model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20140207 (experimental) [trunk revision 207610] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -m32 -O1 small.c; a.out
1
$ gcc-trunk -m64 -Os small.c; a.out
1
$ gcc-4.7.3 -m32 -Os small.c; a.out
1
$
$ gcc-trunk -m32 -Os small.c; a.out
0
$ gcc-4.8.2 -m32 -Os small.c; a.out
0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60113
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to lmat from comment #0)
> Attached is the output from command line along with the
> preprocessed code that I was trying to compile.
Looks like you forgot to attach it?
> Please let me know if I can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60115
--- Comment #1 from Zhendong Su ---
The reported testcase seems to reveal an independent issue: GCC does warn the
out-of-bound array access at -Os and above, but not at -O0 and -O1, while clang
warns at all optimization levels.
$ gcc-trunk -Warr
l/gcc-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20140207 (experimental) [trunk revision 207610] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 small.c; a.out
$ gcc-4.8 -O3 small.c; a.out
$
$ gcc-trunk -O3 small.c; a.out
Segmentation fault (core d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60114
Bug ID: 60114
Summary: Incorrect column number for -pedantic and -Wconversion
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60113
Bug ID: 60113
Summary: Internal compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56824
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9 regress
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60077
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 7 23:55:24 2014
New Revision: 207622
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207622&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/60077
* gcc.target/i386/pr60077-1.c: New test.
* gcc.t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60026
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 7 23:54:17 2014
New Revision: 207621
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207621&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/60026
* ipa-cp.c (determine_versionability): Fail at -O0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59906
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59906
--- Comment #12 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri Feb 7 23:29:44 2014
New Revision: 207617
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207617&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-08 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/59906
* trans-array.c (gfc_add_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60112
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
It works for me with 4.9.0 20140129. Maybe you should update the version of
4.9.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40977
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40977
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Feb 7 22:35:49 2014
New Revision: 207615
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207615&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/40977
* config/m68k/m68k.md (ashldi_extsi): Turn into a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60110
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:11:17PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> It could be a duplicate of pr52332 (ICE at the same place).
>
It might be. I've recall other problems of this nature. Anyway,
here
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60110
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
It could be a duplicate of pr52332 (ICE at the same place).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60110
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59762
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60032
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60110
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=60066
--- Comment #10 from mikael.morin at sfr dot fr ---
Le 07/02/2014 19:18, Paul Richard Thomas a écrit :
> Dear All,
>
> I propose to add the attached to the testsuite. It is the testcase
> from PR60066, which was fixed by the patch for PR59066.
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60112
Bug ID: 60112
Summary: bogus error: array subscript is above array bounds
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60111
Bug ID: 60111
Summary: [SH] ICE compiling Newlib (4.8.2)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60083
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60083
--- Comment #1 from Chengnian Sun ---
I think the following case is similar to the reported case. The only difference
is the message content. The following case also triggers "gcc -O0" to emit two
duplicate warnings. But "gcc -O1" emits only one w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59906
--- Comment #11 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri Feb 7 21:15:37 2014
New Revision: 207613
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207613&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-07 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/59906
* trans-stmt.c (gfc_add_l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58710
--- Comment #3 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Feb 7 21:10:47 2014
New Revision: 207611
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207611&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/58710
* configure.ac: Use AC_LINK_IFELSE in check f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58710
--- Comment #4 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Feb 7 21:10:55 2014
New Revision: 207612
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207612&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/58710
* configure.ac: Use AC_LINK_IFELSE in check f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59927
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59927
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60110
Walt Brainerd changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60110
Bug ID: 60110
Summary: internal compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59776
--- Comment #7 from Richard Henderson ---
Definitely SRA's fault. See
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg00489.html
for analysis, and the hackiest of patches.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60066
--- Comment #9 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Dear All,
I propose to add the attached to the testsuite. It is the testcase
from PR60066, which was fixed by the patch for PR59066.
OK for trunk, 4.8 and 4.7?
On 5 February 2014 12:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60105
--- Comment #1 from Andrey Antipov ---
Tested - crashes on 4.7.3 and 4.7.2 on linux as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52289
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52289
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Feb 7 17:52:59 2014
New Revision: 207609
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207609&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR translation/52289
* fortran/resolve.c (resolve_ordinary_as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60109
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58710
--- Comment #2 from Misty De Meo ---
Patch submitted: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg00477.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60109
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
This is an unresolvable problem.
If we made __builtin_frame_address(N > 0) always return 0, then some useful use
cases for debugging would be excluded.
On the other hand, it is impossible to know whether
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60086
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Monakov ---
By "good code" I was referring to the fact that your 4.7 asm does not contain
stack (%rbp) references in the vectorized loop.
Historically, first scheduling (-fschedule-insns) was problematic for 32-bit
x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60086
--- Comment #8 from Marcin Krotkiewski ---
(In reply to Andrey Belevantsev from comment #5)
> At this point insn 461 is dead but we do not notice, and it doesn't look
> easy. I think there was some suggestion in the original research for
> killin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56824
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 7 16:42:24 2014
New Revision: 207606
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207606&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/56824
* line-map.c (get_combined_adhoc_loc, linemap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60109
Bug ID: 60109
Summary: __builtin_frame_address does not work as documented on
ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088
--- Comment #23 from Jacob Abel ---
If it helps at all, the following produces the same problem under gcc:
#include
#include
int main(void)
{
__float128 *ptr = NULL;
int i;
if (ptr = malloc(100 * sizeof(__float128)))
for (i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60108
Bug ID: 60108
Summary: ICE in use_thunk, at cp/method.c:340
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59595
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
I have been trying to narrow down the change that caused the
regression. r205921 is
OK and r205955 is bad. Most recent build that I have noted as bad is
r206196.
Last test results from box are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60107
Bug ID: 60107
Summary: libgomp.c/pr58392.c etc. FAIL
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
As
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60030
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60037
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59984
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 32077
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32077&action=edit
Untested fix
Untested fix. Likely I'll need to do something more, so that we don't emit
extra decls for the debu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55637
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> What should we do about this test? Having it fail everywhere a current
> binutils
> version is used causes lots of noise in testsuite results.
Since nobody cared to fix the tests since more than o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59918
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55637
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
--- Comment #12 from Rainer Orth ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59984
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I guess during gimplification when gimplifying #pragma omp simd body we should
add all the local variables (declared in the body) that aren't static and are
address taken to private clause on the #pragma omp s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60086
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60039
--- Comment #4 from Nick Hudson ---
Created attachment 32076
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32076&action=edit
Full assembler output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Feb 7 13:41:10 2014
New Revision: 207598
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207598&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-07 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/60092
* gimple-low.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60082
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
catch_exc.cc FAILs (other than timeout) seem to be a Cilk+ bug, if it ever
worked, it seems to have worked by accident.
The problem is that __cilkrts_rethrow conditionally throws an exception, but is
marked TR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60099
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60101
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, pa...@matos-sorge.com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
>
> --- Comment #20 from Paulo J. Matos ---
> OK, I was trying to make sense of all this and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59222
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60082
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 7 10:49:08 2014
New Revision: 207597
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207597&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60082
* tree.c (build_common_builtin_nodes): Set ECF_LEAF for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60034
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60034
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59695
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59595
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|2014-01
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
--- Comment #15 from David Kredba ---
It is still present in rev. 207565 and pykde4-4.12.2:
CMakeFiles/python_module_PyKDE4_phonon.dir/sip/phonon/sipphononpart5.cpp.o: In
function `~Notifier':
/usr/include/phonon/backendcapabilities.h:57: undefin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57490
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
--- Comment #20 from Paulo J. Matos ---
OK, I was trying to make sense of all this and there are two things that stick
out.
One is when you say that due to C integer promotion rules make i =
(short)((int)i + 1). However GCC is doing i = (short) (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Feb 7 09:33:23 2014
New Revision: 207595
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207595&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-07 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/60092
* builtin-type
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59833
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60030
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59904
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60093
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60094
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55666
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55676
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60086
--- Comment #6 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Forgot to mention that we end up scheduling this block in 21 cycles while the
regular scheduling needs 24. Not that it's so important though.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60086
--- Comment #5 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> ...
> doesn't reorder those is that RA allocates the same register. With -O3
> -mavx -fselective-scheduling2 the stores are also changed, but we end up
> wit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59984
--- Comment #4 from Igor Zamyatin ---
vect details show that v1.0_14 = v1 and v2.1_15 = v2 are treated as invariants:
test.c:24:14: note: -->vectorizing statement: v1.0_14 = v1;
test.c:24:14: note: transform statement.
test.c:24:14: note: tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55916
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thatcadguy at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7
85 matches
Mail list logo
