http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55650
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55650
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55652
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55652
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55079
--- Comment #17 from Andreas Schwab schwab at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-12
09:32:47 UTC ---
Author: schwab
Date: Wed Dec 12 09:32:40 2012
New Revision: 194437
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194437
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55633
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-12
09:33:00 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 12 09:32:52 2012
New Revision: 194438
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194438
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55451
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-12
09:39:01 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 12 09:38:56 2012
New Revision: 194439
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194439
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-12
09:43:18 UTC ---
Thanks Zdenek - I'll give the patch further testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52640
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-12
09:43:39 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 12 09:43:33 2012
New Revision: 194441
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194441
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52640
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55451
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55633
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55660
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55659
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55659
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-12
09:56:29 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 12 09:56:22 2012
New Revision: 194442
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194442
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43631
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-12
09:56:28 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 12 09:56:22 2012
New Revision: 194442
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194442
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55513
--- Comment #12 from Pawel Sikora pluto at agmk dot net 2012-12-12 09:57:32
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Fixed in trunk.
no backport to 4.7 branch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55658
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43631
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55657
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55656
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55654
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55659
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55651
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55631
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54324
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-12
10:56:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Another proposed patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg00766.html
I very strongly second what stevenb said:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54402
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-12-12 11:07:21 UTC ---
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-10
10:56:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54402
--- Comment #20 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-12 11:10:03
UTC ---
Created attachment 28935
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28935
sparc-sun-solaris2.10 testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55539
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-12
11:16:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Strangely enough I needed to add some epsilon to 0.5 so that
the second test passes, because the exact value 0.5 appears
to get
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55659
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-12
11:18:39 UTC ---
arm-elf and sh4-unknown-linux-gnu are built successfully with
revision 194442. Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55661
Bug #: 55661
Summary: options summary lists -fsanitize in wrong section
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55243
--- Comment #24 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-12
11:35:07 UTC ---
What I don't understand is what is bad with Rolf's proposal of defining STAMP?
We simply don't need to stamp anything for the gnattools.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #157 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-12-12 11:43:27 UTC ---
With revision 193740 libxul's size is ~34MB, which is OK.
(Unfortunately this new ICE happens with yesterdays gcc when linking libxul:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-12
13:07:26 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Dec 12 13:07:19 2012
New Revision: 19
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=19
Log:
2012-12-12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
; less sqrtV.s
gcc version 4.8.0 20121212 (experimental) [trunk revision 194442] (GCC)
funny enough it works with arbitrary (inlined) functions of mine (instead of
sqrtf) see computeA
computeL does vectorize, not in the way I expected!
I really do not understand the code generated
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55663
Bug #: 55663
Summary: [C++11] Alias template combined with constexpr
function is considered non-const
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55657
--- Comment #5 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-12-12
14:06:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I suppose these are all regressions?
In the strict sense, no. These are due to changes in the Objective-C ABI in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55656
--- Comment #2 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-12-12
14:07:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I suppose these are all regressions?
In the strict sense, no. These are due to changes in the Objective-C ABI in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55654
--- Comment #6 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-12-12
14:08:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
I suppose these are all regressions?
In the strict sense, no. These are due to changes in the Objective-C ABI in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55664
Bug #: 55664
Summary: Missing diagnostic dependent using declaration
resolved to type without 'typename'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55662
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-12
14:18:04 UTC ---
27: not vectorized: no vectype for stmt: _4 = va[i_34];
scalar_type: float32x8_t
The vectorizer does not handle loops that already have vector
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55660
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-12
14:18:46 UTC ---
Ok, the issue is we preload char_type_node anyway, as show by
Index: gcc/tree-streamer.c
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: jan.kratoch...@redhat.com
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
This is a regression for GDB gdb.cp/abstract-origin.exp.
PASS: gcc (GCC) 4.7.3 20121212
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55665
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55664
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-12
15:41:21 UTC ---
The template is never instantiated so no diagnostic is required.
Even if you instantiate it I'm not sure the code is necessarily ill-formed,
unles
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55664
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-12
15:49:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
But it doesn't say the keyword typename *must* be used is
s/used is/used if/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54718
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-12-12 15:53:49 UTC ---
The extreme sparcv9 libgo compile times without
-fno-var-tracking-assignments are handled in PR debug/54402, it seems.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44776
Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55665
--- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2012-12-12 16:00:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 28936
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28936
gdb.cp/abstract-origin.cc from FSF GDB tree, for -O0 -g.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44495
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-12-12 16:04:21 UTC ---
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-11
08:32:07 UTC ---
Does this still occur?
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55665
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46837
Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55665
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #158 from Teresa Johnson tejohnson at google dot com 2012-12-12
18:59:56 UTC ---
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:43 AM, markus at trippelsdorf dot de
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55666
Bug #: 55666
Summary: Use scratch register to avoid save/restore of callee
saved register
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55666
--- Comment #1 from Carrot carrot at google dot com 2012-12-12 19:48:30 UTC
---
Created attachment 28938
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28938
testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #159 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-12-12 20:35:37
UTC ---
hal/Hal.gcda: 96.72%: num counts=30069, min counter=16389
hal/Hal.gcda: 97.50%: num counts=35296, min counter=10241
hal/Hal.gcda:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55667
Bug #: 55667
Summary: [regression] -O1 enables frame pointer push to move
around on x86_64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55667
--- Comment #1 from David Flater dflater at nist dot gov 2012-12-12 20:45:01
UTC ---
Created attachment 28940
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28940
log of build of test program
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55667
--- Comment #2 from David Flater dflater at nist dot gov 2012-12-12 21:25:27
UTC ---
N.B., in the test program, the problem occurs in fn2 but not fn1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54402
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-12
22:09:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 28941
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28941
sparc hack
I think on SPARC that is partly the fault of the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54402
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-12
22:21:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 28942
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28942
--param max-vartrack-reverse-op-size patch
Another patch, to avoid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54402
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #28563|0 |1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55631
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-12
23:01:51 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Dec 12 23:01:40 2012
New Revision: 194457
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194457
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55508
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-12
23:05:27 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 12 23:05:23 2012
New Revision: 194459
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194459
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55665
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-12
23:19:38 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 12 23:19:32 2012
New Revision: 194461
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=194461
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55665
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55668
Bug #: 55668
Summary: Incorrect lookup for template member of dependent
template
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55668
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-13
01:24:35 UTC ---
I think there is a dup of this bug somewhere. Related to how sometimes we
don't need to use template in some cases.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55668
--- Comment #2 from Tudor Bosman tudorb at fb dot com 2012-12-13 01:28:05 UTC
---
It's hard to believe that I'm the first one to hit this problem, but my 10
minutes of searching haven't found any duplicates; perhaps my search-fu isn't
up
72 matches
Mail list logo
