http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50123
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50105
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.2
Summary|Possibly: I/O wi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50122
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
.globltest_mul_64
.typetest_mul_64, @function
test_mul_64:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
movl8(%esp), %edx# 20*movsi_internal/1[length = 4]
mulx4(%esp), %eax, %edx# 9bmi2_umulsidi3_1 [length = 7]
ret# 25return_internal[length = 1]
.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50123
Bug #: 50123
Summary: cmpxchg generated for atomic and with zero/or with -1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50071
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50122
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin 2011-08-18
23:17:37 UTC ---
The snippet above is rejected with:
pr50122.f90:4.1:
1continue
1
pr50122.f90:6.1:
1 continue
2
Error: Duplicate statement label 1 at (1) and (2)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50121
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin 2011-08-18
23:16:31 UTC ---
The snippet above is rejected with:
pr50121.f90:1.1:
1 type t
1
pr50121.f90:6.1:
1 print *, 'Hello'
2
Error: Duplicate statement label 1 at (1) and (2)
pr50121.f90:1.1:
1 type t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50122
Bug #: 50122
Summary: Same labels in nested scoping units rejected
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50121
Bug #: 50121
Summary: Labels in a TYPE statement should be put in the
derived type's scope
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50071
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin 2011-08-18
22:42:45 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Thu Aug 18 22:42:38 2011
New Revision: 177885
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177885
Log:
2011-08-19 Mikael Morin
PR fortran/50071
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
--- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-18 21:56:43
UTC ---
Another testcase:
[hjl@gnu-6 pr49721]$ cat foo.f
PARAMETER( LM=7 )
PARAMETER( NM=2+2**LM, NV=NM**3 )
PARAMETER( NR = (8*(NM**3+NM**2+5*NM-23+7*LM))/7 )
COMMON /X/ U,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50071
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin 2011-08-18
21:39:47 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Thu Aug 18 21:39:42 2011
New Revision: 177882
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177882
Log:
2011-08-18 Mikael Morin
PR fortran/50071
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49844
--- Comment #5 from PcX 2011-08-18 20:24:00 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #4)
I also report to binutils bugzilla:
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13031
But no one reply. :(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50113
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50113
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2011-08-18
19:14:54 UTC ---
- dsll$4,$4,32
move$5,$2
- dsll$5,$5,32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50113
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2011-08-18
19:11:13 UTC ---
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/920518-1.c execution, -O0
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/920518-1.c execution, -O1
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/920518-1.c execution, -O2
F
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18918
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49844
Matt Hargett changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at use dot net
--- Comment #4 from Ma
.LFE0:
> > .sizetest_mul_64, .-test_mul_64
> > .ident"GCC: (GNU) 4.7.0 20110818 (experimental)"
> > .section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
> > [hjl@gnu-6 pr50107]$
> >
> > I would expect
> >
> > movq
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49284
Matt Hargett changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at use dot net
--- Comment #7 from Ma
> ret
> .cfi_endproc
> .LFE0:
> .sizetest_mul_64, .-test_mul_64
> .ident"GCC: (GNU) 4.7.0 20110818 (experimental)"
> .section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
> [hjl@gnu-6 pr50107]$
>
> I would expect
>
> movq%
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #114 from Rainer Orth 2011-08-18 17:29:14
UTC ---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Aug 18 17:29:10 2011
New Revision: 177877
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177877
Log:
Properly define __cplusplus (PR libstdc++-v3/1773)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49890
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov 2011-08-18
17:06:26 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Aug 18 17:06:18 2011
New Revision: 177874
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177874
Log:
2011-08-18 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50120
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40685
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50120
Bug #: 50120
Summary: c_sizeof returns wrong value for struct
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50119
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50119
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-08-18 16:32:31 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Aug 18 16:32:23 2011
New Revision: 177871
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177871
Log:
2011-08-18 Paolo Carlini
PR libs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49890
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50109
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.5.4 |4.4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40685
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0
Known to fail|
est_mul_64
.typetest_mul_64, @function
test_mul_64:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
movq%rdi, %rdx
mulx%rsi, %rax, %rsi
movq%rsi, %rdx
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE0:
.sizetest_mul_64, .-test_mul_64
.ident"GCC: (GNU) 4.7.0 20110818 (experimental
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18918
--- Comment #67 from Tobias Burnus 2011-08-18
15:14:10 UTC ---
The LOCK_TYPE issues (cf. comment 62) are now fixed. Except for a few bugs and
for lacking support of polymorphic coarrays (which depends on polymorphic array
support), all coarray fe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18918
--- Comment #66 from Tobias Burnus 2011-08-18
15:10:30 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Aug 18 15:10:25 2011
New Revision: 177867
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177867
Log:
2011-08-18 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50119
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50118
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50107
--- Comment #8 from Vladimir Makarov 2011-08-18
14:56:46 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Aug 18 14:56:36 2011
New Revision: 177865
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177865
Log:
2011-08-17 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50119
Bug #: 50119
Summary: copy_n advances InputIterator one more time than
necessary
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50107
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-18 14:44:03
UTC ---
Another problem is
[hjl@gnu-6 pr50107]$ cat udi.i
extern unsigned long long k2;
unsigned long long test_mul_64 (unsigned long a, unsigned long b)
{
k2 = (unsigned long long) a * b;
k2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50092
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.2, 4.7.0
Summary|[4.4/4.5/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50092
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-08-18
14:37:59 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Aug 18 14:37:56 2011
New Revision: 177861
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177861
Log:
PR target/50092
* config/i386/i386.c (assig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50118
Bug #: 50118
Summary: node-based containers cannot use allocators with
explicit constructor template
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50009
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50009
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-08-18
14:29:14 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Aug 18 14:29:10 2011
New Revision: 177860
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177860
Log:
PR target/50009
* stor-layout.c (update_ali
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50092
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-08-18
14:27:41 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Aug 18 14:27:38 2011
New Revision: 177859
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177859
Log:
PR target/50092
* config/i386/i386.c (assig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50109
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2011-08-18
14:23:46 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Aug 18 14:23:41 2011
New Revision: 177858
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177858
Log:
2011-08-18 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/50
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50017
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50017
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-08-18
14:13:53 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Aug 18 14:13:48 2011
New Revision: 177857
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177857
Log:
PR debug/50017
* tree-vect-stmts.c (vect_fi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50067
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-08-18
13:38:16 UTC ---
The problem seems to be probably in dr_analyze_indices. When it is looking at
a[i + 1] or a[i + 2] DR_REF is ARRAY_REF and the computed access_fn is like
{2, +, 1}_1, which means inde
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50115
--- Comment #11 from Balint Szente 2011-08-18
13:20:18 UTC ---
Thanks for the explanation and for your time.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50115
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-08-18
13:13:22 UTC ---
actually, technically unsigned integers cannot "overflow", they wrap, with
well-defined behaviour (as it says, "unsigned arithmetic does not overflow")
but in layman's terms, yes,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50115
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-08-18
13:11:45 UTC ---
correct
you can tell gcc to wrap on signed overflow with -fwrapv
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50117
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-08-18
13:10:55 UTC ---
(Obviously it shouldn't crash the compiler, but ...)
you probably don't want to use std::make_pair in C++0x, i.e. with an
explicit template argument list. The definition of make_p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50117
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50115
--- Comment #8 from Balint Szente 2011-08-18
12:44:53 UTC ---
Just for the record, for clarifying this for me and other people... There are
two statements in C++ standard:
* Chapter 5
"If during the evaluation of an expression, the result is not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50071
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50044
--- Comment #12 from Martin Lederhilger 2011-08-18
12:27:50 UTC ---
For the case with using "extern template...":
If you look at bug #40068, you can see that there was a similar problem (not
exported typeinfo to DLL) once - for normal classes. T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50117
Bug #: 50117
Summary: Segmentation fault when using std::make_pair with
std::ofstream and c++0x
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50115
--- Comment #7 from Balint Szente 2011-08-18
11:59:59 UTC ---
Thanks for your prompt reply. I understand that my test case is undefined
behavior from the C/C++ standard's perspective.
I disregarded that it is not allowed to make any overflows. U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49963
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49963
--- Comment #12 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-08-18 11:30:50 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Aug 18 11:30:42 2011
New Revision: 177848
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=177848
Log:
2011-08-18 Paolo Carlini
Jos
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50067
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-08-18
11:22:54 UTC ---
Smaller testcase:
extern void abort (void);
int a[6] = { 0, 0, 0, 0, 7, 0 };
static int *p = &a[4];
int
main ()
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 4; ++i)
{
a[i + 1] = a[i + 2] >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32997
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|dodji at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50067
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50115
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48010
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32997
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50115
--- Comment #5 from Balint Szente 2011-08-18
11:13:08 UTC ---
Yes. Is G++'s VRP considering that "value" will be always positive, and for
this reason will never be equal to ::min()?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50115
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-08-18
10:46:32 UTC ---
are you assuming that integer overflow wraps?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50009
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50115
--- Comment #3 from Balint Szente 2011-08-18
09:58:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 25050
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25050
Arch Linux's G++ exact version and other info
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50115
--- Comment #2 from Balint Szente 2011-08-18
09:57:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 25049
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25049
Preprocessed file with Arch Linux's GCC 4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50115
--- Comment #1 from Balint Szente 2011-08-18
09:56:54 UTC ---
Created attachment 25048
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25048
Suse's G++ exact version and other info
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50116
Bug #: 50116
Summary: internal compiler error: in decode_addr_const, at
varasm.c:2632
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50115
Bug #: 50115
Summary: Integer test optimised away at -O2 by the VRP
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50092
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50109
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2011-08-18
09:11:21 UTC ---
Draft patch:
--- a/libgfortran/io/list_read.c
+++ b/libgfortran/io/list_read.c
@@ -345,28 +345,19 @@ eat_separator (st_parameter_dt *dtp)
do
{
if (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48600
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2011-08-18
09:08:31 UTC ---
Honza?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50113
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-08-18
09:07:29 UTC ---
Can you try disabling the VRP code that changes unsigned -> float to
int -> float (simplify_float_conversion_using_ranges)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50092
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=50101
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2011-08-18
08:58:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > I suppose the CTR is introduced after RA in machine-dependent reorg? In
> > which
> > case can the issue be fixed on branch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50105
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Possibly: [4.6/4.7 |Possibly: I/O with g6.5 -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50114
Bug #: 50114
Summary: ICE on invalid code in pop_binding, at
cp/name-lookup.c:382
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45625
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50017
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50017
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
88 matches
Mail list logo
