http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57662
--- Comment #4 from Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30650
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30650action=edit
proposed patch
When moving up an instruction, we can make empty basic blocks or create
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58151
Bug ID: 58151
Summary: conflict of writable function parameter in construct
with arbitrary order of evaluation is often a
spurious error
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55540
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56260
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58152
Bug ID: 58152
Summary: ARM: unnecessary push before call to noreturn function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58145
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30648|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58153
Bug ID: 58153
Summary: unordered_multimap::erase(iterator) is not
constant-time when many entries have the same key
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58153
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kenton Varda from comment #0)
I do not know exactly what the standard requires here, but all of the
references I can find claim that erase(iter) should be average-time
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58067
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Aug 14 09:09:58 2013
New Revision: 201720
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=201720root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/58067
* config/i386/i386.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58153
--- Comment #2 from Kenton Varda temporal at gmail dot com ---
The standard says average case O(1), worst case O(a.size()), so if every
element in the container has the same key then it's O(n).
I'm not sure that follows. Yes, the standard says
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
JamesH jnahughes at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jnahughes at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58128
--- Comment #1 from Ellis N. Thomas ExtraLeveLInSoftware at ntlworld dot com
---
Created attachment 30654
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30654action=edit
Source code showing problem handling the exception (TryStdIP3)
Further
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58128
--- Comment #2 from Ellis N. Thomas ExtraLeveLInSoftware at ntlworld dot com
---
Further Information about the Exception
Added extra others handler for Unexpected exceptions to TryStdIP3.
Compiled:
bash gnatmake TryStdIP3.ada
gcc -c -x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58106
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58154
Bug ID: 58154
Summary: if declaration and definition of a function differ in
scope, emit a warning
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58154
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58128
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58154
Alexander Huemer alexander.huemer at xx dot vu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58154
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58155
Bug ID: 58155
Summary: -Wliteral-suffix warns about tokens which are skipped
by preprocessor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58154
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Huemer alexander.huemer at xx dot vu ---
Maybe I really do not correctly understand the difference between storage class
and linkage.
To me it seems like in one case the linkage of a function is inherited from the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58154
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
All references are from N1570.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57459
--- Comment #9 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
Created attachment 30643 [details]
rh995446.i
We've got this reported in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995446 too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57459
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58152
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is expected behavior as noreturn functions are not sibcalled optimized.
The main reason is that even without debugging information, you want to find
out where the noreturn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58105
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
Sorry to bother you...
With Richard's E-mail today he approved this patch.
Could you as i386-port maintainer please do the check-in for me?
Thanks.
(a);
}
/// --- cut ---
The test compiles with Clang, errors with current trunk GCC:
g++ (GCC) 4.9.0 20130814 (experimental)
g++ -c t.cc -std=c++11
t.cc: In function ‘void Bar()’:
t.cc:9:14: error: call of overloaded ‘Foo(const int)’ is ambiguous
Fooint(a);
^
t.cc:9:14: note: candidates
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58145
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
Created attachment 30653 [details]
gcc49-pr58145.patch
Updated patch.
Thank you very much, Jakub!
The missing opportunity to learn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58157
Bug ID: 58157
Summary: ICE on character function with len given by a PURE
function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52641
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58152
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10837
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jay.foad at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57907
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58157
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58007
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
further reduced test below.
Fails with trunk-20130619 and 4.7.3 here.
And works with 4.8-20130416.
module matrix
type :: sparse_matrix
integer :: max_degree
end type
end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58007
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #5)
I suppose the following is happening (based on Janus' test):
[...]
This may well be wrong as the typebound procedure in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58007
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30656
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30656action=edit
tentative hack
For some reason this patch fixes the internal error on comment #6, but not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58158
Bug ID: 58158
Summary: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at
recog.c:2150 while compiling ImageMagick on mipsel
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58146
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58157
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58146
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #4)
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #0)
neither does it do so with -fcheck=all at runtime:
There is no out of bound at run time
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58139
Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58159
Bug ID: 58159
Summary: unique_ptr::reset should have debug assertion for
self-reset
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58159
Geoff Romer gromer at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gromer at google
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58159
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
What if the deleter doesn't actually destroy the object, and doing self-reset
is used as a crazy way to trigger the deleter to do something with the pointer,
but not to alter the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58159
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm also a little concerned that doing a self-reset followed by release() is
indeed valid ... but probably rare enough that we can still assert anyway at
the time of the self-reset.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51912
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58159
--- Comment #3 from Geoff Romer gromer at google dot com ---
What's the standard of review here? If we can only assert on undefined
behavior, even in debug mode, then this just can't be done (although maybe we
should make this undefined in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58159
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think all existing Debug Mode checks only trigger for genuine undefined
behaviour
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58160
Bug ID: 58160
Summary: Power8 fusion support has a bug that shows up in
running spec 2006
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58145
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57949
Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58159
Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhnikov at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58160
Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58161
Bug ID: 58161
Summary: internal compiler error while compiling
SemaDeclCXX.cpp
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58161
--- Comment #1 from SebastiansPublicAddress at googlemail dot com ---
Created attachment 30658
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30658action=edit
preprocessed file compressed because of file size limit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58161
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58146
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #5)
Technically a(n+1:n+4) is within the bounds, the out of bounds comes from
the loop with a 5-sized array.
The array expressions are not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58161
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51912
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
20130814 (experimental)
g++ -c -std=c++11 t.cc
t.cc: In constructor ‘constexpr B::B()’:
t.cc:6:8: error: use of deleted function ‘constexpr A::A(const A)’
struct B {
^
t.cc:1:8: note: ‘constexpr A::A(const A)’ is implicitly declared as deleted
because ‘A’ declares a move constructor
;
if (s[0] != '\0') return 2;
return 0;
}
/// --- cut ---
Using trunk gcc g++ (GCC) 4.9.0 20130814 (experimental)
g++ -g t.cc -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG_PEDANTIC -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG -std=c++11 ./a.out
/gcc-svn-install/include/c++/4.9.0/bits/basic_string.h:848:
std::basic_string_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc::reference
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58163
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58160
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30659
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30659action=edit
Proposed patch to fix problem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58160
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I forgot to mention, with this patch, I have built and successfully run 403.gcc
and 435.gromacs using the -O2 -m32 -mcpu=power7 -mtune=power8 options that
broke 403.gcc, and also
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58163
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58163
--- Comment #3 from Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhnikov at google dot com ---
The fix:
http://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=7e66313066525b0ce38e140e6d9c815e19d119bf
I don't believe the test is quite correct:
+// { dg-options -std=gnu++11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58164
Bug ID: 58164
Summary: internal compiler error: in make_decl_rtl, at
varasm.c:1147
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58164
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57428
Alexander Pyhalov alp at rsu dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alp at rsu dot ru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58164
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Similar invalid testcase.
void
foo (void)
{
int y;
goto *y;
}
72 matches
Mail list logo
