http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59440
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53623
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #8 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58954
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Dec 13 03:59:10 2013
New Revision: 205954
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205954&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/58954
* pt.c (resolve_overloaded_unification): Discard access
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58954
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Dec 13 03:58:48 2013
New Revision: 205952
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205952&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/58954
* pt.c (resolve_overloaded_unification): Use instantiat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58954
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59490
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Just -mtune=corei7:
make check-c++ RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board='unix{-m32\ -mtune=corei7}'
cilk-plus.exp=catch_exc.cc"
is sufficient to reproduce.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59490
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59445
--- Comment #18 from bin.cheng ---
Hi Dominique d'Humieres,
Thanks for verifying it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59490
Bug ID: 59490
Summary: [4.9 Regression] cilk-plus failure
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57386
--- Comment #14 from Roland Stigge ---
Yes, both patches are good, thanks. :-)
I currently can't give you developer's access to one of my e500v2 machines. But
I hope I can provide it for the future. Will tell you directly when it's ready
at some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59149
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55946
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55946
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Dec 12 22:53:43 2013
New Revision: 205947
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205947&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/55946
gnattools/
* Makefile.in (host): Define.
(host_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55946
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Dec 12 22:50:07 2013
New Revision: 205945
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205945&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/55946
gnattools/
* Makefile.in (host): Define.
(host_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59440
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56572
--- Comment #7 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Well, we could tweak the inliner cost model, thus causing the early inliner to
inline the nested transactions earlier. With the attached patch, f() gets
inlined into g() early enough so that pass_ipa_tm sees
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57897
--- Comment #9 from Kai Tietz ---
Issue is related to option -fasynchronous-unwind-tables option. Better said to
option -fasynchronous-unwind-tables without -funwind-tables.
Following sample can demonstrate issue pretty well:
'#include
int a;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59482
--- Comment #1 from Ville Voutilainen ---
A friend function can access the private class, thus
void f();
struct B {
friend void f();
private:
struct C {};};
void f() {
struct D : B::C{};
}
Some analysis follows:
I investigated t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58756
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Sounds like omp-low.c bug, this is reproduceable even on i?86/x86_64 with
safelen(1) clause on the #pragma omp simd in foo function. Will look at it
tomorrow.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57386
--- Comment #13 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 31429
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31429&action=edit
pr57386.patch01-gcc49
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57386
--- Comment #12 from Michael Meissner ---
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:22:13AM +, meissner at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57386
>
> --- Comment #9 from Michael Meissner ---
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54742
--- Comment #32 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Without a testcase that is representative of the issue, there's nothing I can
do.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58756
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Adding omp_get_thrad_num to the printf:
$ ./a.out
3 496
3 496
2 496
2 496
2 496
2 496
2 496
2 496
2 496
2 496
3 496
3 496
3 496
3 496
3 496
3 496
1 496
1 496
1 496
1 496
1 496
1 496
0 496
0 496
0 496
0 496
0 49
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58756
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Some unscientific printf debugging yields following runtime difference:
foo (int a, int b)
{
int j, c = 0;
#pragma omp parallel for reduction(+: c)
for (j = 0; j < a; j += b)
{
int l;
#pra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59440
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59488
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59489
Bug ID: 59489
Summary: docs mentions that -fwrapv mandatory with java, but
not go
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59440
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Dec 12 19:41:11 2013
New Revision: 205939
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205939&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-12 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/59440
* trans-decl.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904
--- Comment #8 from eggert at gnu dot org ---
On 12/12/2013 10:19 AM, Laurent.Rineau__gcc at normalesup dot org wrote:
> The developer has two solutions:
> - remove that test,
> - or compile with -fno-strict-overflow.
Sure, and because of this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59488
Bug ID: 59488
Summary: l[OpenMP] named constant in parallel construct lead to
"not specified in enclosing parallel" error.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58756
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 |hppa64-hp-hpux11.11,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58464
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Seems the fix is regressing rnflow of pb11.
Confirmed. I have opened pr59487.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59487
Bug ID: 59487
Summary: [4.9 Regression] When compiled with -fwhole-program
rnflow.f90 runs up to 40% slower after r202826
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904
--- Comment #7 from Laurent Rineau
---
In the test case, nfds cannot overflow, because of two reasons:
- nfds is only incremented from 0, and -fstrict-overflow allows gcc to
suppose it will not overflow,
- the number of iterations of the loop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51681
Bug 51681 depends on bug 51743, which changed state.
Bug 51743 Summary: [ia64] Many gcc.dg/torture/vshuf*.c tests FAIL with -O2
-mbig-endian
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51743
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51743
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904
--- Comment #6 from eggert at gnu dot org ---
> That diagnostic seems right, according to the documentation of
> -Wstrict-overflow.
The diagnostic is "right" only in the sense that it is correctly reporting
that GCC does not deduce that signed ov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56339
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regression]: |[4.8 Regression]:
|Subopt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59448
--- Comment #4 from algrant at acm dot org ---
So using g++,
#include
int f1(std::atomic const *p, std::atomic const *q)
{
int flag = p->load(std::memory_order_consume);
return flag ? (q + flag - flag)->load(std::memory_order_relaxe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 12 17:56:51 2013
New Revision: 205935
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205935&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/59470
* g++.dg/opt/pr59470.C: New test.
Added:
b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 12 17:55:44 2013
New Revision: 205934
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205934&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/59470
* g++.dg/opt/pr59470.C: New test.
Added:
t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57807
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59486
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59484
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 02:27:19PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Reinhold Straub from comment #0)
> > Please compile:
> >
> > program t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904
Laurent Rineau changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Laurent.Rineau__gcc@normale
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57386
--- Comment #11 from Michael Meissner ---
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 08:11:23AM +, stigge at antcom dot de wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57386
>
> --- Comment #10 from Roland Stigge ---
> Please apply this patch only to 4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59486
Bug ID: 59486
Summary: math functions take more cycles after running any
Intel AVX function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59255
--- Comment #5 from Mark Jarvin ---
Hmm... seems like it's already fixed in the trunk:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=201859
It doesn't seem to have been ported to 4.8.
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/branches/gcc-4_8-branch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59255
--- Comment #4 from Mark Jarvin ---
I think the other relevant text from the C++11 standard is available here:
http://stackoverflow.com/q/13041715/228142
"An implicitly declared special member function (Clause 12) shall have an
exception-specific
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59255
--- Comment #3 from mark at jarv dot in ---
I notice that lookup_stmt_eh_lp(icall_stmt) at value-prof.c:1272 returns -1.
Elsewhere in the code (tree-eh.c:2208), I see "lp_nr <= 0" as a guard against
further EH processing.
At gimple-pretty-print.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #21 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Dec 12 15:51:49 2013
New Revision: 205930
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205930&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-12 Vladimir Makarov
PR middle-end/59470
* lra-coa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52991
--- Comment #16 from Kai Tietz ---
ms-bitfield is broken regarding pack-attribute and align-attribute. Later is
the cause why suggested patch is just half of the story.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #20 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Dec 12 15:48:23 2013
New Revision: 205929
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205929&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-12 Vladimir Makarov
PR middle-end/59470
* lra-coa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #18)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> > Strange. From my limited testing, it does fix the regressions. I can fire
> > off now full scratch rpm buil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #18 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> Strange. From my limited testing, it does fix the regressions. I can fire
> off now full scratch rpm builds with your patch.
Sorry. My bad. I did not rebui
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52991
roger pack changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rogerdpack at gmail dot com
--- Comment #15
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8270
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59485
Bug ID: 59485
Summary: may_alias attribute ignored in internal references
while defining aggregate types
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59484
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59484
Bug ID: 59484
Summary: execute_command_line doesn't play with environment
variables
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59445
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I fixed the reported problem and posted new patch at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg01159.html
> Apology that I missed java in bootstrap for previous patch. This version
> passes b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59436
Bug 59436 depends on bug 58627, which changed state.
Bug 58627 Summary: [4.9 Regression] crash during compilation of boost testsuite
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58627
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58627
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58627
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 12 13:35:21 2013
New Revision: 205927
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205927&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/58627
* call.c (add_template_candidate_real): Don't call ggc_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59483
Bug ID: 59483
Summary: A nested lambda fails to find a protected name with
qualified name
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The #c11 fix has been successfully bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and
i686-linux on trunk (--enable-checking=yes,rtl) and on 4.8 branch (also both
targets, though regtest is still pending there).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 31426
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31426&action=edit
gcc48-pr59470-test.patch
Runtime testcase that shows the LRA problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59482
Bug ID: 59482
Summary: A friend class cannot inherit a private class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59481
Bug ID: 59481
Summary: late-specified return type using a parameter pack
doesn't work with a recursive function template
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59475
--- Comment #5 from Akela1101 ---
I see...
So, at -O1 in main.o the function is inline, and in A.o it has outer
implementation. At -O0 in both TU, not inline function is using.
The thing was not template specialization, but processing inline func
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54742
--- Comment #31 from Igor Zamyatin ---
The problem is that there is a performance regression on i686 for Coremark test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59467
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 31425
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31425&action=edit
gcc49-pr59470.patch
Untested TER changes I've meant. I believe that for gimple_assign_single_p
(stmt) the curre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59467
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 12 08:57:22 2013
New Revision: 205923
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205923&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgomp/59467
* gimplify.c (omp_check_private): Add copyprivate a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59467
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 12 08:52:06 2013
New Revision: 205922
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205922&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgomp/59467
* gimplify.c (omp_check_private): Add copyprivate a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59480
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
See also http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#136
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59480
Bug ID: 59480
Summary: Missing error diagnostic: friend declaration
specifying a default argument must be a definition
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8270
--- Comment #49 from GoWhoopee at yahoo dot com ---
I've read all the comments and all those on linked forums and I have no idea
how you struggle with this!
If a compiler changes backslash space into backslash newline and consequently
deletes the n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57386
--- Comment #10 from Roland Stigge ---
Please apply this patch only to 4.8.0 for now. The trunk needs some additional
care, I'm working on this separately and will open a separate bug when it's
ready.
Would be nice if you could have a look at pow
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59442
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59442
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Dec 12 08:00:22 2013
New Revision: 205921
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205921&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2013-12-12 Ryan Mansfield
PR
81 matches
Mail list logo
