http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56657
Niels Kristian Bech Jensen nkbj1970 at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56694
Bug #: 56694
Summary: Internal compiler error when compiling OpenMP code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56694
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56691
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56694
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Knödlseder jurgen.knodlseder at irap dot omp.eu
2013-03-23 10:22:28 UTC ---
What do you mean by preprocessed source ???
Le 23 mars 2013 à 10:19, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org a écrit :
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56694
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-23
10:28:57 UTC ---
Add -save-temps to the command line and attach the resulting *.ii file.
This is all mentioned in http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ .
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52748
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jason at gcc dot gnu.org|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56678
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2013-03-23
10:55:33 UTC ---
By the way, Jakub, I think we should either manage to restore the functionality
or ask all the contributors to be very strict about manually
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: antoine.balest...@gmail.com
Using GCC 4.9.0 as of 20130323 :
$ cat opt.c
int a, b, i;
void f(void)
{
for(i = 0; i 8; ++i)
a |= !(i |= b %= 1);
}
$ xgcc -O3 -w opt.c
opt.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56646
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56696
Bug #: 56696
Summary: Formatted (list-directed) input fails to signal end
of record
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56695
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53323
--- Comment #6 from simon at pushface dot org 2013-03-23 12:14:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Sort of, we now disable the front-end assertions on release branches.
Hmm, this doesn't really seem appropriate. Quoting Robert Dewar in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56693
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56696
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56694
--- Comment #4 from Jürgen Knödlseder jurgen.knodlseder at irap dot omp.eu
2013-03-23 12:24:18 UTC ---
Okay, here it comes. But believe me or not: with the -save-temps option the
code compiles through!
I rechecked by removing the option, and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56697
Bug #: 56697
Summary: Erroneous rejection of use of private constructor in
public method
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53323
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-23
12:41:46 UTC ---
... or have a compiler generate incorrect code. (NB, in this case I accept
that
it may well be the check that's wrong, not the generated code).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56696
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56697
--- Comment #1 from Nick Maclaren nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk 2013-03-23 12:49:31
UTC ---
Sorry, I should be clearer. I reported this because of the compiler
difference, and because I can read the relevant wording of the standard
either way.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56697
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2013-03-23
12:55:22 UTC ---
Which Intel out of curiosity? The 13.1.0 I have here at hand rejects it exactly
like GCC. Likewise clang++.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56697
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56691
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56696
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-23
13:10:45 UTC ---
The following patch seems to fix the issue:
--- a/libgfortran/io/list_read.c
+++ b/libgfortran/io/list_read.c
@@ -1435,3 +1435,2 @@ read_real
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56697
--- Comment #4 from Nick Maclaren nmm1 at cam dot ac.uk 2013-03-23 13:46:33
UTC ---
On Mar 23 2013, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
Which Intel out of curiosity? The 13.1.0 I have here at hand rejects it
exactly
12.1. It's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51617
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49204
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56693
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56698
Bug #: 56698
Summary: array subscript is above array bounds triggered on
code that doesn't have that problem
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56699
Bug #: 56699
Summary: Failed for sizeof (non-static member) in lambda
expression
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56699
--- Comment #1 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com 2013-03-23 16:29:09 UTC ---
Sorry, something was wrong, g++-4.8 on Ubuntu should also reject Case 1 in
fact.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54277
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56695
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56695
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-23 17:06:30
UTC ---
In any case, it would be good to add some checks on the first argument of
VEC_COND_EXPR to the verifier, so the problem is detected earlier than expand.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17232
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56698
--- Comment #1 from Mike Hommey mh+gcc at glandium dot org 2013-03-23
18:11:16 UTC ---
Interestingly, if I modify CalculateFileIndex to return 3 instead of 0, the
error doesn't happen. So it might be a case of confusing gcc warning/error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56447
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55972
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55532
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55357
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52374
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56039
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53157
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56700
Bug #: 56700
Summary: Optimizing at compile and link result in different
binary size than only optimizing at link time
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55278
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55285
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53808
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2013-03-23 21:40:19 UTC
---
This patch causes the destructor to be created and marked as COMDAT, but for
some reason cgraph still isn't emitting it.
Thank you!. I will work out why
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56701
Bug #: 56701
Summary: The *this* pointer fails to bind to rvalue reference
to pointer type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56702
Bug #: 56702
Summary: : wrongly considered an alternative token for
template argument list using global name specifier
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56703
Bug #: 56703
Summary: problems with strsignal and maybe strstr due to
varying const on return type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56703
--- Comment #1 from Jay jay.krell at cornell dot edu 2013-03-23 23:12:03 UTC
---
I see that the check for any function involves a cast of its type -- i.e. it
isn't customized per-function, so a change isn't trivial.
For now I have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56702
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54526
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56703
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-23
23:18:09 UTC ---
What options did you use to configure GCC? Also are you building gmp/mpfr in
the same tree?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56704
Bug #: 56704
Summary: rlim_t problem gcc 4.8.0 on Solaris 2.10/sparc?
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56703
--- Comment #3 from Jay jay.krell at cornell dot edu 2013-03-23 23:24:55 UTC
---
gmp/mpfr/mpc are in-tree
Notice that it has gotten past the first stage..so I didn't bother double
checking what my bootstrap compiler was..though gcc/g++ 3.x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56704
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-23
23:31:41 UTC ---
PR 55784
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56312
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška marxin.liska at gmail dot com 2013-03-23
23:42:28 UTC ---
The problem was caused by bad usage of gcc-ar and gcc-runlib that were actually
not used.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56312
Martin Liška marxin.liska at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
59 matches
Mail list logo
