http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48585
Summary: [4.7 Regression] 483.xalancbmk in SPEC CPU 2006 failed
to build
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48524
Ryan Hill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48584
Summary: [4.7 Regression] AVX testcase failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48559
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2011-04-13
02:02:32 UTC ---
Johannes, all -
if everything goes well, in a couple of days we'll have a very good
std::is_constructible in, contributed by Daniel, thus, it will be trivial,
std::is_copy_constructi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48583
--- Comment #3 from Easwaran Raman 2011-04-13
00:18:38 UTC ---
Sorry for the noise. I have a patch to DSE that fails with nrv5.C and I thought
this is somehow causing it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48583
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28956
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.4.6, 4.5.3, 4.6.0
--- Comment #4 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48583
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-04-12
23:56:56 UTC ---
IIRC cfglayout has implicit gotos in the IR.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20039
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48583
Summary: Mismatch between CFG and IR after cfglayout
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48576
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson 2011-04-12
22:41:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 23969
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23969
standalone and reduced test case
Succeeds with no output, or segfaults.
I'll try a bisection la
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44194
--- Comment #9 from Easwaran Raman 2011-04-12
22:39:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 23968
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23968
Patch to dse.c to be less conservative with calls.
Currently dse kills all stores on a call since c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46076
--- Comment #28 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-04-12 22:31:53 UTC ---
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, matt at use dot net wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46076
>
> --- Comment #27 from Matt Hargett 2011-04-12 18:15:33
> UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42636
--- Comment #1 from Joern Heissler
2011-04-12 21:51:30 UTC ---
New compiler output:
gcc version 4.5.2 (Debian 4.5.2-8) outputs a new message:
$ gcc-4.5 -O -Wuninitialized kr-1-17.c
#‘ssa_name’ not supported by pp_c_expression#]’kr-1-17.c: In fu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20039
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-04-12 21:16:41 UTC ---
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, zackw at panix dot com wrote:
> Addendum: what would *you* describe as the correct C idiom for
> ensuring that the product of two signed integers
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-04-12 21:09:53 UTC ---
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, zackw at panix dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
>
> --- Comment #4 from Zack Weinberg 2011-04-12
> 21:03:01 U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
--- Comment #5 from Zack Weinberg 2011-04-12 21:04:34
UTC ---
Addendum: what would *you* describe as the correct C idiom for
ensuring that the product of two signed integers was positive and did
not overflow the range of a same-sized signed integ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48574
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-04-12
21:03:34 UTC ---
Reduced testcase (ICEs even with no options):
struct A
{
virtual void foo ();
};
template
void
bar (T x)
{
A &b = *x;
b.foo ();
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
--- Comment #4 from Zack Weinberg 2011-04-12 21:03:01
UTC ---
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 1:52 PM, joseph at codesourcery dot com
wrote:
>> In the code that this is cut down from, both arguments are known to be
>> strictly
>> positive, but neither
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-04-12 20:52:48 UTC ---
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, zackw at panix dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
>
> --- Comment #2 from Zack Weinberg 2011-04-12
> 20:40:41 U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
--- Comment #2 from Zack Weinberg 2011-04-12 20:40:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
>
> Two signed integers given that they are known to be positive, anyway.
> This may return unexpected results if either or both arguments are
> negative o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48582
Summary: Template non-type arguments doesn't accept null
pointer constant value
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-04-12 20:18:13 UTC ---
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, zackw at panix dot com wrote:
> To the best of my knowledge, this is the only safe way (without -fwrapv) to
> check whether the product of two sig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47178
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47490
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48519
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47490
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hilmar.ackermann at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47490
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at david dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30047
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45174
--- Comment #29 from Donald Schlicht 2011-04-12
19:36:43 UTC ---
I found that there is a problem with the gcc compiler that shipps with
Ubuntu. If you build the gcc compiler from scratch for Linux, then the
build for the arm works.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48519
--- Comment #8 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2011-04-12 19:32:16 UTC ---
"__Unwind_SjLj_Unregister clobbers return value". I can reproduce it with ver.
4.4.4; works with 4.4.6. See also: PR47490, PR30047 (of which this PR is a
dup).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48576
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48581
Summary: [C++0x][SFINAE] Lack of ADL in default template
argument types
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48559
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-04-12
19:20:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> On the other hand, we sometimes need references to elements of the
> random-access input sequence(s). We could always use an iterator, but that
> might be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48360
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas 2011-04-12 19:14:52
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Tue Apr 12 19:14:49 2011
New Revision: 172339
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172339
Log:
2011-04-12 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/48360
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48456
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas 2011-04-12 19:14:53
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Tue Apr 12 19:14:49 2011
New Revision: 172339
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172339
Log:
2011-04-12 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/48360
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46898
Thibault North changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnorth at fedoraproject dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48559
sing...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48195
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
Summary: missed optimization: integer overflow checks
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48195
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor 2011-04-12
18:31:58 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Apr 12 18:31:55 2011
New Revision: 172332
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172332
Log:
2011-04-12 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48578
--- Comment #2 from Job Noorman 2011-04-12
18:29:41 UTC ---
Ok I see. Thanks for the clarification!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42371
Matt Hargett changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48579
Summary: ICE: verify_flow_info: too many outgoing branch edges
from bb 3 with asm goto
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46890
Matt Hargett changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|VERIFIED
--- Comment #12 from Matt Hargett
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46076
--- Comment #27 from Matt Hargett 2011-04-12 18:15:33 UTC
---
That's unfortunate. Can you adjust the target milestone, then?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43270
Matt Hargett changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|VERIFIED
--- Comment #21 from Matt Hargett
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46076
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-04-12
17:39:29 UTC ---
No, such big changes shouldn't be backported to release branches.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48578
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48569
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-04-12
17:38:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 23966
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23966
pr48569.ii
Slightly reduced testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48569
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48577
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-04-12
17:34:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> The problem is my 4_6 dates back to the day before the day fixed the issue ;)
aha :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48578
Summary: Range-based for-loops do not compile when -nostdinc is
given
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48369
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jens.maurer at gmx dot net
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48577
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48577
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-04-12
16:59:41 UTC ---
Yes it looks identical - is it still present on the 4.6 branch?
Did Jason only fix the ICE, not the "sorry" ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48577
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-04-12
16:56:08 UTC ---
isn't this PR 48369 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48574
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48577
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #86 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-04-12 16:42:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #85)
> does elfhack work for you now?
Yes, no problems anymore.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48577
--- Comment #1 from Jens Maurer 2011-04-12
16:39:03 UTC ---
It works with gcc 4.5.2, so it seems to be a 4.6 regression.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48577
Summary: "unexpected ast of kind unordered_expr" using isnan()
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47400
--- Comment #7 from Rainer Orth 2011-04-12 16:37:08 UTC
---
Author: ro
Date: Tue Apr 12 16:37:04 2011
New Revision: 172326
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172326
Log:
gcc:
Backport from mainline:
2011-02-11 Rai
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46076
--- Comment #25 from Matt Hargett 2011-04-12 16:24:33 UTC
---
backport to 4.6 for 4.6.1? I'll apply locally and report any issues in the
meantime.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #85 from Jan Hubicka 2011-04-12
16:22:13 UTC ---
Thanks for analysis. removing inline should work too.
while as qoi issue gcc can find the missing bodu, i think it is better to avoid
more hacks. for 4.7 i will implement the new comdat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48367
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48413
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48573
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48006
Carlo Wood changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48006
Carlo Wood changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48576
Siarhei Siamashka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||siarhei.siamashka at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48574
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=48574
vincenzo Innocente changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||4.6.1
Summary|ICE (regres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48576
Summary: wrong code when accessing variables in a large stack
frame
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48574
--- Comment #3 from vincenzo Innocente
2011-04-12 14:55:26 UTC ---
sorry Richard,
I suspect I've overwritten your changes by mistake
vincenzo
On 12 Apr, 2011, at 4:52 PM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48574
vincenzo Innocente changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6/4.7 Regression] ICE|ICE (regression w.r.t.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48574
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48574
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48573
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2011-04-12 14:40:54
UTC ---
This is caused by revision 172316:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2011-04/msg00511.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48575
Summary: RTL vector patterns are limited to 26 elements
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg02105.htm
l
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48468
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48574
Summary: ICE (regression w.r.t. 4.6.0)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48573
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48573
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2011-04-12 14:03:18
UTC ---
I got
/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test-ia32corei7/src-trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20031208-1.c:
In function 'bar':^M
/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test-ia32corei7/src-trunk/gcc/te
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48573
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Many testcase failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48570
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-04-12
14:01:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 23962
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23962
gcc46-pr48570.patch
Untested fix (tested just on the new testcase, both on x86_64 and with powerpc
c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48090
--- Comment #15 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-04-12 13:55:57 UTC ---
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 01:53:48PM +, ramana at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Still need to backport and test on the 4.6 branch. That is next.
Small procedural note:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48090
--- Comment #14 from Ramana Radhakrishnan
2011-04-12 13:53:39 UTC ---
Still need to backport and test on the 4.6 branch. That is next.
Ramana
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48090
--- Comment #13 from Ramana Radhakrishnan
2011-04-12 13:52:49 UTC ---
Author: ramana
Date: Tue Apr 12 13:52:46 2011
New Revision: 172320
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172320
Log:
Fix PR target/48090
Modified:
branc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48549
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48549
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-04-12
13:44:35 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 12 13:44:33 2011
New Revision: 172319
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172319
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/48549
* combine.c (prop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48090
--- Comment #12 from Ramana Radhakrishnan
2011-04-12 13:42:52 UTC ---
Author: ramana
Date: Tue Apr 12 13:42:48 2011
New Revision: 172318
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=172318
Log:
Fix PR target/48090
2011-04-12 Ramana R
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48519
--- Comment #7 from Herbert 2011-04-12
13:41:06 UTC ---
Hi,
I don't know why I am the only one with the bug ..? The bug doesn't happen if I
write a second return at the end of the function, so I can solve the problem,
but anyway it's curious.. M
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48572
Summary: [4.7 regression] gcc.target/mips/mips-{3d,ps}-?.c
tests ICE on IRIX 6.5
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48571
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-04-12
13:11:56 UTC ---
Re-constructing array-refs (and thus an index space) is invalid. Which means
the C frontend should better change its behavior and not lower all array
accesses to pointer arithmetic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48570
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-04-12 12:44:03 UTC ---
There are lots of optimizations that are only present for narrow strings
but logically make sense for wide strings as well (for example, some str*
and mem* built-in f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48570
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-04-12
12:30:54 UTC ---
Yeah, cxx_eval_array_reference doesn't expect to have sizeof (x) > 1 accesses
to STRING_CSTs. Unfortunately, fold_read_from_constant_string doesn't handle
those either, and as for C++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48571
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-04-12
12:24:46 UTC ---
To also fail for 64bit change it to
for (i = 1; i < 624; ++i)
{
__SIZE_TYPE__ ii = (__SIZE_TYPE__)i + ((__SIZE_TYPE__)-4)/4;
*(unsigned int *)((void *)c + (__SIZE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48570
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-04-12
12:21:48 UTC ---
Breakpoint 1, main () at sub.cc:4
4 const wchar_t& z0 = (L"01234")[0];
(gdb) n
5 const wchar_t& z1 = (L"01234")[1];
(gdb)
6 const wchar_t& z2 = (L"01234")[2];
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
