[Bug other/56960] How to set up stack pointer in gcc 4.7.2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56960 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Component|c

[Bug c/56960] New: How to set up stack pointer in gcc 4.7.2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56960 Bug #: 56960 Summary: How to set up stack pointer in gcc 4.7.2 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/56956] ftrapv traps on valid abs-like code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56956 --- Comment #6 from Dan Gohman 2013-04-15 05:14:27 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > Pulling the unary minus out into a separate statement, like this: > > uint64_t y = -x; > return x <= INT64_MAX ? x : -y; > > causes the program

[Bug c/56956] ftrapv traps on valid abs-like code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56956 --- Comment #5 from Dan Gohman 2013-04-15 05:12:30 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #2) > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > I think 'x' can not present negative value. > > > > The unary minus operator is defined for unsign

[Bug c/56956] ftrapv traps on valid abs-like code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56956 --- Comment #4 from Chung-Ju Wu 2013-04-15 04:18:13 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > I think 'x' can not present negative value. > > The unary minus operator is defined for unsigned types. It doesn't produ

[Bug c/56956] ftrapv traps on valid abs-like code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56956 --- Comment #3 from Dan Gohman 2013-04-15 03:54:32 UTC --- Pulling the unary minus out into a separate statement, like this: uint64_t y = -x; return x <= INT64_MAX ? x : -y; causes the program to execute correctly.

[Bug c/56956] ftrapv traps on valid abs-like code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56956 --- Comment #2 from Dan Gohman 2013-04-15 03:53:10 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > I think 'x' can not present negative value. The unary minus operator is defined for unsigned types. It doesn't produce signed overflow.

[Bug c/56956] ftrapv traps on valid abs-like code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56956 Chung-Ju Wu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jasonwucj at gmail dot com --- Co

[Bug rtl-optimization/56921] [4.9 Regression] ICE in rtx_cost called by doloop_optimize_loops for PPC

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56921 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug middle-end/56916] ICE when building libgfortran for arm-none-eabi

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56916 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug ada/56909] [4.8 regression] s-atopri.adb:multiple undefined references on mingw32

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56909 --- Comment #11 from Arthur Zhang 2013-04-14 23:12:48 UTC --- Will '--exec-prefix=mingw32' work?

[Bug c++/56959] unable to find string literal operator ‘operator""

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56959 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-04-14 22:48:00 UTC --- Also, the backslashes are a complete waste of time, you can just write: const char *s = "\n" strCopyRight "\n\nUsage :\n" "\n"strProjectName" : " "\n\noptions\n" "\nhel

[Bug c++/56959] unable to find string literal operator ‘operator""

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56959 --- Comment #3 from claudio daffra 2013-04-14 22:43:34 UTC --- no bug, std=c++11

[Bug c++/56959] unable to find string literal operator ‘operator""

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56959 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/56959] unable to find string literal operator ‘operator""

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56959 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2013-04-14 22:15:59 UTC --- Are you using -std=c++11 or -std=gnu++11 or -std=c++0x or -std=gnu++-0x ? If this is the correct behavior as the strCopyRight in this case is the custom operator.

[Bug ada/56909] [4.8 regression] s-atopri.adb:multiple undefined references on mingw32

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56909 --- Comment #10 from Arthur Zhang 2013-04-14 22:09:34 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > > On MinGW, GCC 4.7.x Ada built successfully with default (no -with-arch or > > -with-tune) configure. > > > > GCC 4.8.0 s-atopri.* changes breaks

[Bug fortran/48979] FRACTION und EXPONENT return invalid results for infinity/NaN

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979 Sean Santos changed: What|Removed |Added CC||quantheory at gmail dot com --- C

[Bug c++/56959] New: unable to find string literal operator ‘operator""

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56959 Bug #: 56959 Summary: unable to find string literal operator ‘operator"" Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major

[Bug fortran/29383] Fortran 2003/F95[TR15580:1999]: Floating point exception (IEEE) support

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29383 --- Comment #11 from Sean Santos 2013-04-14 20:08:59 UTC --- I'm doing a bit of research because I'm considering trying to tackle part of this soon. I believe that the Fortran standard does not require the rounding mode to apply to oper

[Bug c++/56958] New: Spurious unused variable warning in empty pack expansion

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56958 Bug #: 56958 Summary: Spurious unused variable warning in empty pack expansion Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRME

[Bug other/56955] documentation for attribute malloc contradicts itself

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955 --- Comment #2 from Dan Gohman 2013-04-14 19:47:42 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > I think it is talking about the memory returned by malloc/calloc will not > point > to another memory location while realloc can. I agree that's esse

[Bug rtl-optimization/56957] New: [4.9 regression] ICE in add_insn_after, at emit-rtl.c:3783

: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: rtl-optimization AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org ReportedBy: sch...@linux-m68k.org CC: ste...@gcc.gnu.org Target: ia64-*-* spawn /usr/local/gcc/gcc-20130414/Build/gcc

[Bug debug/56950] compare-debug failure for gcc.dg/pr41345.c with fschedule-insns

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56950 --- Comment #3 from Steven Bosscher 2013-04-14 19:30:38 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > I am testing this fix: Hmm, no that is not a fix...

[Bug target/56796] ‘TARGET_CYGWIN64’ was not declared in this scope

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56796 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Version|4.8.

[Bug c/56956] New: ftrapv traps on valid abs-like code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56956 Bug #: 56956 Summary: ftrapv traps on valid abs-like code Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug target/56797] [4.8 Regression] internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2150

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56797 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.8.1 Summary|interna

[Bug other/56955] documentation for attribute malloc contradicts itself

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2013-04-14 19:05:00 UTC --- I think it is talking about the memory returned by malloc/calloc will not point to another memory location while realloc can.

[Bug other/56955] New: documentation for attribute malloc contradicts itself

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955 Bug #: 56955 Summary: documentation for attribute malloc contradicts itself Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: n

[Bug other/36150] colorize output of gcc

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36150 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |FIXED --- Comment #16 from Manuel

[Bug target/56866] gcc 4.7.x/gcc-4.8.x with '-O3 -march=bdver2' misscompiles glibc-2.17/crypt/sha512.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56866 --- Comment #8 from Mikael Pettersson 2013-04-14 15:55:32 UTC --- OK, I can confirm that compiling glibc-2.17 with gcc-4.7.3 -O3 -march=bdver1 causes the sha512 test to fail, but without "-march=bdver1" it doesn't fail. I also saw regres

[Bug other/56881] Miscompilation (optimisation failure?) causing NULL dereference and segfault at runtime

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56881 Steven Bosscher changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug debug/56950] compare-debug failure for gcc.dg/pr41345.c with fschedule-insns

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56950 --- Comment #2 from Steven Bosscher 2013-04-14 15:09:20 UTC --- I am testing this fix: Index: haifa-sched.c === --- haifa-sched.c (revision 197942) +++ haifa-sched.c

[Bug other/56881] Miscompilation (optimisation failure?) causing NULL dereference and segfault at runtime

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56881 --- Comment #9 from devspam at moreofthesa dot me.uk 2013-04-14 15:03:13 UTC --- Hmm, interesting… I'm taking your patch (crediting you) and paraphrasing where necessary to make a reasonable commit message of it. I'll also forward to other projec

[Bug c++/56895] [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE: unexpected expression of kind arrow_expr

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56895 --- Comment #16 from André Wöbbeking 2013-04-14 14:15:47 UTC --- Thanks for your fast support!

[Bug bootstrap/56954] New: Bootstrap failure: ./auto-host.h:1994:16: error: declaration does not declare anything [-fpermissive]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56954 Bug #: 56954 Summary: Bootstrap failure: ./auto-host.h:1994:16: error: declaration does not declare anything [-fpermissive] Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Ver

[Bug c++/56953] New: [4.9]Inheriting constructors triggers instantiation of parameters at point of declaration

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56953 Bug #: 56953 Summary: [4.9]Inheriting constructors triggers instantiation of parameters at point of declaration Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknow

[Bug target/56944] Better isfinite in some cases?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56944 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse 2013-04-14 10:21:53 UTC --- Maybe in C terms: isnan(x) -> x!=x isinf(x) -> fabs(x)>DBL_MAX isfinite(x) -> fabs(x)<=DBL_MAX what I am suggesting (with -fno-trapping-math, and maybe -Os) is: isfinite(x) -

[Bug rtl-optimization/56952] [4.9 regression] ICE in recog.c:2150

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56952 gee changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |blocker

[Bug rtl-optimization/56952] [4.9 regression] ICE in recog.c:2150

rototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -version -fbuilding-libgcc -fno-stack-protector -o gthr-win32.s [New Thread 12136.0x2900] [New Thread 12136.0x18d8] GNU C (GCC) version 4.9.0 20130414 (experimental) (i686-pc-cygwin) compiled by GNU C version 4.9.0 20130331 (experimental),

[Bug rtl-optimization/56952] [4.9 regression] ICE in recog.c:2150

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56952 --- Comment #1 from gee 2013-04-14 09:06:38 UTC --- Created attachment 29870 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29870 preprocessed source

[Bug target/56890] invalid fdtox instruction in 64-bit mode with -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56890 --- Comment #7 from Rainer Jung 2013-04-14 09:05:54 UTC --- I can confirm, that the test cases behave unchanged with 4.7.3. There's no problem with 4.8.0.

[Bug rtl-optimization/56952] New: [4.9 regression] ICE in recog.c:2150

lt_cv_deplibs_check_method=pass_all Thread model: win32 gcc version 4.9.0 20130414 (experimental) (GCC) COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-B' '/tmp/gcc/host-i686-pc-cygwin/gcc/' '-B' '/usr/i686-pc-cygwin/bin/' '-B' '/usr/i686-pc-cygwin/lib/' '

[Bug other/56881] Miscompilation (optimisation failure?) causing NULL dereference and segfault at runtime

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56881 Mikael Pettersson changed: What|Removed |Added CC|mikpe at it dot uu.se | --- Comment #8 from Mikael