http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61010
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60351
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Apr 30 06:08:17 2014
New Revision: 209925
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209925root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c/60351
* c-typeck.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60351
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60139
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Apr 30 06:14:39 2014
New Revision: 209926
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209926root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c/60139
* c-typeck.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60139
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60915
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59169
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48546
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43488
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61004
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60965
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Haley aph at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Jan, can we please have an ETA to fix this? It is a very importantant problem
for Java because it breaks OpenJDK.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61010
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61010
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmmm...
int main (void)
{
int a = 0;
unsigned b = (a * 64 192) | 63;
return 0;
}
works (i.e. 63 without the U).
I suspect there's something dodgy with the implementation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61010
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61003
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48329
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
This seems to have been fixed during the 4.7 revisions: I see the problem with
4.6.4, but not with 4.7.3 or higher.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61004
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
B doesn't have a FIELD_DECL for its base A, not sure why. If we make A
non-empty
we get
f ((const struct A ) (const struct A *) b.D.2231)
with empty A (and no field for it) we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42159
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61004
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32713
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32713action=edit
untested patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60964
Steffen Hau steffen at hauihau dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61010
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Indeed we iterate in /* Canonicalize (X C1) | C2. */ because we fold
(unsigned int) (a * 64) 255
to
(unsigned int) (a * 64) 192
in /* Fold (X * CST1) CST2 to zero if we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60964
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60607
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steffen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61010
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61011
Bug ID: 61011
Summary: libstdc++-v3 should be target-libstdc++-v3 in top
level configure
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61010
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61010
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Like
Index: gcc/fold-const.c
===
--- gcc/fold-const.c(revision 209928)
+++ gcc/fold-const.c(working copy)
@@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61000
--- Comment #2 from Mircea Namolaru mircea.namolaru at inria dot fr ---
Again, the problem is due to representation of arrays in Fortran as array with
a single dimnesion (for similar code in C profitability check work as
expected). It is a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61000
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mircea Namolaru from comment #2)
Again, the problem is due to representation of arrays in Fortran as array
with a single dimnesion (for similar code in C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61012
Bug ID: 61012
Summary: lto1: errors during merging of translation units
(error: variable ‘link’ redeclared as function)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61000
--- Comment #4 from Mircea Namolaru mircea.namolaru at inria dot fr ---
Right, C arrays expressed as pointers suffers from the same problem.
But for C at least there is a way to avoid this.
Many thanks for your suggestion of how to de-linearize
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
Bug ID: 61013
Summary: Option parsing difference between 4.9 and 4.9
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48329
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61004
--- Comment #7 from Lars Gullik Bjønnes larsbj at gullik dot net ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
Created attachment 32713 [details]
untested patch
This fixes the problem for me, in my
application.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48329
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 30 11:43:41 2014
New Revision: 209930
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209930root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-04-30 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61012
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61012
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reduced b.c:
extern int link (const char *, const char *);
int main()
{
return foo() + link(foo, bar);
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61014
Bug ID: 61014
Summary: [4.6/4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] gdb can't find symbol of
derived data type array in nested subroutine
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61014
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61014
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60081
--- Comment #4 from Stan Manilov stanislav.manilov at gmail dot com ---
Here is a simple way to reproduce the bug:
==
#include vector
#include memory
int main() {
std::vectorstd::unique_ptrint v;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43996
--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
The following patch fixes the ICE without reverting the fix for pr40472:
--- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/simplify.c2014-04-27 12:52:10.0 +0200
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42159
--- Comment #25 from Mike Jarvis michael at jarvis dot net ---
The bug does not seem to be present with g++ 4.8.2 on OSX 10.9.2. I no longer
have access to a 10.6 machine, so I cannot confirm whether it is fixed with 4.8
on that system.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42159
--- Comment #26 from simon at pushface dot org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #24)
Is this PR still present?
Not with g++ (or Ada) in 4.9.0 on Max OS X 10.9.2 (darwin13.1.0).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42159
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61014
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61014
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #2)
As you also have idb at hand
I now did it myself with gcc 4.10 and idbc 13.0. (I don't have ifort.)
Result:
In line 10, I get:
(idb) p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61003
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60980
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Apr 30 14:23:18 2014
New Revision: 209934
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209934root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/60980
* init.c (build_value_init):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60951
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Apr 30 14:23:27 2014
New Revision: 209935
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209935root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/60951
* typeck2.c (massage_init_elt):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60951
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Apr 30 14:23:11 2014
New Revision: 209933
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209933root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/60951
* typeck2.c (massage_init_elt):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60830
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fanael4 at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61003
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60951
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61016
Bug ID: 61016
Summary: use of uninitialized memory in gcc/config/i386/i386.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60980
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Apr 30 14:23:34 2014
New Revision: 209936
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209936root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/60980
* init.c (build_value_init):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60980
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
--- Comment #2 from Andres Freund andres at anarazel dot de ---
Hi,
On 2014-04-30 14:54:20 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
-g is the same as -g2 and the later option is supposed to override the first
one. Jus like how -O is handled.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
Michael Chapman michael.chapman at cortus dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It was not on accident, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg00260.html and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg02077.html
And even where I said
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
--- Comment #5 from Andres Freund andres at anarazel dot de ---
Hi,
On 2014-04-30 15:48:33 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I certainly haven't noticed that discussion, if I did, I would object already
by that time.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
--- Comment #22 from Matthew Woehlke mw_triad at users dot sourceforge.net ---
Thanks for the patch. However, one thing I am not seeing is an easy way to
suppress the warning for a specific occurrence (a la [[clang:fallthrough]]).
Can that be added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
--- Comment #23 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Michael Chapman from comment #21)
Created attachment 32716 [details]
Proposed patch
Patch to enable warnings (-Wswitch-fallthrough) when a switch case falls
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
--- Comment #24 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Matthew Woehlke from comment #22)
[[gcc:fallthrough]] // suppress warning for fall-through to 'case C'
N.B. the attribute-namespace for GNU extensions is gnu
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
--- Comment #25 from Florian Weimer fweimer at redhat dot com ---
(In reply to Matthew Woehlke from comment #22)
case B:
...
[[gcc:fallthrough]] // suppress warning for fall-through to 'case C'
Do we have such attributes in the C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61017
Bug ID: 61017
Summary: lra aborts on optional match_scratch
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61018
Bug ID: 61018
Summary: -Wvarargs does not print warning for memer functions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
--- Comment #27 from Matthew Woehlke mw_triad at users dot sourceforge.net ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #26)
Perhaps we could invent __builtin_fallthrough or some such.
Yes, I was expecting there would be some alternate spelling
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
--- Comment #28 from Alexander Kornienko alexfh at google dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #24)
(In reply to Matthew Woehlke from comment #22)
[[gcc:fallthrough]] // suppress warning for fall-through to 'case C'
N.B.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61017
--- Comment #1 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32717
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32717action=edit
preprocessed libgcc file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
--- Comment #29 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #26)
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #25)
Do we have such attributes in the C compiler?
No, AFAICS. Perhaps we could invent
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
--- Comment #30 from Florian Weimer fweimer at redhat dot com ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #29)
I like the previous suggestion of using goto LABEL;. In fact, the warning
message could explicitly say use %goto %D;% to silence
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
--- Comment #31 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #30)
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #29)
I like the previous suggestion of using goto LABEL;. In fact, the warning
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60992
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
--- Comment #32 from Matthew Woehlke mw_triad at users dot sourceforge.net ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #30)
Does this mean that you propose a GCC extension which allows to write this?
goto 5;
case 5:
While I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61019
Bug ID: 61019
Summary: ICE: incomplete type of class template as
pseudo-destructor-name
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61019
frankhb1989 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.8.2, 4.9.0
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
--- Comment #7 from Cary Coutant ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andres Freund from comment #2)
The point is that this has changed between 4.8 and 4.9... And I don't
see anything relevant in http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/changes.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
--- Comment #33 from Michael Chapman michael.chapman at cortus dot com ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #30)
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #29)
I like the previous suggestion of using goto LABEL;. In fact, the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61020
Bug ID: 61020
Summary: [4.9/4.10 Regression] typeid(typeid(X)) produces 'ud2'
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60971
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61020
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61011
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61009
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61020
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
_ZTI7Derived.0_1 = _ZTI7Derived;
_3 = MEM[(const struct type_info *)_ZTI7Derived.0_1]._vptr.type_info;
_4 = _3 + 18446744073709551608;
_5 = *_4;
Is being optimized to be 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I don't see why there should be any consistency with -O, it is a very different
option, with a very different usage and history.
The 4.8 behavior was that -g set debug level to 2 if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61020
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61009
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
I see what's happening here... I need to think about how best to handle this
situation. Oh how threading across loop backedges perilous.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60847
--- Comment #8 from Sanjay Patel spatel at rotateright dot com ---
Thanks, Jakub.
I see that the fix duplicates all of the intrinsics with a
double-leading-underscore variant. Why do we need that? AFAIK, no other x86
intrinsics have this kind of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60847
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Sanjay Patel from comment #8)
Thanks, Jakub.
I see that the fix duplicates all of the intrinsics with a
double-leading-underscore variant. Why do we need that?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60847
--- Comment #10 from Sanjay Patel spatel at rotateright dot com ---
Ah - thank you for the explanation! I found the original checkin from AMD:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg01356.html
Strangely, I can't find any documentation for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
--- Comment #10 from ccoutant at google dot com ---
So, my preference would be to revert to the 4.8 and older behavior, or if
there really is consensus that -g1 -g should mean -g2 rather than -g1, at
least change it so that -g3 -g means -g3 (so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61021
Bug ID: 61021
Summary: [4.9 regression] libsanitizer fails to build with old
glibc
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60843
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, kdevel at vogtner dot de wrote:
The problem is the erroneous wording reduction modulo 2^N. *Reduction* by
definition results in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61022
Bug ID: 61022
Summary: [C++11] Bogus error: parameter packs not expanded
with '...'
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
