[Bug fortran/51788] Unstable gfc_verify_binding_labels check for a binding label which collides with a global entity

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51788 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/59024] ICE: after printing certain error messages, the compiler seg faults.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59024 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/59539] Missed optimisation: VEX-prefixed operations don't need aligned data

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59539 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/59530] Incorrect check on string_view operator[]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59530 --- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> --- I mistakenly took cases for string which must be null terminated. I think we'll just remove those lines from the testcases.

[Bug c/52773] internal error: in replace_pseudos_in, at reload1.c:577

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52773 --- Comment #9 from Mikael Pettersson --- (In reply to fdarkangel from comment #8) > Persists in gcc 4.8.2. Try Bernd's patch, see link in comment #7.

[Bug gcov-profile/59527] [4.9 Regression] ICE: in fixup_reorder_chain, at cfgrtl.c:3739 during PGO Firefox build

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59527 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/59539] Missed optimisation: VEX-prefixed operations don't need aligned data

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59539 --- Comment #2 from Thiago Macieira --- I have to use _mm_loadu_si128 because non-VEX SSE requires explicit unaligned loads. Here's more food for thought: __m128i result = _mm_cmpeq_epi16((__m128i*)p1, (__m128i*)p2); For non-VEX code, so fa

[Bug gcov-profile/59542] New: [4.9 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed during Firefox build with 'gold'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59542 Bug ID: 59542 Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed during Firefox build with 'gold' Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: n

[Bug tree-optimization/50955] [4.7 Regression] IVopts incorrectly rewrite the address of a global memory access into a local form.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955 bin.cheng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amker.cheng at gmail dot com --- Comment #17

[Bug lto/59543] New: [4.9 Regression] lto1: fatal error: Cgraph edge statement index out of range

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59543 Bug ID: 59543 Summary: [4.9 Regression] lto1: fatal error: Cgraph edge statement index out of range Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: nor

[Bug ipa/59265] [4.9 Regression] Segmentation fault in ipa_note_param_call for -fprofile-use in SPEC CPU2006

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59265 --- Comment #24 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- I've opened pr59543 for the cgraph edge statement index issue.

[Bug bootstrap/59541] [4.9 Regression] Revision 206070 breaks bootstrap on darwin

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59541 --- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Comparing the test suite results between r206040 and r206072+my_fix, the test gcc.dg/tree-prof/pr52027.c (see pr52794) passes now, but the tests g++.dg/tree-prof/partition1.C gcc.dg/tree-prof/20041218-

[Bug ipa/59226] [4.9 Regression] ICE: in record_target_from_binfo, at ipa-devirt.c:661

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59226 --- Comment #14 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to David Kredba from comment #13) > Qtwebkit-4.8.5 still ICEs after that patch applied: > lto1: internal compiler error: in record_target_from_binfo, at > ipa-devirt.c:673 Can you attach a te

[Bug rtl-optimization/59535] [4.9 regression] -Os code size regressions for Thumb1/Thumb2 with LRA

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59535 --- Comment #8 from Yvan Roux --- Forget my previous comment, I can reproduce it after a rebase.

[Bug gcov-profile/59542] [4.9 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed during Firefox build with 'gold'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59542 --- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12322 is still open.

[Bug target/59539] Missed optimisation: VEX-prefixed operations don't need aligned data

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59539 --- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > Created attachment 31463 [details] > gcc49-pr59539.patch >From a quick look at the patch, the proposed patch doesn't support masked insns. I think it is better to

[Bug rtl-optimization/58668] [4.8/4.9 regression] internal compiler error: in cond_exec_process_insns, at ifcvt.c:339

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58668 --- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou --- > I think the problem is that ifcvt relies on consistent counting of insns, > but the various functions count different things. What kind of insns is responsible for the discrepancy that leads to the ICE? >

[Bug tree-optimization/50955] [4.7 Regression] IVopts incorrectly rewrite the address of a global memory access into a local form.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955 --- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de --- "amker.cheng at gmail dot com" wrote: >http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955 > >bin.cheng changed: > > What|Removed |Added >-

[Bug target/59539] Missed optimisation: VEX-prefixed operations don't need aligned data

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59539 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > > Created attachment 31463 [details] > > gcc49-pr59539.patch > > From a quick look at the patch, the proposed patch do

[Bug lto/59543] [4.9 Regression] lto1: fatal error: Cgraph edge statement index out of range

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59543 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 f

[Bug target/59539] Missed optimisation: VEX-prefixed operations don't need aligned data

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59539 --- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > > From a quick look at the patch, the proposed patch doesn't support masked > > insns. > > > > I think it is better to introduce corresponding sse.md expanders for

[Bug rtl-optimization/58668] [4.8/4.9 regression] internal compiler error: in cond_exec_process_insns, at ifcvt.c:339

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58668 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #6) > > I think the problem is that ifcvt relies on consistent counting of insns, > > but the various functions count different things. > > What kind of insns is respon

[Bug rtl-optimization/58668] [4.8/4.9 regression] internal compiler error: in cond_exec_process_insns, at ifcvt.c:339

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58668 --- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou --- > Perhaps we can ignore those always in flow_find_head_matching_sequence? Yes, that seems to be the most sensible thing to do, so that count_bb_insns, flow_find_cross_jump and flow_find_head_matching_sequence

[Bug lto/59543] [4.9 Regression] lto1: fatal error: Cgraph edge statement index out of range

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59543 --- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #1) > Thank you, > can you, please, check that the problem appears still after > 2013-12-17 Jan Hubicka > > * ipa-utils.h (possible_polymorphic_call_tar

[Bug target/59539] Missed optimisation: VEX-prefixed operations don't need aligned data

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59539 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 31464 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31464&action=edit gcc49-pr59539.patch So like this instead? The half-merged AVX512f support makes any changes hard, it isn't clear

[Bug tree-optimization/50955] [4.7 Regression] IVopts incorrectly rewrite the address of a global memory access into a local form.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955 --- Comment #19 from bin.cheng --- > > >not about an iv use appearing in memory reference while not marked as > >address_p, and can be fixed by revise the existing check condition, is > >it true? > > No, even expressing an address this way is br

[Bug c++/35535] stl_vector.h Compilation error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35535 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7

[Bug middle-end/35545] virtual call specialization not happening with FDO

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #11

[Bug debug/59418] [4.9 regression] ICE in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2221

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59418 --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou --- Author: ebotcazou Date: Wed Dec 18 10:34:00 2013 New Revision: 206084 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206084&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR debug/59418 * dwarf2cfi.c (dwarf2out_frame_debug_cfa_offset):

[Bug c++/22007] Stack overflow in g++.dg/eh/cleanup1.C

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22007 --- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #5 from Kai Tietz --- > Issue seems to be solved for 32-bit and 64-bit windows on cygwin-host. I > can't > reproduce issue there anymore for 4.9 and 4.8. > > Is issue stil

[Bug debug/59418] [4.9 regression] ICE in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2221

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59418 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/59539] Missed optimisation: VEX-prefixed operations don't need aligned data

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59539 --- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6) > Created attachment 31464 [details] > gcc49-pr59539.patch > > So like this instead? The half-merged AVX512f support makes any changes > hard, it isn't clear if the

[Bug rtl-optimization/57422] [4.9 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in dominated_by_p with custom flags

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57422 Andrey Belevantsev changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassign

[Bug c/59520] a possible inconsistency in error diagnostics with "-pedantic -std=c99"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59520 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/59539] Missed optimisation: VEX-prefixed operations don't need aligned data

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59539 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Because otherwise it can generate an aligned load, and I thought when user explicitly writes he wants an unaligned load we should honor it, perhaps for some reason the alignment info can't be trusted etc. ix86

[Bug target/59539] Missed optimisation: VEX-prefixed operations don't need aligned data

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59539 --- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8) > Because otherwise it can generate an aligned load, and I thought when user > explicitly writes he wants an unaligned load we should honor it, perhaps for > some reas

[Bug rtl-optimization/58668] [4.8/4.9 regression] internal compiler error: in cond_exec_process_insns, at ifcvt.c:339

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58668 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 31466 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31466&action=edit gcc49-pr58668.patch So like this? Note, the USE/CLOBBER change for flow_find_cross_jump has been added in 2011 f

[Bug rtl-optimization/58668] [4.8/4.9 regression] internal compiler error: in cond_exec_process_insns, at ifcvt.c:339

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58668 --- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou --- > So like this? Note, the USE/CLOBBER change for flow_find_cross_jump > has been added in 2011 for 4.7 as PR43920 fix: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg02246.html Yes, let's try that, but use

[Bug c/59520] a possible inconsistency in error diagnostics with "-pedantic -std=c99"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59520 --- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Wed, 18 Dec 2013, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > The main concerns for diagnostics in such cases are (a) that they are > > meaningful and (b) that invalid code gets at least one error

[Bug fortran/55207] [F08] Variables declared in the main program should implicitly get the SAVE attribute

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55207 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED Assignee|una

function cast leads to gcc abort command

hi, in the following code: func.c i tried to cast an int(int,int) function into an int(int) function an got the gcc warning and note: func.c:13:32: warning: function called through a non-compatible type [enabled by default] func.c:

[Bug tree-optimization/59544] New: Vectorizing store with negative stop

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59544 Bug ID: 59544 Summary: Vectorizing store with negative stop Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimiza

[Bug c++/22007] Stack overflow in g++.dg/eh/cleanup1.C

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22007 Kai Tietz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/59411] [F03] Problem with TYPE(C_PTR) constant initialization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59411 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/59493] [OOP] ICE: Segfault on Class(*) pointer association

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59493 --- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: janus Date: Wed Dec 18 12:36:00 2013 New Revision: 206085 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206085&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2013-12-18 Janus Weil Backport from mainline 2013-12-1

[Bug other/59545] New: Signed integer overflow issues

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59545 Bug ID: 59545 Summary: Signed integer overflow issues Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: other Ass

[Bug libgomp/59546] New: wrong behavior with reduction

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59546 Bug ID: 59546 Summary: wrong behavior with reduction Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libgomp As

[Bug fortran/58991] ICE with associate and character string constant

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58991 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libgomp/59546] wrong behavior with reduction

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59546 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- i is uninitialized before the reduction, so if you add some number of threads to an uninitialized value, you can get pretty much anything. Also, there is no guarantee !$omp parallel will create exactly omp_ge

[Bug libstdc++/59436] [4.9 Regression] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++200x/stdc++.cc (test for excess errors)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59436 --- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Also seen on x86_64-apple-darwin13 at r206072 (only once). Note that on x86_64-apple-darwin13 I see random PCH failures when I do the check with -j8, e.g.: WARNING: program timed out. FAIL: gcc.dg/pc

[Bug c++/59083] -fisolate-erroneous-paths produces illegal instruction with enabled -fprofile-generate

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59083 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug fortran/59493] [OOP] ICE: Segfault on Class(*) pointer association

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59493 --- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- The fix has been committed to trunk and the 4.8 branch, so that it will be included in the upcoming releases 4.9.0 and 4.8.3.

[Bug bootstrap/59536] [4.9 regression] internal compiler error: in cselib_record_set, at cselib.c:2376 breaks m68k-linux bootstrap

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59536 --- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab --- Between r205951 and r205984.

[Bug bootstrap/59536] [4.9 regression] internal compiler error: in cselib_record_set, at cselib.c:2376 breaks m68k-linux bootstrap

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59536 --- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab --- Created attachment 31468 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31468&action=edit Preprocessed source

[Bug gcov-profile/59542] [4.9 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed during Firefox build with 'gold'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59542 --- Comment #2 from Teresa Johnson --- Thanks, I am able to reproduce now with the gold linker option. Investigating... Teresa On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:52 AM, trippels at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=595

[Bug bootstrap/59536] [4.9 regression] internal compiler error: in cselib_record_set, at cselib.c:2376 breaks m68k-linux bootstrap

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59536 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added Target|m68k-linux |m68k-*-* CC|

[Bug bootstrap/59536] [4.9 regression] internal compiler error: in cselib_record_set, at cselib.c:2376 breaks m68k-linux bootstrap

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59536 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/59110] [4.9 Regression] [c++1y] ICE using auto in cast

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59110 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/59111] [4.9 Regression] [c++11] ICE on invalid usage of auto in return type

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59111 --- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek --- *** Bug 59110 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c++/59111] [4.9 Regression] [c++11] ICE on invalid usage of auto in return type

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59111 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libfortran/59513] Fortran runtime error: Sequential READ or WRITE not allowed after EOF marker, possibly use REWIND or BACKSPACE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59513 --- Comment #5 from ARuopp --- Created attachment 31469 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31469&action=edit test script for running xfoil with output in file this is a test script for testing xfoil in running in batch mode. what

[Bug libfortran/59513] Fortran runtime error: Sequential READ or WRITE not allowed after EOF marker, possibly use REWIND or BACKSPACE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59513 --- Comment #6 from ARuopp --- Hi, thank you very much for your effort. Compiling is not the problem. Try to execute the script, which I attached. Without the "backspace" modification, xfoil ends with the error message: At line 655 of file ../

[Bug libfortran/59513] Fortran runtime error: Sequential READ or WRITE not allowed after EOF marker, possibly use REWIND or BACKSPACE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59513 --- Comment #7 from ARuopp --- Execute with: xfoil < xfoil.naca.run1

[Bug libstdc++/59436] [4.9 Regression] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++200x/stdc++.cc (test for excess errors)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59436 --- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek --- Doesn't seem to be related to make -jN, I can reproduce it every few iterations of: rm i686-pc-linux-gnu/bits/stdc++.h.gch/O2ggnu++0x.gch; /usr/src/gcc/obj825/./gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc -B/usr/src/gcc/obj825/.

[Bug libfortran/59513] Fortran runtime error: Sequential READ or WRITE not allowed after EOF marker, possibly use REWIND or BACKSPACE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59513 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/59547] New: Problem with using tbp specification function in multiple class procedures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59547 Bug ID: 59547 Summary: Problem with using tbp specification function in multiple class procedures Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norma

[Bug fortran/59450] [OOP] ICE for type-bound-procedure expression in module procedure interface

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59450 --- Comment #9 from b...@miller-mohr.de --- Hi, verified that the ICE is gone in gcc version 4.9.0 20131217 (experimental). Thanks a lot. However, there is still a problem. As it is no longer an ICE I filed a new bug 59547 Cheers Marcus

[Bug libfortran/59513] Fortran runtime error: Sequential READ or WRITE not allowed after EOF marker, possibly use REWIND or BACKSPACE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59513 --- Comment #9 from ARuopp --- BTW: "At line 652 of file"is correct. Line 655 was including some comments from my side... I didn't want to confuse

[Bug c/57681] Possible missing break in cp-array-notation.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57681 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug fortran/59547] Problem with using tbp specification function in multiple class procedures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59547 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug bootstrap/59536] [4.9 regression] internal compiler error: in cselib_record_set, at cselib.c:2376 breaks m68k-linux bootstrap

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59536 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Sounds just like uncovering a latent bug in cselib?

[Bug rtl-optimization/59535] [4.9 regression] -Os code size regressions for Thumb1/Thumb2 with LRA

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59535 Vladimir Makarov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Commen

[Bug c++/59548] New: Abort after copying std::unordered_map in debug mode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59548 Bug ID: 59548 Summary: Abort after copying std::unordered_map in debug mode Product: gcc Version: 4.8.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug c++/59548] Abort after copying std::unordered_map in debug mode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59548 --- Comment #1 from Max Kellermann --- Created attachment 31472 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31472&action=edit Bug fix: call only _Base constructor, no implicit _Safe_sequence_base copy

[Bug c++/59548] Abort after copying std::unordered_map in debug mode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59548 --- Comment #2 from Max Kellermann --- Created attachment 31473 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31473&action=edit Delete the implicit copy constructor in C++11 mode to detect bugs like this one

[Bug libfortran/59513] Fortran runtime error: Sequential READ or WRITE not allowed after EOF marker, possibly use REWIND or BACKSPACE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59513 --- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres --- I also see the problem with gfortran 4.7.3.

[Bug target/59460] [4.9 Regression] ICE with -mips16 and __attribute__((nomips16))

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59460 --- Comment #1 from Robert Suchanek --- Ping Where should I look at or what else could be done to resolve this without reverting the patch for pr58115?

[Bug c++/59548] Abort after copying std::unordered_map in debug mode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59548 --- Comment #3 from Max Kellermann --- This is a regression by svn r195253. >From the commit message: "* include/debug/unordered_map.h: Undo previous commit. Default copy and move constructors."

[Bug libfortran/59513] [4.7/4.8/4.9] Fortran runtime error: Sequential READ or WRITE not allowed after EOF marker, possibly use REWIND or BACKSPACE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59513 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Fortran runtime error: |[4.7/4.8/4.9] Fortran

[Bug target/59539] Missed optimisation: VEX-prefixed operations don't need aligned data

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59539 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Dec 18 16:50:06 2013 New Revision: 206090 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206090&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/59539 * config/i386/sse.md (_loadu, _loaddqu): Ne

[Bug ipa/59226] [4.9 Regression] ICE: in record_target_from_binfo, at ipa-devirt.c:661

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59226 --- Comment #15 from David Kredba --- I am sorry, I can't. When I did -nostdlib link on all object files, it linked. Only full link command with all libraries causes ICE for me and I do not now how to reduce it/identify.

[Bug target/59539] Missed optimisation: VEX-prefixed operations don't need aligned data

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59539 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/59547] [OOP] Problem with using tbp specification function in multiple class procedures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59547 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid C

[Bug target/59539] Missed optimisation: VEX-prefixed operations don't need aligned data

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59539 --- Comment #12 from Thiago Macieira --- Thanks, rebuilding!

[Bug fortran/59547] [OOP] Problem with using tbp specification function in multiple class procedures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59547 --- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- The following should be sufficient (regtesting now): Index: gcc/fortran/class.c === --- gcc/fortran/class.c(revision 206083) +++

[Bug fortran/59547] [OOP] Problem with using tbp specification function in multiple class procedures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59547 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|una

[Bug target/59549] New: [SH] __builtin_return_address causes push/pop of PR

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59549 Bug ID: 59549 Summary: [SH] __builtin_return_address causes push/pop of PR Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Comp

[Bug bootstrap/59541] [4.9 Regression] Revision 206070 breaks bootstrap on darwin

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59541 --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres --- I have reverted the changes in gcc/config/darwin.c done by r 206070 and bootstrap went fine. The new failing tests are still there.

[Bug bootstrap/59541] [4.9 Regression] Revision 206070 breaks bootstrap on darwin

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59541 --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > The new failing tests are still there. I was wrong: gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indircall-1.c passes.

[Bug c++/59550] New: compiler crash when forming a pointer to a reference would be needed in std::initalizer_list

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59550 Bug ID: 59550 Summary: compiler crash when forming a pointer to a reference would be needed in std::initalizer_list Product: gcc Version: 4.8.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/52794] gcc.dg/tree-prof/pr52027.c fails on x86_64/i386-apple-darwin*

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52794 --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres --- This seems to be fixed by a change between r206040 and r206072. Due to pr59541 you need to revert r206070 for the file gcc/config/darwin.c.

[Bug debug/59418] [4.9 regression] ICE in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2221

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59418 --- Comment #6 from Ryan Mansfield --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #5) > Thanks for reporting the problem and distilling the testcase. No problem, thanks for fixing.

[Bug fortran/59493] [OOP] ICE: Segfault on Class(*) pointer association

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59493 --- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: janus Date: Wed Dec 18 22:00:53 2013 New Revision: 206101 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206101&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2013-12-18 Janus Weil PR fortran/59493 * gfortran.h (

[Bug gcov-profile/59542] [4.9 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed during Firefox build with 'gold'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59542 --- Comment #3 from Teresa Johnson --- On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote: > Thanks, I am able to reproduce now with the gold linker option. > Investigating... > Teresa > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:52 AM, trippels at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/59440] [4.9 Regression] ICE in force_decl_die, at dwarf2out.c:20111 with -g

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59440 --- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus --- The problem is the following code in tree-nested.c: /* A subroutine of convert_local_reference. Create a local variable in the parent function with DECL_VALUE_EXPR set to reference the field in FRAME.

[Bug rtl-optimization/59535] [4.9 regression] -Os code size regressions for Thumb1/Thumb2 with LRA

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59535 --- Comment #10 from Vladimir Makarov --- ./cc1 -Os -mthumb -mcpu=arm7tdmi -fno-short-enums test.i -m{no-}lra -fno-schedule-insns2 original reload reload with change lra with change reg moves 104 86 101 al

[Bug other/59545] Signed integer overflow issues

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59545 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse --- Dup of PR 57324? (yes, I know, gcc vs clang)

[Bug target/59551] New: ICE when compiling ImageMagick on hppa/linux

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59551 Bug ID: 59551 Summary: ICE when compiling ImageMagick on hppa/linux Product: gcc Version: 4.8.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: targe

[Bug fortran/59440] [4.9 Regression] ICE in force_decl_die, at dwarf2out.c:20111 with -g

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59440 --- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus --- I see two not so pretty solutions: a) The simple way: Duplicate debug info by also emitting code for the original DECL. b) The hard & slow way: In tree-nested.c, add another walk_tree(), to be run after wa

[Bug target/59551] ICE when compiling ImageMagick on hppa/linux

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59551 --- Comment #1 from Aaro Koskinen --- Created attachment 31474 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31474&action=edit Preprocessed source triggering the bug.

  1   2   >