression]: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/memcpy-chk.c execution, -Os (et al)

2013-02-16 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55030 Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug middle-end/55030] [4.8 Regression]: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/memcpy-chk.c execution, -Os (et al)

2013-02-16 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55030 --- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-16 09:44:31 UTC --- While we are at it, we could also revert the dse.c and cselib.c hunks of the blockage patch, which weren't strictly necessary. Jakub was really

[Bug sanitizer/56330] ICE: verify_gimple failed: gimple_bb (stmt) is set to a wrong basic block with -fsanitize=address

2013-02-16 Thread dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56330 Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug target/55190] [SH] ivopts causes loop setup bloat

2013-02-16 Thread olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55190 Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug target/54089] [SH] Refactor shift patterns

2013-02-16 Thread olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089 --- Comment #29 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-16 11:36:37 UTC --- Another case taken from CSiBE / bzip2, where reusing the intermediate shift result would be better: void uInt64_from_UInt32s ( UInt64* n, UInt32 lo32,

[Bug tree-optimization/56355] New: abs and multiplication

2013-02-16 Thread glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56355 Bug #: 56355 Summary: abs and multiplication Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization

[Bug c++/54835] [C++11] Explicit default constructors not respected during copy-list-initialization

2013-02-16 Thread daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54835 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com 2013-02-16 11:57:21 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) I'm not opposed to this behavior, but I think it would be a language change. Thanks Jason. I just see now

[Bug tree-optimization/56355] abs and multiplication

2013-02-16 Thread glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56355 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-16 12:07:28 UTC --- Actually, for g/h with double, using __builtin_fabs instead of std::abs does it, so it is just the usual lack of combine at the tree level. But there is

[Bug ada/52123] [4.7/4.8 Regression] gcc bootstrap with ada fails on mingw target

2013-02-16 Thread daniel.f.starke at freenet dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52123 --- Comment #13 from Daniel Starke daniel.f.starke at freenet dot de 2013-02-16 12:41:42 UTC --- I just tried out to bootstrap r196092 on mingw32. There is still one more cast patch missing to make it work for that target. diff -uart

[Bug libstdc++/56332] libstdc++-v3 does not support x86_64-pc-mingw64: No support for this host/target combination

2013-02-16 Thread devurandom at gmx dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56332 --- Comment #6 from devurandom at gmx dot net 2013-02-16 13:15:27 UTC --- Ok... I assumed that in the cpu-vendor-os triplet the os part contains the reference to the c library and/or kernel, while vendor refers to the distribution that

[Bug libstdc++/56332] libstdc++-v3 does not support x86_64-pc-mingw64: No support for this host/target combination

2013-02-16 Thread devurandom at gmx dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56332 --- Comment #7 from devurandom at gmx dot net 2013-02-16 13:20:49 UTC --- P.S: Is relaxing the match to accept mingw*, because the library and compiler are called mingw(-w64), an option? That shouldn't hurt anyone and not make anything more

[Bug ada/52123] [4.7/4.8 Regression] gcc bootstrap with ada fails on mingw target

2013-02-16 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52123 --- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-16 13:45:48 UTC --- I just tried out to bootstrap r196092 on mingw32. There is still one more cast patch missing to make it work for that target. diff -uart

[Bug c++/54835] [C++11][DR 1518] Explicit default constructors not respected during copy-list-initialization

2013-02-16 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54835 Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug target/56110] Sub-optimal code: unnecessary CMP after AND

2013-02-16 Thread til...@code-monkey.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56110 --- Comment #1 from Tilman Sauerbeck til...@code-monkey.de 2013-02-16 16:49:34 UTC --- Changing the literal in the test function so that it fits in 8 bits makes gcc go with the TST instruction instead of AND+CMP: unsigned f2 (unsigned x,

[Bug c/56356] New: DJGPP compiler crashing

2013-02-16 Thread fabrizio.ge at tiscali dot it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56356 Bug #: 56356 Summary: DJGPP compiler crashing Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug libgomp/56357] New: [4.8 Regression] missing symbol references for libgomp when using -flto -fopenmp on mingw32

2013-02-16 Thread daniel.f.starke at freenet dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56357 Bug #: 56357 Summary: [4.8 Regression] missing symbol references for libgomp when using -flto -fopenmp on mingw32 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version:

[Bug tree-optimization/54073] [4.7 Regression] SciMark Monte Carlo test performance has seriously decreased in recent GCC releases

2013-02-16 Thread jake.stine at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54073 Jake Stine jake.stine at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug c++/56358] New: [C++11] Erroneous interaction of typedef and inherited constructor declarations

2013-02-16 Thread daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56358 Bug #: 56358 Summary: [C++11] Erroneous interaction of typedef and inherited constructor declarations Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0

[Bug middle-end/55030] [4.8 Regression]: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/memcpy-chk.c execution, -Os (et al)

2013-02-16 Thread hp at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55030 --- Comment #12 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-17 00:33:17 UTC --- (In reply to comment #10) I'm getting back to this because I think that we should reinstate the original patch, now that the blockage patch has

[Bug c++/56359] New: [4.8 regression] Bogus error: no matching function for call to ...

2013-02-16 Thread ppluzhnikov at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56359 Bug #: 56359 Summary: [4.8 regression] Bogus error: no matching function for call to ... Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status:

[Bug tree-optimization/56360] New: Loop invariant motion can introduce speculative store

2013-02-16 Thread ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56360 Bug #: 56360 Summary: Loop invariant motion can introduce speculative store Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug tree-optimization/56360] Loop invariant motion can introduce speculative store

2013-02-16 Thread ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56360 --- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com 2013-02-17 04:21:28 UTC --- The speculative store can be disabled via --param allow-store-data-races=0. So perhaps the question is: shouldn't that be set by -std=gnu++11?

[Bug tree-optimization/56360] Loop invariant motion can introduce speculative store

2013-02-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56360 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-17 04:55:40 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) The speculative store can be disabled via --param allow-store-data-races=0. So perhaps the question is: shouldn't that

[Bug tree-optimization/56360] Loop invariant motion can introduce speculative store

2013-02-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56360 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-17 04:58:05 UTC --- http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Atomic/GCCMM/gcc4.8 describes what is left. bitfields is a big issue.

[Bug tree-optimization/56360] Loop invariant motion can introduce speculative store

2013-02-16 Thread ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56360 --- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com 2013-02-17 05:15:01 UTC --- Bitfields are an issue but I thought that speculative stores were fixed.

[Bug tree-optimization/56360] Loop invariant motion can introduce speculative store

2013-02-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56360 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-17 05:46:09 UTC --- 7. Add flag for multi-threaded vs single threaded. is still left and that is what needs to turn on --param allow-store-data-races=0 .