http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54554
--- Comment #9 from Dominik Muth ---
Please note that in Bug 60791 no warning is given even with -O3 (except when
using a legacy version of gcc).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58595
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 10 07:45:21 2014
New Revision: 209262
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209262&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-03-06 Jakub Jelinek
Mead
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36282
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 10 07:47:55 2014
New Revision: 209263
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209263&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-03-13 Jakub Jelinek
PR middle-e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60516
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 10 07:49:02 2014
New Revision: 209264
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209264&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-03-17 Jakub Jelinek
PR target/6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60603
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 10 07:51:52 2014
New Revision: 209265
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209265&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-03-22 Jakub Jelinek
PR debug/606
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60689
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 10 07:54:08 2014
New Revision: 209267
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209267&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-03-28 Jakub Jelinek
PR c++/60689
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60693
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 10 07:57:09 2014
New Revision: 209268
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209268&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-03-28 Jakub Jelinek
PR target/60
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60516
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8 regression]: |[4.7 regression]: cc1plus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58595
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36282
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.3
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regress
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60603
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.3
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regress
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60689
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60693
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
--- Comment #16 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Thu Apr 10 08:13:30 2014
New Revision: 209269
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209269&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR debug/60655 part 2.
2014-04-10 Ramana Radhakrishnan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51253
--- Comment #10 from Akim Demaille ---
Well, I have finally found a simple workaround for some of the cases: GCC seems
to be right in the order of evaluation when initializing an array so:
template
int f1()
{
int i = 0;
swallow{ i = 10 * i +
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60469
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60805
Bug ID: 60805
Summary: Validate const expressions created by var-tracking /
debug information across targets.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60806
Bug ID: 60806
Summary: libstdc++ abi check should ignore missing TLS symbols
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60469
--- Comment #10 from Igor Zamyatin ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> > > (In reply to Igor Zamyatin from comment #6)
> > > > Yes, I was going to post
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60567
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #15)
> This patch fixes the ICE by copying forced_by_abi as part of cgraph fixup in
> ipa visibility. I would like Jason to comment on this. I think fix at C++
> FE side
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60469
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
You need to include gimple-expr.h header for that. But, if you look e.g. at
c/c-typeck.c or c-family/cilk.c, it is already used in the FEs.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60567
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
By the C++ FE change, do you mean something like:
--- gcc/cp/method.c.jj2014-03-27 08:06:11.0 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/method.c2014-04-10 10:59:36.226288999 +0200
@@ -387,6 +387,7 @@ use_thunk (tree t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60795
--- Comment #4 from Kergonath ---
The slightly modified version:
module m
contains
subroutine allocate_array(s_array)
character(:), dimension(:), allocatable, intent(out) :: s_array
allocate(character(2) :: s_array(10))
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60502
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 10 09:35:39 2014
New Revision: 209274
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209274&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-03-12 Jakub Jelinek
Marc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60502
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60411
--- Comment #21 from John Marino ---
Hi Eric,
When I tried to build the ARMv5 cross compiler (-march=armv5te) I get the
following error:
/tmp//cc5BKnWK.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp//cc5BKnWK.s:31: Error: selected processor does not support Thumb m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60807
Bug ID: 60807
Summary: internal compiler error (basic_string.tcc)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60807
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Klausner ---
This was first filed in the NetBSD bug tracker at
http://gnats.netbsd.org/48731
where it was suggested to file this upstream.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60411
--- Comment #22 from Eric Botcazou ---
> When I tried to build the ARMv5 cross compiler (-march=armv5te) I get the
> following error:
>
> /tmp//cc5BKnWK.s: Assembler messages:
> /tmp//cc5BKnWK.s:31: Error: selected processor does not support Thum
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60807
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60807
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Can't reproduce this on Linux/x86_64.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60804
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60800
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
Unfortunately, I could not replicate this with -Ofast -ffast-math
(isn't -ffast-math part of -Ofast?) and trunk revision 209179.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52844
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60761
--- Comment #15 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> Also, perhaps to make the change conservative enough for 4.9, might be best
> to not append anything now, and only look at DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN (recurse
> on it)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60800
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57926
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to lailavrazda1979 from comment #14)
> Why wait? I'm not hugely opposed, but bugfixes are bugfixes, and one more
> fixed bug makes a better 4.9 release, right?
Because all changes risk introducing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60808
Bug ID: 60808
Summary: Typo in definition of ATxmega256A3BU
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50584
jimis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jimis at gmx dot net
--- Comment #5 from jimis -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60809
Bug ID: 60809
Summary: C99 struct initialiser with embedded self assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50584
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60761
--- Comment #16 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #15)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #13)
> > It is not clear to me why you want to print at all. It is an
> > internal detail.
>
> ...just prin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60809
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60589
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52844
--- Comment #11 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Apr 10 14:06:36 2014
New Revision: 209276
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209276&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-10 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/52844
* g++.dg/cpp0x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52844
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60809
--- Comment #2 from jimis ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> I see nothing surprising here; an assignment expression has the value of the
> left operand after the assignment. So we 1) set query2.ai_flags to
> AI_PASSIVE, 2) use thi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60809
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
6.7.9 Initialization
23 The evaluations of the initialization list expressions are indeterminately
sequenced with respect to one another and thus the order in which any side
effects occur is unspecified.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60469
--- Comment #12 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Thanks, will post a patch after the testing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60807
--- Comment #4 from Martin Husemann ---
Neither can I on NetBSD/amd64 - will check with Thomas for differences on his
system
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60804
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #32577|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59759
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gereon.kremer at cs dot rwth-aache |
|n.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60800
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
-O3 -fstack-arrays -ffast-math also fails on both i686 and x86-64.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60800
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55022
Mircea Namolaru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mircea.namolaru at inria dot fr
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60761
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 10 16:20:07 2014
New Revision: 209278
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209278&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/60761
* error.c (dump_decl) : If
DECL_LANG_SPECIFIC is N
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60761
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
Summary|[4.9 Regression] Na
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60663
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60809
--- Comment #4 from jimis ---
Thanks Andreas, that's the reference I was looking for!
I guess since this code triggers unspecified behaviour, a warning would be even
more needed. :-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60567
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 32581
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32581&action=edit
gcc49-pr60567.patch
The ipa.c version (changing node->forced_by_abi instead of
decl_node->forced_by_abi), also b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60810
Bug ID: 60810
Summary: [4.9 Regression] list directed io from array results
in end of file
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60811
Bug ID: 60811
Summary: arc/arc.c:2135: possible bad argument to abs
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60809
--- Comment #5 from jimis ---
Andreas: On a second thought, this paragraph only talks about the order
*within* the initialisation list. But no matter of that order, the
initialisation list is always evaluated to:
{
.ai_fam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60567
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #19)
> Created attachment 32581 [details]
> gcc49-pr60567.patch
>
> The ipa.c version (changing node->forced_by_abi instead of
> decl_node->forced_by_abi), also bootst
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60567
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 10 18:57:48 2014
New Revision: 209280
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209280&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/60567
* ipa.c (function_and_variable_visibility): Copy force
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60567
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60191
--- Comment #16 from edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Thu Apr 10 20:13:23 2014
New Revision: 209282
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209282&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
moved this ChangeLog entry to fortran/ChangeLog
2014-04-04
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60784
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
This regtested/bootstrapped patch fixes it, but I'm not fully confident it's
the Right Place. The problem is that constructor_designated wasn't set
properly when entering pop_init_level from c_parser_braced_i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60812
Bug ID: 60812
Summary: gcc -g -gpubnames statically linked produces a
.debug_pubnames that is wrong or corrupted
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60813
Bug ID: 60813
Summary: [Coarray] substrings mishandled
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic, rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59121
--- Comment #19 from Mircea Namolaru ---
The problem for many of these simple cases is with Graphite formulation of
memory accesses constraints. For Fortran, or C (if arrays are declared as
pointers), a memory access is not constrained enough (ba
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57926
--- Comment #16 from lailavrazda1979 at gmail dot com ---
Okay, no worries.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60769
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Apr 10 23:22:10 2014
New Revision: 209285
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209285&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-10 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/60769
* lr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58600
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60814
Bug ID: 60814
Summary: incorrect integer promotion when multiplying unsigned
short values
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60814
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60815
Bug ID: 60815
Summary: Inconsistent prologue line table location
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60815
--- Comment #1 from David Blaikie ---
Oh - and if we can confirm the direction you're going with this (if the
decision is that the prologue should start, like Clang, at the opening '{'
always, for example) I'll go ahead and update the GDB test sui
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60810
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60662
--- Comment #2 from Stuart Ambler ---
Using gdb on my code, it appears that the immediate problem is caused by what
gthr-default.h and/or gthr-posix.h do to detect whether a program is
multi-threaded, which they seem to assume is ok as a precondit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60816
Bug ID: 60816
Summary: Optimzed arm code generates infinite loop via branch
instruction branching to current program counter
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60810
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60816
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60817
Bug ID: 60817
Summary: gcc configure script misdetects TLS support on
x86_64-pc-solaris* with gnu as
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: mi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60818
Bug ID: 60818
Summary: ICE in validate_condition_mode on
powerpc-e500v2-linux-gnuspe
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60769
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60812
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Severi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60816
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Parker ---
Ach, my bad. This snippet came from some old code that started failing with
4.8. I whittled it down for the example but didn't vet it closely enough.
Looks like a bug in our code! Thanks for poiting out th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60804
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --
90 matches
Mail list logo
