[Bug middle-end/60546] [4.8/4.9] O2 asan enable generates wrong insns

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot

[Bug middle-end/60546] [4.8/4.9] O2 asan enable generates wrong insns

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546 --- Comment #22 from linzj manjian2006 at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #21) What is not satisfying? struct QualifiedNameComponents { StringImpl* m_prefix; StringImpl* m_localName; StringImpl*

[Bug sanitizer/60557] UBSAN: ICE after ubsan_expand_null_ifn

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60557 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 32380 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32380action=edit gcc49-pr60557.patch This should hopefully fix it.

[Bug other/60465] Compiling glibc-2.17,2.18 with gcc-4.8.2 and binutils-2.23.2,2.24 results in segfaults in _start / elf_get_dynamic_info

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60465 Mike Frysinger vapier at gentoo dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vapier at gentoo

[Bug target/60558] building glibc-2.19 w/gcc-4.8.x on ia64 produces bad ld.so

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60558 Mike Frysinger vapier at gentoo dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug target/60558] New: building glibc-2.19 w/gcc-4.8.x on ia64 produces bad ld.so

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60558 Bug ID: 60558 Summary: building glibc-2.19 w/gcc-4.8.x on ia64 produces bad ld.so Product: gcc Version: 4.8.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug other/60465] Compiling glibc-2.17,2.18 with gcc-4.8.2 and binutils-2.23.2,2.24 results in segfaults in _start / elf_get_dynamic_info

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60465 devurandom at gmx dot net changed: What|Removed |Added Target||ia64-unknown-linux-gnu

[Bug c/55383] -Wcast-qual reports incorrect message

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55383 --- Comment #12 from Magnus Reftel magnus.reftel at gmail dot com --- Any suggestions on how to progress with this one?

[Bug ada/60504] [4.9 regression] many Ada testsuite regressions with gcc-4.9-20140309 on armv5tel-linux-gnueabi

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60504 --- Comment #8 from Mikael Pettersson mikpelinux at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #5) Sorry, no joy. With Eric's suggested patch I still got: Correction: Eric's suggested patch does work. In my previous attempt

[Bug tree-optimization/60559] New: g++.dg/vect/pr60023.cc fails with -fno-tree-dce (ICE)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60559 Bug ID: 60559 Summary: g++.dg/vect/pr60023.cc fails with -fno-tree-dce (ICE) Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/57521] [4.7 Regression] wrong code for expressions in loop at -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57521 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: rguenth Date: Tue Mar 18 08:46:21 2014 New Revision: 208632 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208632root=gccview=rev Log: 2014-03-18 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de

[Bug tree-optimization/57656] [4.7 Regression] Wrong constant folding

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57656 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: rguenth Date: Tue Mar 18 08:46:21 2014 New Revision: 208632 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208632root=gccview=rev Log: 2014-03-18 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de

[Bug tree-optimization/57517] [4.7 Regression] internal compiler error: in eliminate_temp_copies, at tree-predcom.c:1913

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57517 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/57521] [4.7 Regression] wrong code for expressions in loop at -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57521 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/57517] [4.7 Regression] internal compiler error: in eliminate_temp_copies, at tree-predcom.c:1913

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57517 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: rguenth Date: Tue Mar 18 08:46:21 2014 New Revision: 208632 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208632root=gccview=rev Log: 2014-03-18 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de

[Bug tree-optimization/57656] [4.7 Regression] Wrong constant folding

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57656 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/60560] New: Problem allocating character array with assumed length

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60560 Bug ID: 60560 Summary: Problem allocating character array with assumed length Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/60561] New: ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:1721 for gfortran.dg/associate_1.f03

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60561 Bug ID: 60561 Summary: ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:1721 for gfortran.dg/associate_1.f03 Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug sanitizer/60557] UBSAN: ICE after ubsan_expand_null_ifn

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60557 --- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) This should hopefully fix it. Looks good to me. For the testcase of comment 1, it also gives the expected run-time diagnostic:

[Bug fortran/60561] ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:1721 for gfortran.dg/associate_1.f03

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60561 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|

[Bug fortran/60561] ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:1721 for gfortran.dg/associate_1.f03

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60561 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug fortran/60561] ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:1721 for gfortran.dg/associate_1.f03

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60561 --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- So it should be rejected without -std=f2003? Compiling the code with -std=f2003 -fall-intrinsics gives the ICE (without -fall-intrinsics there is a link error Undefined

[Bug fortran/60561] ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:1721 for gfortran.dg/associate_1.f03

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60561 --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- The ICE is in the following subroutine SUBROUTINE test_char (n) INTEGER, INTENT(IN) :: n CHARACTER(LEN=n) :: str str = foobar ASSOCIATE (my = str) END

[Bug target/60562] New: ’4.9 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-3.c execution test on x86_64-apple-darwin13

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60562 Bug ID: 60562 Summary: ’4.9 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-3.c execution test on x86_64-apple-darwin13 Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0

[Bug target/60039] sh3 optimisation bug with -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60039 --- Comment #8 from Nick Hudson skrll at netbsd dot org --- On 03/18/14 02:34, kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60039 --- Comment #7 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org --- Ugh, then

[Bug target/60563] New: FAIL: g++.dg/ext/sync-4.C on *-apple-darwin*

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60563 Bug ID: 60563 Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/ext/sync-4.C on *-apple-darwin* Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128 Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED

[Bug c++/60553] segfault in gt_ggc_mx_lang_tree_node in Chromium with LTO

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60553 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- next_variant-type_name-type-next_variant-type-name-decl_original_type-type_name-decl_context-next_variant-type_context-next_variant-next_variant-next_variant-type_fields-type-...

[Bug other/60465] Compiling glibc-2.17,2.18 with gcc-4.8.2 and binutils-2.23.2,2.24 results in segfaults in _start / elf_get_dynamic_info

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60465 --- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org --- How about showing the previous ~20 insns here.

[Bug ada/60504] [4.9 regression] many Ada testsuite regressions with gcc-4.9-20140309 on armv5tel-linux-gnueabi

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60504 --- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org --- Correction: Eric's suggested patch does work. In my previous attempt I applied his patch and only did an incremental rebuild, and that didn't resolve all testsuite regressions.

[Bug fortran/57522] [F03] ASSOCIATE construct creates array descriptor with incorrect stride for derived type array component

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57522 --- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- Any reason why tho PR is not closed as fixed?

[Bug fortran/57522] [F03] ASSOCIATE construct creates array descriptor with incorrect stride for derived type array component

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57522 --- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- *** Bug 58339 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug fortran/58339] ASSOCIATE construct to arrays: Wrong results (pointer to array/array descriptor issue?)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58339 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/57522] [F03] ASSOCIATE construct creates array descriptor with incorrect stride for derived type array component

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57522 Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug middle-end/58941] [4.7 Regression] value modification on zero-length array optimized away

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58941 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: rguenth Date: Tue Mar 18 10:58:22 2014 New Revision: 208640 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208640root=gccview=rev Log: 2014-03-18 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de

[Bug middle-end/60419] [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE Segmentation fault

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- FYI, since r208573 the reduced ppc64 testcase no longer reproduces, but the #c0 still does.

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128 --- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- What is the output of write(*,(en15.1)) 9.4905 end ? If it is 9.4, it means that your snprintf is not rounding to nearest but to zero.

[Bug fortran/60561] ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:1721 for gfortran.dg/associate_1.f03

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60561 Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|accepts-invalid,

[Bug c++/60553] segfault in gt_ggc_mx_lang_tree_node in Chromium with LTO

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60553 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Another idea would be (many next-variant walks in the call stack) Index: lto/lto-tree.h === --- lto/lto-tree.h

[Bug middle-end/58941] [4.7 Regression] value modification on zero-length array optimized away

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58941 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128 --- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- --- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- What is the output of write(*,(en15.1)) 9.4905 end ? If it is 9.4,

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128 --- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- Could your repeat the test for write(*,(en15.1)) 9.4905_8 end write(*,(en15.1)) 9.4905_10 end and write(*,(en15.1)) 9.4905_16 end ?

[Bug ipa/60325] [4.9 Regression] ICE in ipa_modify_formal_parameters, at ipa-prop.c compiling g++.dg/cilk-plus/CK/lambda_spawns.cc with LTO-profiledbootstrap build

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60325 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug ipa/60325] [4.9 Regression] ICE in ipa_modify_formal_parameters, at ipa-prop.c compiling g++.dg/cilk-plus/CK/lambda_spawns.cc with LTO-profiledbootstrap build

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60325 --- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) Thus fixed? Hard to say, but the testsuite failure is gone and we have no testcase...

[Bug ada/60504] [4.9 regression] many Ada testsuite regressions with gcc-4.9-20140309 on armv5tel-linux-gnueabi

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60504 --- Comment #10 from Mikael Pettersson mikpelinux at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #9) That's good news, thanks. Did you do a testsuite run for all languages? Sorry, didn't have time for that -- the repeated 4.9

[Bug c/55896] Annoying compiler warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55896 Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at

[Bug other/60133] [4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong multiarch name on aarch64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60133 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Hasn't this been fixed by r208383 and r208384 ?

[Bug ipa/58721] [4.9 Regression] The subroutine perdida is no longer inlined in fatigue.f90

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58721 --- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Mar 18 11:31:04 2014 New Revision: 208641 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208641root=gccview=rev Log: PR ipa/58721 gcc/ * internal-fn.c: Include

[Bug c/55896] Annoying compiler warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55896 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot

[Bug tree-optimization/59487] [4.9 Regression] When compiled with -fwhole-program rnflow.f90 runs up to 40% slower after r202826

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59487 Bug 59487 depends on bug 58721, which changed state. Bug 58721 Summary: [4.9 Regression] The subroutine perdida is no longer inlined in fatigue.f90 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58721 What|Removed

[Bug ipa/58721] [4.9 Regression] The subroutine perdida is no longer inlined in fatigue.f90

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58721 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug ipa/60315] [4.8/4.9 Regression] template constructor switch optimization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60315 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot

[Bug target/60562] [4.9 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-3.c execution test on x86_64-apple-darwin13

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60562 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0

[Bug c/55896] Annoying compiler warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55896 --- Comment #3 from sworddragon2 at aol dot com --- why aren't you using strlen??? Because of this bug (if it should be still valid): https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-4.7/+bug/1035321

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128 --- Comment #18 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- --- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- Could your repeat the test for write(*,(en15.1)) 9.4905_8 end

[Bug c/55896] Annoying compiler warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55896 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to sworddragon2 from comment #3) why aren't you using strlen??? Because of this bug (if it should be still valid):

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128 --- Comment #19 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- write(*,(en15.1)) 9.4905_16 end 9.4E+00 So the test fails due to a bug in the rounding of real(16) in your lib. Do you have any idea about how the tests for

[Bug libstdc++/60564] New: [C++11] The std::packaged_task constructor taking a reference to a functor does not copy its argument.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60564 Bug ID: 60564 Summary: [C++11] The std::packaged_task constructor taking a reference to a functor does not copy its argument. Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status:

[Bug c/55383] -Wcast-qual reports incorrect message

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55383 --- Comment #13 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Magnus Reftel from comment #12) Any suggestions on how to progress with this one? Looking at the testcases modified by the patch, I don't know why there is no test

[Bug target/60459] Crash seen in _Unwind_VRS_Pop() for ARM platform

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60459 Raghu raghupv30 at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |critical

[Bug debug/60438] [4.9 Regression] dwarf2cfi :2239 still assert,not the same cause as PR 59575

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60438 Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug libstdc++/60564] [C++11] The std::packaged_task constructor taking a reference to a functor does not copy its argument.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60564 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last

[Bug target/60562] [4.9 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-3.c execution test after r208587

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60562 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Target|x86_64-apple-darwin1* |

[Bug debug/60438] [4.9 Regression] dwarf2cfi :2239 still assert,not the same cause as PR 59575

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60438 --- Comment #38 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- Hi, this seems to have created a new regression: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-3.c execution test pr60562

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128 --- Comment #20 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org --- We can xfail the test case if we are certain of the problem.

[Bug libstdc++/60564] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [C++11] The std::packaged_task constructor taking a reference to a functor does not copy its argument.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60564 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.8.3

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128 --- Comment #21 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- We can xfail the test case if we are certain of the problem. What I don't see is how to xfail only some tests for real(16). Anyway, Rainer could open a new PR for the

[Bug c++/60565] New: Bogus not-in-scope error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60565 Bug ID: 60565 Summary: Bogus not-in-scope error Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee:

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128 --- Comment #22 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- --- Comment #19 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- write(*,(en15.1)) 9.4905_16 end 9.4E+00 So the test fails

[Bug c++/60565] Bogus not-in-scope error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60565 --- Comment #1 from patrick at parcs dot ath.cx --- Er, sorry, the call to foo () within main ought to be B::foo ().

[Bug fortran/60128] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong ouput using en edit descriptor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128 --- Comment #23 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- I'm not sure that's the problem: AFAICS snprintf is only used by io/write_float.def (output_float:734) to print the exponent, the rest is handled by quadmath_snprintf. The

[Bug c++/60565] Bogus not-in-scope error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60565 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to patrick from comment #0) $ g++ -c exc.C exc.C:8:26: warning: declaration of ‘void B::foo()’ with C language linkage [enabled by default] extern C void foo ();

[Bug c++/60565] Bogus not-in-scope error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60565 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to patrick from comment #1) Er, sorry, the call to foo () within main ought to be B::foo (). OK, in that case you need to fix the declaration of B::foo() if you want to

[Bug tree-optimization/60559] [4.9 Regression] g++.dg/vect/pr60023.cc fails with -fno-tree-dce (ICE)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60559 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug tree-optimization/60559] [4.9 Regression] g++.dg/vect/pr60023.cc fails with -fno-tree-dce (ICE)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60559 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug c/55896] Annoying compiler warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55896 --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) you could just use w_strlen (contents_1 + 1) and the warning could go away. This causes that two warnings are emitted :(. If strlen

[Bug c++/60565] Bogus not-in-scope error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60565 --- Comment #4 from patrick at parcs dot ath.cx --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3) (In reply to patrick from comment #1) Er, sorry, the call to foo () within main ought to be B::foo (). OK, in that case you need to fix the

[Bug target/60459] Crash seen in _Unwind_VRS_Pop() for ARM platform

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60459 --- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Raghu from comment #3) (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) Can you try a newer version than GCC 4.2.1? Also can you provide the exact options you

[Bug lto/59543] [4.9 Regression] lto1: fatal error: Cgraph edge statement index out of range

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59543 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- I think 2) is the issue, so does Index: lto-streamer-in.c === --- lto-streamer-in.c (revision 208642) +++

[Bug target/60562] [4.9 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-3.c execution test after r208587

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60562 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot

[Bug lto/59543] [4.9 Regression] lto1: fatal error: Cgraph edge statement index out of range

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59543 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- I'm doing a LTO profiledbootstrap with this - Markus, can you check if this fixes your problem?

[Bug tree-optimization/59487] [4.9 Regression] When compiled with -fwhole-program rnflow.f90 runs up to 40% slower after r202826

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59487 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED

[Bug sanitizer/60535] Link failure with -flto and -fsanitize=undefined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60535 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Mar 18 14:56:23 2014 New Revision: 208651 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208651root=gccview=rev Log: PR sanitizer/60535 * ubsan.c

[Bug sanitizer/60535] Link failure with -flto and -fsanitize=undefined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60535 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug sanitizer/60557] UBSAN: ICE after ubsan_expand_null_ifn

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60557 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Mar 18 15:05:30 2014 New Revision: 208652 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208652root=gccview=rev Log: PR sanitizer/60557 * ubsan.c

[Bug sanitizer/60557] UBSAN: ICE after ubsan_expand_null_ifn

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60557 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug debug/60438] [4.9 Regression] dwarf2cfi :2239 still assert,not the same cause as PR 59575

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60438 --- Comment #39 from linzj manjian2006 at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #35) thanks for the fix.

[Bug target/60562] [4.9 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-3.c execution test after r208587

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60562 Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/60553] segfault in gt_ggc_mx_lang_tree_node in Chromium with LTO

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60553 --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška marxin.liska at gmail dot com --- Patches helped me! First one was sufficient for my simplified case (~800 files), but it was necessary to add second one for chromium. Will you add this changes to mainline or

[Bug fortran/60507] Passing function call into procedure argument not caught

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60507 --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to janus from comment #3) The patch in comment #2 ICEs on this extended test case: Here is a better patch which works on comment 2: Index: gcc/fortran/interface.c

[Bug fortran/60550] [OOP] ICE on factory design pattern

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60550 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code

[Bug target/60562] [4.9 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-3.c execution test after r208587

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60562 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- BTW, it is actually 4 tests in excess-precision-3.c that fail now: if ((float)i1 != 0x1.0p30f) abort (); if ((float)u1 != 0x1.0p31f) abort (); if ((float)ll1 !=

[Bug c++/60565] Bogus not-in-scope error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60565 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug lto/57703] Assembler function definition moved to a different ltrans then call

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57703 --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška marxin.liska at gmail dot com --- Hm, it looks that there's an usage of top-level function chromium binary: /tmp/cckAZyDK.ltrans26.ltrans.o:cckAZyDK.ltrans26.o:function sandbox::Die::ExitGroup(): error: undefined

[Bug c++/60566] New: [4.9 Regression] r208573 miscompiles kdelibs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60566 Bug ID: 60566 Summary: [4.9 Regression] r208573 miscompiles kdelibs Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/60305] [4.7 Regression] ICE constexpr array of functions in template

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60305 --- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com --- Let's add the testcase to mainline and close this.

[Bug libstdc++/60564] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [C++11] The std::packaged_task constructor taking a reference to a functor does not copy its argument.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60564 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: redi Date: Tue Mar 18 16:30:28 2014 New Revision: 208655 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208655root=gccview=rev Log: PR libstdc++/60564 * include/std/future

[Bug libstdc++/60564] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [C++11] The std::packaged_task constructor taking a reference to a functor does not copy its argument.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60564 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: redi Date: Tue Mar 18 16:31:38 2014 New Revision: 208656 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208656root=gccview=rev Log: PR libstdc++/60564 * include/std/future

[Bug libstdc++/60564] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [C++11] The std::packaged_task constructor taking a reference to a functor does not copy its argument.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60564 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug middle-end/57485] memcpy in aggregate return not eliminated

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57485 Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |middle-end

  1   2   >