[Bug fortran/54221] Explicit private access specifier signals "unexpected defined but not used [-Wunused-function]" warning

2012-08-12 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54221 --- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2012-08-12 09:52:36 UTC --- Author: burnus Date: Sun Aug 12 09:52:33 2012 New Revision: 190325 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190325 Log: 2012-08-12 Tobias Burnus PR fortran/54

[Bug fortran/34004] Accepts invalid: Ambigiuous interface with subroutine.

2012-08-12 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34004 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6 f

[Bug fortran/39290] Subroutine/function ambiguity in generics

2012-08-12 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39290 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 f

[Bug tree-optimization/21485] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] missed load PRE, PRE makes i?86 suck

2012-08-12 Thread wbrana at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21485 --- Comment #52 from wbrana 2012-08-12 12:30:21 UTC --- This bug celebrated 7th anniversary this year. Congratulations!

[Bug fortran/34004] Accepts invalid: Ambigiuous interface with subroutine.

2012-08-12 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34004 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7

[Bug fortran/39290] Subroutine/function ambiguity in generics

2012-08-12 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39290 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug target/39423] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] [SH] performance regression: lost mov @(disp,Rn)

2012-08-12 Thread olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39423 --- Comment #31 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-12 13:23:24 UTC --- Author: olegendo Date: Sun Aug 12 13:23:20 2012 New Revision: 190326 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190326 Log: PR target/39423 * config/sh/predicates.md (

[Bug go/54233] New: FAIL: runtime/pprof

2012-08-12 Thread sch...@linux-m68k.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54233 Bug #: 54233 Summary: FAIL: runtime/pprof Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug fortran/54234] New: -Wconversion or -Wconversion-extra should warn for CMPLX(dp,dp)

2012-08-12 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54234 Bug #: 54234 Summary: -Wconversion or -Wconversion-extra should warn for CMPLX(dp,dp) Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/53823] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/930921-1.c execution at -O0 and -O1

2012-08-12 Thread danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823 --- Comment #22 from John David Anglin 2012-08-12 14:30:12 UTC --- Created attachment 27994 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27994 Patch /* synth_mult does an `unsigned int' multiply. As long as the mode is les

[Bug target/53967] GCC produces slow code for convolution algorithm with -mfpmath=sse (the AMD_64 default)

2012-08-12 Thread xunxun1982 at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53967 --- Comment #18 from xunxun 2012-08-12 15:41:35 UTC --- Is the bug related with PR19780?

[Bug fortran/54234] -Wconversion or -Wconversion-extra should warn for CMPLX(dp,dp)

2012-08-12 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54234 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Co

[Bug middle-end/54193] dump_gimple_assign raw can't handle 4 operands

2012-08-12 Thread glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54193 --- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse 2012-08-12 16:20:45 UTC --- Author: glisse Date: Sun Aug 12 16:20:41 2012 New Revision: 190328 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190328 Log: 2012-08-12 Marc Glisse PR middle-end/54193

[Bug libstdc++/54185] condition_variable not properly destructed

2012-08-12 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-12 16:22:28 UTC --- I need a ChangeLog entry before I can commit the change, which needs your name, could you provide a ChangeLog entry? Thanks. Unless I'm mistaken the volatile qualifiers in the test

[Bug fortran/54234] -Wconversion or -Wconversion-extra should warn for CMPLX(dp,dp)

2012-08-12 Thread tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54234 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug middle-end/54193] dump_gimple_assign raw can't handle 4 operands

2012-08-12 Thread glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54193 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

2012-08-12 Thread gary at intrepid dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #16 from Gary Funck 2012-08-12 18:08:05 UTC --- Created attachment 27995 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27995 test case #1 - struct targeted to TImode

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

2012-08-12 Thread gary at intrepid dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #17 from Gary Funck 2012-08-12 18:11:25 UTC --- Created attachment 27996 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27996 test case #2 - struct targeted to TImode

[Bug libstdc++/51452] [DR 2116] has_nothrow_.*constructor bugs

2012-08-12 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|SUSPENDED Summary|has_nothro

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

2012-08-12 Thread gary at intrepid dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #18 from Gary Funck 2012-08-12 18:17:19 UTC --- Created attachment 27997 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27997 test case #3 - struct targeted to TImode

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

2012-08-12 Thread gary at intrepid dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #19 from Gary Funck 2012-08-12 18:30:25 UTC --- (In reply to comment #15) > Do we have a run-time testcase? I attached three compile-time test cases that check if the generated RTL refers to TImode values. The test cases are set up

[Bug debug/51358] incorrect/missing location for function arg, -O0, without VTA

2012-08-12 Thread jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51358 --- Comment #4 from Jan Kratochvil 2012-08-12 18:37:26 UTC --- It would not be helpful, systemtap would then see no data (just not wrong data). Also at that time location list will need to be used and currently GDB when it sees any location list

[Bug c++/54235] New: Templates compile but don't link

2012-08-12 Thread todor.milev at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54235 Bug #: 54235 Summary: Templates compile but don't link Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug libstdc++/52681] [C++11] Using std::thread without -pthread crashes without warning

2012-08-12 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52681 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-12 18:57:58 UTC --- Author: redi Date: Sun Aug 12 18:57:53 2012 New Revision: 190330 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190330 Log: PR libstdc++/52681 * src/c++11/thread.cc (

[Bug libstdc++/52681] [C++11] Using std::thread without -pthread crashes without warning

2012-08-12 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52681 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug fortran/54234] -Wconversion or -Wconversion-extra should warn for CMPLX(dp,dp)

2012-08-12 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54234 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

2012-08-12 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #20 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-12 19:50:08 UTC --- (In reply to comment #19) > (In reply to comment #15) > > Do we have a run-time testcase? > > I attached three compile-time test cases that check if the generated RTL > refers > to TImode

[Bug debug/51358] incorrect/missing location for function arg, -O0, without VTA

2012-08-12 Thread fche at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51358 --- Comment #5 from Frank Ch. Eigler 2012-08-12 20:21:24 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > It would not be helpful, systemtap would then see no data [...] Not quite; systemtap can search the PC ranges/line tables for a nearby address where a co

[Bug debug/51358] incorrect/missing location for function arg, -O0, without VTA

2012-08-12 Thread mark at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51358 --- Comment #6 from Mark Wielaard 2012-08-12 20:30:36 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > It would not be helpful, systemtap would then see no data [...] > > Not quite; systemtap can search the PC ranges/line tables f

[Bug target/28896] -fstack-limit-symbol and m68k and non 68020

2012-08-12 Thread baker at usgs dot gov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28896 --- Comment #11 from Larry Baker 2012-08-12 21:24:31 UTC --- Andreas, I have patched the Code Sourcery gcc 4.6.1+ ColdFire cross-compiler to fix the bugs I found for "-m68020 -fPIC -fstack-limit-symbol" and to implement -fstack-limit-symbol for

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

2012-08-12 Thread gary at intrepid dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #21 from Gary Funck 2012-08-12 21:24:40 UTC --- (In reply to comment #20) > X86 doesn't support __int128 and requires SSE for TImode. > We may need to limit those testcases for int128 target. OK, I'll add: /* { dg-require-effective-

[Bug target/28896] -fstack-limit-symbol and m68k and non 68020

2012-08-12 Thread baker at usgs dot gov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28896 --- Comment #12 from Larry Baker 2012-08-12 21:28:39 UTC --- Created attachment 27998 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27998 Patch for trunk version 2012-08-12 of gcc/config/m68k.m68k.c

[Bug target/28896] -fstack-limit-symbol and m68k and non 68020

2012-08-12 Thread baker at usgs dot gov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28896 --- Comment #13 from Larry Baker 2012-08-12 21:29:58 UTC --- Created attachment 27999 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27999 Patch for trunk version 2012-08-12 of gcc/config/m68k/m68k.md

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

2012-08-12 Thread gary at intrepid dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 Gary Funck changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #27995|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

2012-08-12 Thread gary at intrepid dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 Gary Funck changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #27996|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

2012-08-12 Thread gary at intrepid dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 Gary Funck changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #27997|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

2012-08-12 Thread gary at intrepid dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #25 from Gary Funck 2012-08-12 22:08:50 UTC --- (In reply to comment #20) > X86 doesn't support __int128 and requires SSE for TImode. > We may need to limit those testcases for int128 target. If targeting struct's to TImode is suppor

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

2012-08-12 Thread gary at intrepid dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #26 from Gary Funck 2012-08-12 22:14:56 UTC --- Typo fixed below: #define MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE targetm.scalar_mode_supported_p (TImode) ? TImode : DImode

[Bug target/54236] New: [SH] Improve addc and subc insn utilization

2012-08-12 Thread olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54236 Bug #: 54236 Summary: [SH] Improve addc and subc insn utilization Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement P

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

2012-08-12 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com --- Comment #27 from H

[Bug target/54236] [SH] Improve addc and subc insn utilization

2012-08-12 Thread olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54236 Oleg Endo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

2012-08-12 Thread gary at intrepid dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #28 from Gary Funck 2012-08-12 22:43:16 UTC --- (In reply to comment #27) > Please try this patch: > > diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.h b/gcc/config/i386/i386.h > index c4d85b7..6c4c2ce 100644 > --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.h > +++

[Bug target/51244] SH Target: Inefficient conditional branch

2012-08-12 Thread olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244 --- Comment #47 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-12 22:47:21 UTC --- Author: olegendo Date: Sun Aug 12 22:47:15 2012 New Revision: 190331 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190331 Log: PR target/51244 * config/sh/sh.md: Add spli

[Bug c++/54198] [4.8 Regression] "error: invalid use of incomplete type" when building Chromium

2012-08-12 Thread daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54198 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler at |

[Bug c++/54235] Templates compile but don't link

2012-08-12 Thread daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54235 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler at |

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

2012-08-12 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #29 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-13 02:17:28 UTC --- (In reply to comment #28) > (In reply to comment #27) > > Please try this patch: > > > > diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.h b/gcc/config/i386/i386.h > > index c4d85b7..6c4c2ce 100644 > >

[Bug libstdc++/54237] New: [C++11] Make more tuple-related functions constexpr

2012-08-12 Thread zeratul976 at hotmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54237 Bug #: 54237 Summary: [C++11] Make more tuple-related functions constexpr Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/54238] New: If possible, TRANSFER should use assignment instead of MEMCPY

2012-08-12 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54238 Bug #: 54238 Summary: If possible, TRANSFER should use assignment instead of MEMCPY Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/54238] If possible, TRANSFER should use assignment instead of MEMCPY

2012-08-12 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54238 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-08-13 06:15:43 UTC --- Though the memcpy does get optimized to a VCE: addr.9_4 = (integer(kind=8)) ivtmp.29_28; D.1913_24 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(addr.9_4); So it might not be important enough to do at the

[Bug bootstrap/50167] gmp memory functions are extern "C" (graphite)

2012-08-12 Thread glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50167 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 fr

[Bug middle-end/52173] internal compiler error: verify_ssa failed possibly caused by itm

2012-08-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52173 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|