http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59758
--- Comment #9 from David S. Miller davem at davemloft dot net ---
The next problem you'll run into is that the shmid additions for sparc weren't
done correctly in the patch. Where you see 's64', it should be 'long', and
where you see 'u64' it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59758
--- Comment #10 from David S. Miller davem at davemloft dot net ---
Created attachment 32723
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32723action=edit
Fix for libsanitizer build on sparc
This adjusted patch fixes the build for me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60984
--- Comment #10 from Torbjörn Gard tgard at opentext dot com ---
I have started the build on a local filesystem with a shorter path
(/home/tga01/obj_stbldap01-4.9.0). The previous build was done on a nfs
partition.
The build in our environment is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61033
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56535
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56655
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=60898
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
After providing all the missing 'USE' items:
Where did you get them?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61034
Bug ID: 61034
Summary: Optimizing takes too many passes
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55850
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61002
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=60984
--- Comment #11 from Torbjörn Gard tgard at opentext dot com ---
No failure but restarted it in /home/tga01/obj_gcc with the thought of having a
shorter and simpler path.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61035
Bug ID: 61035
Summary: Crash in getcwd intrinsic due to stack overflow
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61035
Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jb at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59476
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49423
--- Comment #27 from Charles Baylis charles.baylis at linaro dot org ---
I suspect this still remains as a latent bug.
The zero/sign extend patterns still allow a memory operand, and there remains a
subset of memory operands which will trigger
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59948
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #3)
The code in fold-const for nonzero check is really broken. I have somewerhe
WIP symtab patch for doing this, but it is not completely
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59429
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59429
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Ignore my last comment. I hadn't completed my thoughts yet.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59476
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri May 2 16:00:57 2014
New Revision: 210007
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210007root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/59476
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59476
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri May 2 16:01:30 2014
New Revision: 210008
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210008root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/59476
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59429
--- Comment #7 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yeah, that was my initial idea here too. But this transformation is just an
improvement for underlying unsigned one-bit values, as here the negate is
indeed an nop.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59476
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59429
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
So I think we need to make a gross level determination of what a canonical form
for this stuff ought to be, then look at what it would take to transform into
that canonical form.
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59429
--- Comment #9 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The general solution here for patterns like
'(a cmp1 b ? x : (a cmp2 b ? y : z))' would be to split such statment up into
3 conditions like:
if (a cmp1 b)
r = x;
else if (a cmp2 b)
r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59429
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
So if you go into a cascaded if-else form, don't we have to recover the
COND_EXPR form to get good code?
Remember, that to get good code here, we need to discover a non-branching form
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59429
--- Comment #11 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
sure, I just shown the transformation for doing the sorting. After
prioritizing the order we should transform back to initial condition and just
changing comparison code plus the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
--- Comment #56 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
Created attachment 32724
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32724action=edit
Ada support patch updated for gcc 4.9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61036
Bug ID: 61036
Summary: [4.9/4.10 Regression] shared_ptrvoid(new int)
rejected
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60830
--- Comment #48 from Fanael fanael4 at gmail dot com ---
Is revision 209946 an attempt to fix this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61036
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25801
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri May 2 18:13:43 2014
New Revision: 210013
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210013root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c/25801
* c-typeck.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25801
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61036
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri May 2 18:29:20 2014
New Revision: 210014
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210014root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/61036
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61036
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri May 2 18:29:48 2014
New Revision: 210015
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210015root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/61036
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61036
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: s...@li-snyder.org
hi -
I'm using gcc from the 4.9 branch:
GNU C++ (GCC) version 4.9.1 20140502 (prerelease) (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
compiled by GNU C version 4.9.1 20140502 (prerelease), GMP version 5.1.2,
MPFR version 3.1.2, MPC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61014
--- Comment #5 from Sven Buijssen sven.buijssen at math dot uni-dortmund.de
---
git bisect along with a suitable script identified this gcc commit as culprit:
commit 599471650d6f0fb42b1c1c7e6b24ca21e65132fa
Author: ebotcazou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60965
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61014
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For crossref, that was the patch r167201:
[patch] Enable Ada bootstrap with LTO
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg02644.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60992
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 2 19:47:40 2014
New Revision: 210017
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210017root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/60992
* lambda.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60992
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 2 19:47:56 2014
New Revision: 210018
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210018root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/60992
* lambda.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60830
--- Comment #49 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
(In reply to Fanael from comment #48)
Is revision 209946 an attempt to fix this?
Yes. It is supposed to fix the cygwin-32 build with
--disable-sjlj-exceptions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60992
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61038
Bug ID: 61038
Summary: g++ -E is unusable with UDL strings
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61039
Bug ID: 61039
Summary: Using a constexpr's address as a template variable
produces an unnecessary warning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60930
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri May 2 21:49:26 2014
New Revision: 210020
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210020root=gccview=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2014-05-02 Bill Schmidt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60930
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri May 2 21:51:09 2014
New Revision: 210021
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210021root=gccview=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2014-05-02 Bill Schmidt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60930
Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61040
Bug ID: 61040
Summary: internal compiler error: in
gimplify_init_ctor_preeval, at gimplify.c:3320
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61041
Bug ID: 61041
Summary: Cannot create std::tr1::variate_generator from
variate_generator::engine(); engine_value_type error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.10.0 20140502 (experimental) [trunk revision 21] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 -c small.c
$ gcc-4.9 -O3 -c small.c
$
$ gcc-trunk -O3 -c small.c
small.c: In function ‘foo’:
small.c:4:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
foo ()
^
0x95c21f crash_signal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52539
--- Comment #20 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32725
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32725action=edit
New preliminary patch - please test
This patch takes a different approach. I have
52 matches
Mail list logo
