[Bug bootstrap/36301] target mips64vrel-elf, configure-target-libiberty error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36301 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug target/4605] [alpha-osf]mips-tfile & spaced directory names

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4605 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug rtl-optimization/50217] New: combine pass generated wrong code for unsigned char comparison on MIPS

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50217 Bug #: 50217 Summary: combine pass generated wrong code for unsigned char comparison on MIPS Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 3.4.4 Status: UNCONFIR

[Bug rtl-optimization/52576] New: fib.c (attached) is slower on current (4.8.0) than 4.6.x

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52576 Bug #: 52576 Summary: fib.c (attached) is slower on current (4.8.0) than 4.6.x Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/52575] New: avr*: error: unable to find a register to spill in class 'POINTER_REGS

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52575 Bug #: 52575 Summary: avr*: error: unable to find a register to spill in class 'POINTER_REGS Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIR

[Bug target/52488] avr-*: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2123

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52488 --- Comment #9 from Ralf Corsepius 2012-03-13 06:16:03 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > You can look up in the device datasheet to see how much RAM it has. Well, datasheets is one thing, GCC's internal notion is yet

[Bug target/52488] avr-*: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2123

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52488 --- Comment #8 from Eric Weddington 2012-03-13 05:37:45 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) > ../../../../../../gcc-4.7.0-RC-20120302/newlib/libc/posix/glob.c:206:1: error: > allocating 2050 bytes of stack is more than 'at90s2313' can provide > make

[Bug target/52488] avr-*: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2123

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52488 --- Comment #7 from Ralf Corsepius 2012-03-13 03:28:39 UTC --- Result with your patch applied: ... ./../../../../../gcc-4.7.0-RC-20120302/newlib/libc/posix/glob.c: In function 'glob': ../../../../../../gcc-4.7.0-RC-20120302/newlib/libc/posix/glob

[Bug tree-optimization/32120] missed PRE/FRE of a*2+4 and (a+2)*2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32120 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Blocks|22586

[Bug tree-optimization/52574] New: [4.6 Regression] gcc tree optimizer generates incorrect vector load instructions for x86_64, app crashes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52574 Bug #: 52574 Summary: [4.6 Regression] gcc tree optimizer generates incorrect vector load instructions for x86_64, app crashes Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc

[Bug rtl-optimization/52573] New: [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 regression] regrename creates overlapping register allocations for output operands

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52573 Bug #: 52573 Summary: [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 regression] regrename creates overlapping register allocations for output operands Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0

[Bug bootstrap/52570] Error message during build of gcc-4.6.3: lto/lto-object.o: file not recognized: File truncated

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52570 --- Comment #2 from abcgcc 2012-03-12 22:56:26 UTC --- On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:45 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org < gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52570 > > Andrew Pinski changed: > > W

[Bug target/52572] New: suboptimal assignment to avx element

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52572 Bug #: 52572 Summary: suboptimal assignment to avx element Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug bootstrap/52570] Error message during build of gcc-4.6.3: lto/lto-object.o: file not recognized: File truncated

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52570 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target||i686-redhat-linux Status|UNCO

[Bug ada/48835] porting GNAT to m68k-linux

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835 --- Comment #53 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-03-12 22:14:46 UTC --- Test result for gcc-4.8-20120304 bootstrapped w/ Ada enabled has been posted: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-03/msg01425.html The Ada results look as follows:

[Bug middle-end/52450] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr52402.c at -O1 and above

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52450 --- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-03-12 22:13:55 UTC --- On 12-Mar-12, at 5:55 AM, rguenther at suse dot de wrote: > Is that so? If so then the testcase is invalid. I had wondered about that, but packed is a GCC extension, an

[Bug tree-optimization/52571] vectorizer changes alignment of common symbols

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52571 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-03-12 22:10:16 UTC --- Dup of either PR 48127 or PR 49379.

[Bug tree-optimization/52571] New: vectorizer changes alignment of common symbols

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52571 Bug #: 52571 Summary: vectorizer changes alignment of common symbols Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug c/52570] New: Error message during build of gcc-4.6.3: lto/lto-object.o: file not recognized: File truncated

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52570 Bug #: 52570 Summary: Error message during build of gcc-4.6.3: lto/lto-object.o: file not recognized: File truncated Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.3

[Bug libitm/52526] libitm: stuck in futex_wait

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52526 --- Comment #2 from Patrick Marlier 2012-03-12 21:29:30 UTC --- Indeed, with your proposed patch, it fixes the problem. Thanks!

[Bug c++/52567] constant expression not recognized as being constant

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52567 --- Comment #5 from Luchezar Belev 2012-03-12 21:08:07 UTC --- Ok, but at least the error message should be changed to tell about overflow. For example the following code gives error too, but it says "error: overflow in constant expression" whic

[Bug c++/52567] constant expression not recognized as being constant

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52567 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2012-03-12 20:59:39 UTC --- An overflow in an integer expression is never an integer constant expression.

[Bug c++/52567] constant expression not recognized as being constant

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52567 --- Comment #3 from Luchezar Belev 2012-03-12 20:56:10 UTC --- It overflows alright, but what this has to do with not being constant? An overflow in a constant expression makes it variable? I fail to see the logic here

[Bug bootstrap/52569] New: [4.8 Regression] bootstrap fails on x86_64-apple-darwin10 at revision 185261

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52569 Bug #: 52569 Summary: [4.8 Regression] bootstrap fails on x86_64-apple-darwin10 at revision 185261 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UN

[Bug tree-optimization/46728] GCC does not generate fmadd for pow (x, 0.75)+y on powerpc

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46728 --- Comment #18 from William J. Schmidt 2012-03-12 19:45:49 UTC --- Author: wschmidt Date: Mon Mar 12 19:45:43 2012 New Revision: 185265 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185265 Log: 2012-03-12 Bill Schmidt PR tree-op

[Bug c++/52299] GCC warns on compile time division by zero erroneously

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52299 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/52299] GCC warns on compile time division by zero erroneously

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52299 --- Comment #11 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 19:29:42 UTC --- Author: paolo Date: Mon Mar 12 19:29:38 2012 New Revision: 185264 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185264 Log: /cp 2012-03-12 Paolo Carlini PR

[Bug target/52568] New: suboptimal __builtin_shuffle on cycles with AVX

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52568 Bug #: 52568 Summary: suboptimal __builtin_shuffle on cycles with AVX Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pr

[Bug c++/52567] constant expression not recognized as being constant

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52567 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug tree-optimization/46728] GCC does not generate fmadd for pow (x, 0.75)+y on powerpc

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46728 --- Comment #17 from William J. Schmidt 2012-03-12 18:26:52 UTC --- Author: wschmidt Date: Mon Mar 12 18:26:48 2012 New Revision: 185260 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185260 Log: 2012-03-12 Bill Schmidt PR tree-op

[Bug other/52545] output.h: SECTION_EXCLUDE flag clobbers SECTION_MACH_DEP

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52545 --- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-12 18:22:08 UTC --- Author: gjl Date: Mon Mar 12 18:22:01 2012 New Revision: 185259 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185259 Log: PR other/52545 * output.h (SECTION_EXCLUDE

[Bug c++/52567] constant expression not recognized as being constant

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52567 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse 2012-03-12 18:10:16 UTC --- 1<<31 overflows and is thus not a constant. Try maybe 1LL<<31 ?

[Bug target/52499] avr MODE_CODE_BASE_REG_CLASS enum conversion problem

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52499 --- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-12 18:05:15 UTC --- Author: gjl Date: Mon Mar 12 18:05:11 2012 New Revision: 185256 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185256 Log: PR target/52499 * config/avr/avr.c (avr_mo

[Bug target/49868] Implement named address space to place/access data in flash memory

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49868 --- Comment #17 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-12 17:55:36 UTC --- Author: gjl Date: Mon Mar 12 17:55:30 2012 New Revision: 185255 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185255 Log: PR target/49868 * gcc.target/avr/torture/

[Bug c++/52567] New: constant expression not recognized as being constant

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52567 Bug #: 52567 Summary: constant expression not recognized as being constant Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/52148] [4.7 regression] ICE: in spill_failure, at reload1.c:2120

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52148 --- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-12 17:35:48 UTC --- Author: gjl Date: Mon Mar 12 17:35:43 2012 New Revision: 185253 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185253 Log: PR target/52148 * config/avr/avr.c (avr_ou

[Bug target/52555] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE unrecognizable insn with -ffast-math and __attribute__((optimize(xx)))

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52555 Uros Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 fro

[Bug preprocessor/52566] #include in c++ namespace scope doesn't work properly

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52566 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 f

[Bug middle-end/50232] [4.7 Regression] reorg.c:3971: undefined reference to `make_return_insns'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50232 --- Comment #9 from John David Anglin 2012-03-12 17:08:28 UTC --- Author: danglin Date: Mon Mar 12 17:08:20 2012 New Revision: 185252 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185252 Log: Backport from mainline 2011-09-03 Jo

[Bug target/51871] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010122-1.c execution

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51871 --- Comment #8 from John David Anglin 2012-03-12 17:00:18 UTC --- Author: danglin Date: Mon Mar 12 17:00:01 2012 New Revision: 185251 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185251 Log: Backport for mainline 2012-01-28 Joh

[Bug c++/52299] GCC warns on compile time division by zero erroneously

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52299 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|unassigned at

[Bug c++/50594] Option -fwhole-program discards replaced new operator for std::string

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594 David Fang changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fang at csl dot cornell.edu --- Comment #25

[Bug preprocessor/52566] #include in c++ namespace scope doesn't work properly

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52566 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-12 16:30:32 UTC --- this has nothing to do with namespace scope, it's #pragma once confusing two separate files as one

[Bug tree-optimization/52560] if (r == -1) causes 'assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52560 --- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones 2012-03-12 16:30:45 UTC --- I see that this is actually a bug in our code. I pushed the following fix to libguestfs: https://github.com/libguestfs/libguestfs/commit/d66dd2260c724bdfe57a8595aac37c8e9173cee5

[Bug preprocessor/52566] New: #include in c++ namespace scope doesn't work properly

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52566 Bug #: 52566 Summary: #include in c++ namespace scope doesn't work properly Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.4.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/52562] [C++11] Most type_info functions not noexcept

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562 --- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-12 16:09:25 UTC --- Ok, ok, so everything boils down to 50043, as I thought.

[Bug gcov-profile/49484] gcov crash if two(or more) forks happen at the same time

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484 --- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de 2012-03-12 16:02:34 UTC --- On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484 > > --- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-12 > 15:56:07 U

[Bug gcov-profile/49484] gcov crash if two(or more) forks happen at the same time

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484 --- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-12 15:56:07 UTC --- (In reply to comment #20) > I suppose > > Index: libgcc/gthr-posix.h > === > --- libgcc/gthr-posix.h (revision 18523

[Bug c++/52558] write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory model

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de 2012-03-12 15:55:27 UTC --- On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 > > --- Comment #8 from Andrew Macleod 2012-03-12 > 15:50:13 U

[Bug c++/52558] write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory model

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 --- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-03-12 15:56:30 UTC --- On 03/12/12 10:45, rguenther at suse dot de wrote: >> Just to get this straight, am I to assume that the default code >> generation for GCC is a single threaded environment? I just

[Bug gcov-profile/49484] gcov crash if two(or more) forks happen at the same time

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484 --- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-12 15:54:46 UTC --- (In reply to comment #19) > (In reply to comment #18) > > Also, gthr.h says the signature should be: > > void __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION (__gthread_mutex_t *) > > I don't unde

[Bug gcov-profile/49484] gcov crash if two(or more) forks happen at the same time

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484 --- Comment #20 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-12 15:52:34 UTC --- I suppose Index: libgcc/gthr-posix.h === --- libgcc/gthr-posix.h (revision 185232) +++ libgcc/gthr-posix.h (working

[Bug c++/52558] write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory model

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Macleod 2012-03-12 15:50:13 UTC --- We can still perform store motion out of a loop, we just can't put the store on a path which is executed if the loop isn't executed. In this case, we actually made the code *slower*.

[Bug libstdc++/52562] [C++11] Most type_info functions not noexcept

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562 --- Comment #8 from Daniel Krügler 2012-03-12 15:46:42 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) There exists a compiler problem with noexcept and non-trivial destructor declarations as described in bug 50043 and in bug 51295. This fix should automagicall

[Bug c++/52558] write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory model

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2012-03-12 15:45:39 UTC --- On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, aldyh at redhat dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 > > --- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-03-12 > 15:42:45 UTC

[Bug c++/52558] write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory model

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 --- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-03-12 15:42:45 UTC --- On 03/12/12 10:32, rguenther at suse dot de wrote: es, but still cared about introducing write >> data races. This test case has both. I don't understand why we would allow >> intro

[Bug middle-end/52450] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr52402.c at -O1 and above

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52450 --- Comment #9 from John David Anglin 2012-03-12 15:33:38 UTC --- Author: danglin Date: Mon Mar 12 15:33:32 2012 New Revision: 185239 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185239 Log: PR target/52450 * gcc.dg/torture/pr52

[Bug c++/52558] write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory model

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2012-03-12 15:32:48 UTC --- On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 > > --- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-03-12 > 15:29:06 UTC

[Bug c++/52558] write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory model

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 --- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-03-12 15:29:06 UTC --- > No, we don't want to fix this for 4.7 as this is not a regression. > > Yes, LIM only avoids introducing traps, not data-races. This was discussed > in the past already, btw, and

[Bug gcov-profile/49484] gcov crash if two(or more) forks happen at the same time

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484 --- Comment #19 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-12 15:27:46 UTC --- (In reply to comment #18) > Also, gthr.h says the signature should be: > void __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION (__gthread_mutex_t *) I don't understand this? The current define is

[Bug c++/52558] write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory model

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Macleod 2012-03-12 15:24:35 UTC --- Created attachment 26881 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26881 Testcase for simulate-threads I've modified the testcase so that it runs in gcc.dg/simulate-thread

[Bug libstdc++/52562] [C++11] Most type_info functions not noexcept

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562 --- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 15:12:47 UTC --- Author: paolo Date: Mon Mar 12 15:12:40 2012 New Revision: 185235 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185235 Log: 2012-03-12 Paolo Carlini PR libs

[Bug gcov-profile/49484] gcov crash if two(or more) forks happen at the same time

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484 --- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-12 15:10:29 UTC --- Also, gthr.h says the signature should be: void __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION (__gthread_mutex_t *)

[Bug gcov-profile/49484] gcov crash if two(or more) forks happen at the same time

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484 --- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-12 15:06:52 UTC --- (In reply to comment #16) > If a target defines _GTHREAD_USE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNC in e.g. this will break Tru64 (until Rainer removes support for it) http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/l

[Bug c++/52565] New: __builtin_va_arg(va, double); may fall on cortex-m3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52565 Bug #: 52565 Summary: __builtin_va_arg(va, double); may fall on cortex-m3 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/52562] [C++11] Most type_info functions not noexcept

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562 --- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-12 15:02:51 UTC --- To clarify, nothing ever changed in libstdc++ as far as the type_info destructor is concerned. That said, I'm not sure to fully understand why we have the as-if in p4, or, in other ter

[Bug c++/52558] write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory model

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 --- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-12 15:01:36 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > Richi, is this something that should also be fixed for 4.7 as well? There is > a > write to g_2 that is introduced on paths that did not have it. So th

[Bug gcov-profile/49484] gcov crash if two(or more) forks happen at the same time

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484 --- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-12 15:00:46 UTC --- If a target defines _GTHREAD_USE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNC in lisbtdc++-v3/config/os/.../os_defines.h then following this patch line 80 in gthr-posix.h will redefine __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNC

[Bug c++/52558] write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory model

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/52564] Accepts invalid: Missing I/O list after comma

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52564 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid, diagnostic S

[Bug fortran/52564] New: Accepts invalid: Missing I/O list after comma

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52564 Bug #: 52564 Summary: Accepts invalid: Missing I/O list after comma Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pr

[Bug gcov-profile/49484] gcov crash if two(or more) forks happen at the same time

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug gcov-profile/49484] gcov crash if two(or more) forks happen at the same time

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484 --- Comment #14 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-12 14:23:32 UTC --- Author: rguenth Date: Mon Mar 12 14:23:27 2012 New Revision: 185231 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185231 Log: 2012-03-12 Richard Guenther * gthr.h

[Bug c/52554] Variable called $1 causes invalid asm to be generated

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52554 --- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab 2012-03-12 14:22:00 UTC --- 6.4.2.1 says that an identifier may contain "other implementation-defined characters".

[Bug testsuite/52563] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-[3,4].c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "&a" 1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563 --- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-12 14:19:58 UTC --- We now perform store motion for the address computation as expected. The question is what the testcase was for (I suppose final-value-replacement non-optimization) and eventually d

[Bug middle-end/52525] compiler segmentation fault when building OpenMP code with -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52525 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug target/52488] avr-*: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2123

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52488 --- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-12 14:15:48 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > + size_max = (1 << GET_MODE_BITSIZE (GET_MODE (my_fp))) - 1; > + if (size >= size_max) > Do you have a guarantee that GET_MODE_BITSIZE h

[Bug c++/52527] When using '-g', get an ICE: seg fault in add_name_attribute (called by modified_type_die)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52527 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/52528] combine bug (powerpc testcase)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52528 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug target/52530] [4.8 regression] Many 64-bit execution failures on Solaris 10/11 with Sun as

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52530 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c/52534] gcc doesn't detect incorrect expression in call to va_start

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52534 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid Status|UNC

[Bug c++/52536] internal compiler error: Illegal instruction

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52536 --- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-12 14:08:42 UTC --- Please try with at least GC 4.4.6.

[Bug middle-end/52547] Internal compiler Error in create_tmp_var in gimplify.c:465

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52547 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/52562] [C++11] Most type_info functions not noexcept

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562 --- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler 2012-03-12 14:06:51 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > Do I understand correctly that in N3291 the destructor lost the explicit > noexcept simply because of core/1123? I don't know for the reason in the stdlib

[Bug tree-optimization/52548] missed PRE optimization when function call follows to-be hoisted variable

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52548 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|unassigned

[Bug c/52549] [4.8 Regression] ice in pointer_diff

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52549 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug testsuite/52563] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-[3,4].c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "&a" 1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Target|x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu|x86_64-*-* Status|UNCO

[Bug testsuite/52563] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-[3,4].c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "&a" 1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563 Bug #: 52563 Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-[3,4].c scan-tree-dump-times optimized "&a" 1 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: tree-ssa Status: UNC

[Bug c++/52553] [4.6 Regression] Internal compiler error on build Parma Polyhedra Library

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52553 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/52562] [C++11] Most type_info functions not noexcept

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562 --- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-12 13:50:05 UTC --- Uhm, too much has to be tweaked elsewhere if the destructor is marked noexcept. Let's leave it alone for now (c++/50043 will reconsider the issue).

[Bug libstdc++/52562] [C++11] Most type_info functions not noexcept

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562 --- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-12 13:43:35 UTC --- Do I understand correctly that in N3291 the destructor lost the explicit noexcept simply because of core/1123? In that case I think that in GCC we should mark it temporarily noexcept a

[Bug c/52554] Variable called $1 causes invalid asm to be generated

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52554 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid CC|

[Bug target/52499] avr MODE_CODE_BASE_REG_CLASS enum conversion problem

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52499 --- Comment #3 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke 2012-03-12 13:25:38 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > Why are there two incompatible representations of register classes in the > first > place, i.e. enum reg_class and reg_class_t? enum reg_class is

[Bug target/52555] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE unrecognizable insn with -ffast-math and __attribute__((optimize(xx)))

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52555 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.6.4 Summary|[4.6/4.7 Regr

[Bug fortran/52559] [4.8 Regression] Spurious \x00 in error messages

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52559 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0

[Bug tree-optimization/52560] if (r == -1) causes 'assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52560 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Status

[Bug target/52499] avr MODE_CODE_BASE_REG_CLASS enum conversion problem

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52499 --- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-12 13:21:25 UTC --- Created attachment 26879 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26879 pr52499.diff: tentative patch Does this patch work for you?

[Bug libstdc++/52562] [C++11] Most type_info functions not noexcept

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.7.1

[Bug preprocessor/52561] GCC is not throwing error if only one character '#' is written in a line.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52561 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug target/52499] avr MODE_CODE_BASE_REG_CLASS enum conversion problem

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52499 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gjl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

  1   2   >