https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61360
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61824
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61801
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jul 17 07:47:19 2014
New Revision: 212738
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212738root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-07-17 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61801
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jul 17 07:48:49 2014
New Revision: 212739
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212739root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-07-17 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61801
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61801
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jul 17 07:49:44 2014
New Revision: 212740
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212740root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-07-17 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61779
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61779
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jul 17 07:53:16 2014
New Revision: 212741
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212741root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-07-17 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61741
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jul 17 07:57:30 2014
New Revision: 212742
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212742root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-07-17 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61741
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61085
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can you open a new bug for that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61804
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jul 17 08:32:18 2014
New Revision: 212743
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212743root=gccview=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-07-17 Paolo Carlini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61804
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61823
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61822
--- Comment #2 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com ---
It looks like
/* { dg-require-effective-target vect_condition } */
directive was missed in vect-cond-reduc-1.c test.
I will fix it asap.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61823
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
/* If this is a global variable with an initializer and we are in
IPA mode generate constraints for it. */
if (DECL_INITIAL (decl)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
__vic d.v.a at ngs dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Binary code bloat with |[4.9 Regression] Binary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61807
--- Comment #2 from Rajesh y.rajesh.4683 at gmail dot com ---
Hi,
The default genautomata.c in the gcc-4.9.0 package doesn't have the explicit
conversions at two places. I have made this change and have been able to get
past this error. But I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
Salvatore Filippone sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33127|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
--- Comment #5 from Salvatore Filippone sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it ---
Code works with 4.8.3, so this is a regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42616
Varvara Rainchik varvara.s.rainchik at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42616
--- Comment #14 from Varvara Rainchik varvara.s.rainchik at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 33130
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33130action=edit
Modified patch
I will send this patch to gcc patches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42616
--- Comment #15 from Varvara Rainchik varvara.s.rainchik at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 33131
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33131action=edit
Correct patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61268
--- Comment #8 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Richard,
from my POV, the patch is good to go.
Thanks.
Rainer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #47 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thomas,
any progress on this one? SPARC bootstrap has been broken for almost two
months
now (yes, there's an out-of-tree workaround, but still).
Thanks.
Rainer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #48 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Please provide preprocessed source for jcf-parse.c and instructions on how
to configure a cross compiler from x86_64-linux. Please also provide
disassembly around the failing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61825
Bug ID: 61825
Summary: [4.10 regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/static_assert9.C FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61825
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
--- Comment #7 from Salvatore Filippone sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it ---
The original code leaks memory like a sieve, and looks suspiciously similar to
PR55603. It is just possible that the whole area of function results needs to
be reviewed (I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60922
--- Comment #4 from Salvatore Filippone sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it ---
Looking at the original code of PR 61819, it is quite possible that the real
culprit are CLASS() ALLOCATABLE components, not necessarily the result itself
(being
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #49 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #48)
From what Thomas says in comment #46 it looks like for some unknown
reason a HI load from a 1-byte aligned address is emitted:
Yep that's it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61826
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61826
Bug ID: 61826
Summary: [4.10 regression] gcc.dg/pr44024.c UNRESOLVED
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61827
Bug ID: 61827
Summary: gcc.target/i386/fuse-caller-save-xmm.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61827
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61828
Bug ID: 61828
Summary: gcc.dg/strlenopt-8.c XPASSes
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61828
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61827
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-pc-solaris2.11,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61829
Bug ID: 61829
Summary: SEGV in fold_binary_loc for
gcc.dg/graphite/isl-codegen-loop-dumping.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61829
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61830
Bug ID: 61830
Summary: Memory leak with assignment to array of derived types
with allocatable components
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61830
--- Comment #1 from Salvatore Filippone sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it ---
Created attachment 33133
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33133action=edit
workaround
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61829
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61830
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
The following PRs give an ICE at the same place: pr54784, pr59765, pr60529, and
pr61766.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Note that the original test of pr54784 now gives the same ICE and the change of
behavior is in the range given in comment 6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #51 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ah, we also expand one from a TARGET_MEM_REF:
;; basic block 76, loop depth 2
;;pred: 79
load_dst_215 = MEM[base: ptr_110, offset: 0B];
and TARGET_MEM_REF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
Bug ID: 61831
Summary: [4.9.1 regression] runtime error: pointer being freed
was not allocated
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
Jürgen Reuter juergen.reuter at desy dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #52 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #51)
TARGET_MEM_REF is supposed to be a valid memory access for the target though
and, by definition, an unaligned access is not valid for a strict
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #53 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to thopre01 from comment #52)
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #51)
TARGET_MEM_REF is supposed to be a valid memory access for the target though
and, by definition, an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50961
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jul 17 16:22:19 2014
New Revision: 212760
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212760root=gccview=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-07-17 Paolo Carlini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50961
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||damian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60529
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59765
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61766
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59765
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61832
Bug ID: 61832
Summary: r212638 breaks building ncurses
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59765
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61833
Bug ID: 61833
Summary: [4.9] ICE in fold_comparison
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61723
--- Comment #8 from Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhnikov at google dot com ---
Filed PR61833
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61834
Bug ID: 61834
Summary: __attribute__((may_alias)) causes compilation error
with forward-declared constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter juergen.reuter at desy dot de ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
Can you rebuild your code with compile with the -fcheck=all option?
I did. This does not change anything. And it does not give any further
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #54 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On July 17, 2014 5:50:44 PM CEST, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #51 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #55 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On July 17, 2014 6:13:14 PM CEST, thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #53 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61835
Bug ID: 61835
Summary: Invalid comment on pretty printers breaks gdb
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 07:14:19PM +, juergen.reuter at desy dot de wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #2 from J??rgen Reuter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61836
Bug ID: 61836
Summary: Incorrect template argument deduction/substitution
failure?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Confirmed with 4.9.1 revision r212339. AFAICT revision r210749 is OK.
I suspect r211405 for 4.10 and r212329 for 4.9. Can you revert r212329
and see if the error disappear?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter juergen.reuter at desy dot de ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #5)
Confirmed with 4.9.1 revision r212339. AFAICT revision r210749 is OK.
I suspect r211405 for 4.10 and r212329 for 4.9. Can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59432
--- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
Re: comment #5. This bug report is about Solaris/x86 and is specific to
Solaris. If you want to report a bug on any other target, please open a
different bug. Thanks.
In your case I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61776
davidxl xinliangli at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xinliangli at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61825
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-pc-solaris2.11,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61776
--- Comment #4 from wmi at google dot com ---
Can we move the pure/const resetting loop to an earlier place: inside
branch_prob , after instrument_edges and before gsi_commit_edge_inserts (where
stmt_ends_bb_p is checked), so that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61776
--- Comment #5 from davidxl xinliangli at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to wmi from comment #4)
Can we move the pure/const resetting loop to an earlier place: inside
branch_prob , after instrument_edges and before gsi_commit_edge_inserts
(where
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61268
Pat Haugen pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61833
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61776
--- Comment #6 from wmi at google dot com ---
(In reply to davidxl from comment #5)
(In reply to wmi from comment #4)
Can we move the pure/const resetting loop to an earlier place: inside
branch_prob , after instrument_edges and before
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #8 from Jürgen Reuter juergen.reuter at desy dot de ---
Created attachment 33138
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33138action=edit
Test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61776
--- Comment #7 from davidxl xinliangli at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to wmi from comment #6)
(In reply to davidxl from comment #5)
(In reply to wmi from comment #4)
Can we move the pure/const resetting loop to an earlier place: inside
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #9 from Jürgen Reuter juergen.reuter at desy dot de ---
I added the test case which is at least freed from a lot of docu and the heavy
autotools/libtool setup. The makefile compiles the code and creates a binary
seg_prod. Run this as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61837
Bug ID: 61837
Summary: missed loop invariant expression optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61838
Bug ID: 61838
Summary: ICE on Windows with ctors defined outside class
definitions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51840
--- Comment #11 from Adam Warner adam at consulting dot net.nz ---
Thank you for the fixed example! Just for the record only toy VM examples can
be implemented using this technique.
GCC documentation used to say that that the extended asm 30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42734
Damien Buhl (daminetreg) damien.buhl at lecbna dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
93 matches
Mail list logo
