https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61582
--- Comment #8 from Maksymilian Arciemowicz ---
(In reply to Tim Shen from comment #7)
> "(.*{100}{100}{100})" seems to be a stack overflow. It's because regex
> executor uses recursion. It could be fixed (not segfault but memory
> exhaustion) by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61582
--- Comment #9 from Tim Shen ---
(In reply to Maksymilian Arciemowicz from comment #8)
> (In reply to Tim Shen from comment #7)
> > "(.*{100}{100}{100})" seems to be a stack overflow. It's because regex
> > executor uses recursion. It could be fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61616
Bug ID: 61616
Summary: Internal compiler error during reload in gcc-4.7.4
configured as a cross-compiler for a mips target
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60947
--- Comment #16 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to amker from comment #15)
> Well, only thing suspicious that I can see, the memset function is a special
> implementation and not from C standard library. Basically it doesn't need
> to follo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61604
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61607
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jun 26 07:44:10 2014
New Revision: 212011
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212011&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-26 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/61607
* tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61616
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson ---
Upstream support for gcc-4.7 has just ended. Please try gcc-4.8.3 or gcc-4.9.0
instead and report whether they work or not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61391
--- Comment #4 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
It turned out that wrong PR number was used in ChangeLog. In fact this bug was
fixed:
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211263&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR tree-optimization/61319
* tree-if-con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61582
--- Comment #10 from Maksymilian Arciemowicz ---
There is also one other alternative like this
http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/lib/libc/regex/regcomp.c.diff?r1=1.29&r2=1.30&f=h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61576
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61614
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini ---
What do you mean by "sometime after"? Is that commit or something else, later?
In case we should bisect.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61614
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60947
--- Comment #17 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #16)
> (In reply to amker from comment #15)
> > Well, only thing suspicious that I can see, the memset function is a special
> > implementation and not f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58051
piotr5 at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||piotr5 at netscape dot net
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61616
--- Comment #2 from niva at niisi dot msk.ru ---
I've checked that gcc-4.8.1 works OK.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56193
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It will be ready when it's ready - there are bigger issues that are higher
priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56193
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
Yes, sure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61617
Bug ID: 61617
Summary: add boost::coroutine
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58051
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60947
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61617
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to piotr5 from comment #0)
> this has been suggested for addition in the next standard.
So have lots of other things, many of them contradictory.
We've got plenty of work that *is* in the standa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61614
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58051
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I wonder if it's this simple:
--- a/gcc/cp/typeck.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/typeck.c
@@ -8618,8 +8618,6 @@ check_return_expr (tree retval, bool *no_warning)
|| TREE_CODE (retval) == PARM_DECL)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56858
--- Comment #14 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #12)
> Steven, is it possible to emit NOTE_INSN_EH_REGION_END in such way that it
> would not split the call and its NOTE_INSN_CALL_ARG_LOCATION? This would
> solve the a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61507
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56858
--- Comment #15 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 33009
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33009&action=edit
Updated patch that introduces trap_shadows pass after eh_ranges
Updated patch due to the new pass manager.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60723
--- Comment #12 from Dodji Seketeli ---
Created attachment 33010
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33010&action=edit
A patch candidate that I am currently testing
This the patch I am running through bootstrap at the moment.
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39270
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61360
GGanesh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Ganesh.Gopalasubramanian@am
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58972
--- Comment #4 from Akim Demaille ---
Could someone confirm this bug? The 4.9 I have does not ICEs and still refuses
both sources.
akim@erebus /tmp $ g++-mp-4.9 --version
13:12:11
g++-mp-4.9 (MacPor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61607
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jun 26 11:29:34 2014
New Revision: 212026
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212026&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-26 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/61607
* tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61616
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61614
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.9.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61613
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61617
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61610
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
Summary|ICE in assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58972
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Seems to be fixed on trunk, probably by Ville's fix for protected members.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56974
--- Comment #3 from Mark Wielaard ---
There is DWARFv5 proposal for this now:
http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=131105.1
This adds DW_AT_reference[_qualifier] and DW_AT_rvalue_reference[_qualifier] as
attributes to DW_TAG_subprogram or DW_T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58972
--- Comment #6 from Ville Voutilainen ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> Seems to be fixed on trunk, probably by Ville's fix for protected members.
Yes, that fix is for 59483, I didn't wish to have these as duplicates
because wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61607
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
The bogus loop cancelling is fixed as well as the equivalence recording. Still
DOM does
Registering jump thread: (3, 4) incoming edge; (4, 5) joiner; (5, 6)
normal;
Registering jump thread: (5, 7) in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58972
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #6)
Makes sense to me, I'll do that for the local-class example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60898
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61618
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61618
Bug ID: 61618
Summary: [4.10 Regression]: ICE in expand_vec_perm_pblendv, at
config/i386/i386.c with -mavx
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60898
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #5)
> (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #4)
> > > After providing all the missing 'USE' items:
> >
> > Where did you get them?
>
> Dear Jerry,
>
> Dominique
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61420
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61618
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Testcase (compile with -O2 -mavx):
--cut here--
typedef float V __attribute__ ((vector_size (32)));
typedef unsigned int VI __attribute__ ((vector_size (32)));
extern V a, b, c, d;
void test_9 (void)
{
VI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61433
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61459
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61488
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61499
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61500
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61515
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61539
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61542
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.4 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61557
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61566
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61614
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61575
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60718
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60851
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60854
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60871
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60929
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60990
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61106
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61144
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61160
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39270
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|paolo.carlini at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61619
Bug ID: 61619
Summary: Benefits from -ftree-vectorize lost easily when
changing unrelated code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61144
--- Comment #22 from Rich Felker ---
> Richard Biener changed:
>What|Removed |Added
>
>Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61618
Stupachenko Evgeny changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||evstupac at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61619
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61619
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Unfortunately the inits look like
>
> [/usr/include/c++/4.9/bits/stl_algobase.h : 378:6] MEM[(char *
> {ref-all})&S] = MEM[(char * {ref-all})&._94];
> pretmp_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61619
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59611
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
--- Comment #3 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
On 06/25/2014 01:45 PM, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
>
> --- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
> Ed?
>
Paolo,
I'm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61620
Bug ID: 61620
Summary: FAIL: go.test/test/fixedbugs/bug242.go execution, -O2
-g
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55136
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini ---
Closely related to PR39270.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61621
Bug ID: 61621
Summary: Normal enum switch slower than test case.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61503
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Thu Jun 26 15:27:52 2014
New Revision: 212036
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212036&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-26 Marc Glisse
PR target/61503
* config/i386/i386.md (x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56633
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
This is fixed in mainline, I'm adding the testcase and closing the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61503
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56633
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jun 26 15:34:59 2014
New Revision: 212037
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212037&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-26 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/56633
* g++.dg/cpp0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56633
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6940
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61298
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I think I have seen this bug before. The problem comes from using
> non-logical compares for equal but logical compares for the others.
Maybe you were thinking o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61433
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61581
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49132
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppluzhnikov at google dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61596
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61451
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61362
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61360
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka ---
If anyone is interested in what architecutres are affected without looking at
the source code, there are rough statistics of ICEs encountered since it first
appeared:
ICEs count | switch
21 -march=bdver3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61484
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59480
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||filip.roseen at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61470
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lisp2d at lisp2d dot net
--- Comment #14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61528
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
