[Bug c++/57086] New: Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines re-entered.

2013-04-26 Thread madars+gccbug at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57086 Bug #: 57086 Summary: Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines re-entered. Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/57086] Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines re-entered.

2013-04-26 Thread madars+gccbug at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57086 --- Comment #1 from madars+gccbug at gmail dot com 2013-04-26 20:48:24 UTC --- Created attachment 29949 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29949 triggering code

[Bug c++/57086] Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines re-entered.

2013-04-26 Thread madars+gccbug at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57086 --- Comment #2 from madars+gccbug at gmail dot com 2013-04-26 21:20:45 UTC --- Created attachment 29951 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29951 pre-processed source file

[Bug tree-optimization/65307] [4.9 Regression] Incorrect optimization breaks basic arithmetic

2015-03-04 Thread madars+gccbug at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307 --- Comment #12 from madars+gccbug at gmail dot com --- By the way, in g++ the bug can be triggered even with -O1 and without marking any functions inline (implicitly or explicitly): http://web.mit.edu/madars/Public/gcc-basic-arithmetic-bug-O1

[Bug c/65307] New: Incorrect optimization breaks basic arithmetic

2015-03-04 Thread madars+gccbug at gmail dot com
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: madars+gccbug at gmail dot com The following code sample exhibits a bug in a gcc -O2 optimization pass. Namely, having defined two() and six() with the obvious return values, the value of two() * 2 + six() * 5 gets an assembly

[Bug c/65307] Incorrect optimization breaks basic arithmetic

2015-03-04 Thread madars+gccbug at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307 --- Comment #1 from madars+gccbug at gmail dot com --- I should clarify that the same behavior can be observed on Debian, Ubuntu and Fedora: gcc (Ubuntu 4.9.1-16ubuntu6) 4.9.1 gcc (Debian 4.9.1-19) 4.9.1 gcc (GCC) 4.9.2 20141101 (Red Hat 4.9.2-1