[Bug libstdc++/57885] New: unordered_map find slower in 4.8.1 than 4.7.3 with integer key

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57885 Bug ID: 57885 Summary: unordered_map find slower in 4.8.1 than 4.7.3 with integer key Product: gcc Version: 4.8.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/57698] rev.200179 causes many errors (inlining failures) when building Firefox

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57698 --- Comment #8 from Sriraman Tallam --- One other alternative to the patch proposed earlier. The reported bug happens only when optimization is turned on as the early inliner pass invokes incremental inlining which calls optimize_inline_calls and

[Bug tree-optimization/57698] rev.200179 causes many errors (inlining failures) when building Firefox

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57698 --- Comment #7 from Sriraman Tallam --- Taking a stab at fixing this. Here is what is going on. In rev. 200179, this change to tree-inline.c Index: tree-inline.c === --- tree-inline

[Bug middle-end/57661] [4.9 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in verify_ssa

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57661 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug target/57873] [avr-gcc] Local variable on stack overwritten by call instruction on target AVR

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57873 Bernhard changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/57362] [4.8/4.9 Regression] unsupported __attribute__((target())) values appear to cause loop and/or pathological behavior

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57362 --- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini --- What about 4_8-branch? The bug is marked as 4.8 Regression. Either way, I suppose the bug should be closed, right?

[Bug c++/56060] ICE on invalid code in type_dependent_expression_p, at cp/pt.c:19742

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56060 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/57362] [4.8/4.9 Regression] unsupported __attribute__((target())) values appear to cause loop and/or pathological behavior

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57362 --- Comment #5 from Sriraman Tallam --- Trunk rev. 200913 fixes this problem.

[Bug fortran/57871] gfortran -freal-4-real-16 gives wrong result for selected_real_kind(1)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57871 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:30:04PM +, harper at msor dot vuw.ac.nz wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57871 > > --- Comment #5 from harper at msor dot vuw.ac.nz --- > I have now found two

[Bug sanitizer/57884] False positive in libgfortran finalization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57884 --- Comment #2 from Eugene Zelenko --- Sorry, forgot to add GCC configuration information in original report: Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=/gcc481/bin/gcc COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/gcc481/libexec/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.8.1/lto-wrapper Target:

[Bug sanitizer/57884] False positive in libgfortran finalization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57884 --- Comment #1 from Eugene Zelenko --- Created attachment 30498 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30498&action=edit zcopy FORTRAN procedure from BLAS

[Bug fortran/57871] gfortran -freal-4-real-16 gives wrong result for selected_real_kind(1)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57871 --- Comment #5 from harper at msor dot vuw.ac.nz --- I have now found two more oddities of type promotion but I don't claim that these are gfortran bugs, only that the mmanual might need amending. Oddity 1. Although -freal-4-real-8 does what the

[Bug sanitizer/57884] New: False positive in libgfortran finalization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57884 Bug ID: 57884 Summary: False positive in libgfortran finalization Product: gcc Version: 4.8.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: sanitiz

[Bug fortran/52669] No warning in unused private variable in modules

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52669 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/57883] New: Feature request: better diagnostic for unknown type

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57883 Bug ID: 57883 Summary: Feature request: better diagnostic for unknown type Product: gcc Version: 4.8.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug libstdc++/51013] complex::{imag,real}() should maintain lvalue-returning extension in C++11

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51013 --- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #8) > Once we have ref-qualifiers, it should be OK to add the non-const overload > with an lvalue ref-qualifier, though. Now we have ref-qualifiers. Do we want to provid

[Bug c++/57086] Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines re-entered.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57086 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ejkruus at gmail dot com --- Comment #9 f

[Bug c++/57882] ICE: Error reporting routines re-entered

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57882 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/57882] New: ICE: Error reporting routines re-entered

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57882 Bug ID: 57882 Summary: ICE: Error reporting routines re-entered Product: gcc Version: 4.7.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug target/57865] Broken _save64gpr and _rest64gpr usage

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57865 --- Comment #7 from Sebastian Huber --- (In reply to Sebastian Huber from comment #6) > Test results: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-07/msg00968.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-07/msg00980.html http://gcc.gnu.or

[Bug target/57865] Broken _save64gpr and _rest64gpr usage

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57865 --- Comment #6 from Sebastian Huber --- (In reply to Sebastian Huber from comment #5) > (In reply to Alan Modra from comment #4) > > Created attachment 30489 [details] > > Fix ool_adjust > > > > Please verify that this fixes the problem > > Yes,

[Bug c++/52987] bogus expected ; before for undeclared type

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52987 --- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini --- The first half is fixed for 4.9.0 (r200150).

[Bug preprocessor/57881] New: Pre-processor pre-includes breaks preprocessing of non C/C++ code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57881 Bug ID: 57881 Summary: Pre-processor pre-includes breaks preprocessing of non C/C++ code Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/57156] miscompilation of call to _mm_cmpeq_epi8(a, a) or _mm_comtrue_epu8(a, a) with uninitialized a

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57156 --- Comment #8 from Matthias Kretz --- I just noticed the following in the Intel Optimization Reference Manual (Version 028 from July 2013), section 2.2 "Sandy Bridge": 2.2.3.1 Renamer [...] There is another dependency breaking idiom - the "ones i

[Bug c++/57880] cp/parser.c: 6 * missing break ?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57880 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||emsr at gcc dot gnu.org Componen

[Bug target/57631] [patch] spurious warning for avr interrupts with asm labels

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57631 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug c/57880] New: cp/parser.c: 6 * missing break ?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57880 Bug ID: 57880 Summary: cp/parser.c: 6 * missing break ? Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assig