[Bug c++/53816] internal compiler error: tree check: expected field_decl, have identifier_node in fixed_type_or_null, at cp/class.c:6419, with -std=c++11 option

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53816 --- Comment #1 from Ai Azuma 2012-06-30 06:34:40 UTC --- Created attachment 27722 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27722 Output of -v option

[Bug c++/53816] New: internal compiler error: tree check: expected field_decl, have identifier_node in fixed_type_or_null, at cp/class.c:6419, with -std=c++11 option

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53816 Bug #: 53816 Summary: internal compiler error: tree check: expected field_decl, have identifier_node in fixed_type_or_null, at cp/class.c:6419, with -std=c++11 opti

[Bug c++/53810] template class static not defined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53810 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Robb 2012-06-30 06:23:28 UTC --- template< int n> class Class { public: static int const _n = n; I thought that _n was defined. On 29/06/2012 23:01, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi

[Bug c++/53815] New: Explicit specialization of member enumeration of a class template

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53815 Bug #: 53815 Summary: Explicit specialization of member enumeration of a class template Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/53796] I/O INQUIRE of RECL: If not specified in OPEN, the default value should be returned (sequential access)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53796 --- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle 2012-06-30 01:35:12 UTC --- Maybe a new PR for this is in order. gdb output with test case in Comment #9 (gdb) 634 if (flags->form == FORM_FORMATTED) (gdb) 636 if ((opp->common.flags & IOPARM_O

[Bug fortran/53796] I/O INQUIRE of RECL: If not specified in OPEN, the default value should be returned (sequential access)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53796 --- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle 2012-06-30 00:32:29 UTC --- For completeness, in the case I give in Comment #9, I get Operating system error: Cannot allocate memory Memory allocation failed I have instrumented a few places to see what we are

[Bug fortran/53796] I/O INQUIRE of RECL: If not specified in OPEN, the default value should be returned (sequential access)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53796 --- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle 2012-06-29 23:43:23 UTC --- We have more then one thing to fix here. Try this variation: integer(kind=8) :: s, r open(unit=1, file='testsize.f90', status='old', recl=500) inquire(unit=1, size=s, recl=r) print *

[Bug c++/53814] New: FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/nullptr28.C -std=c++11 execution test

=hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 --enable-threads=posix --disable-nls --with-gmp=/opt/gnu64/gcc/gmp --enable-languages=c,c++,objc,obj-c++,fortran Thread model: posix gcc version 4.7.2 20120629 (prerelease) [gcc-4_7-branch revision 189060] (GCC)

[Bug middle-end/53813] [4.7 Regression] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2016

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53813 --- Comment #1 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-06-29 23:17:13 UTC --- Attached preprocessed source. -- John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net

[Bug middle-end/53813] New: [4.7 Regression] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2016

--with-gnu-as --with-as=/opt/gnu64/bin/as --with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld --enable-shared --with-local-prefix=/opt/gnu64 --prefix=/nowhere --build=hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 --enable-threads=posix --disable-nls --with-gmp=/opt/gnu64/gcc/gmp --enable-languages=c,c++,objc,obj-c++,fortran Thread model: posix gcc ve

[Bug target/53539] Different __WCHAR_TYPE__/wchar_t for gcc -m32 on Linux/i386 and Linux/x86-64

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53539 --- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-29 22:21:35 UTC --- Author: hjl Date: Fri Jun 29 22:21:30 2012 New Revision: 189085 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189085 Log: Use int for WCHAR_TYPE only for TARGET_LP64

[Bug c++/53812] New: lower_stmt (4.6), verify_gimple_stmt (4.7.0, 4.7.1)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53812 Bug #: 53812 Summary: lower_stmt (4.6), verify_gimple_stmt (4.7.0, 4.7.1) Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/53810] template class static not defined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53810 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-06-29 22:01:07 UTC --- GCC is having the correct behavior. You don't have a definition for the static const class variable, only the declaration. You need the definition as you implictly take the address o

[Bug fortran/45159] Unnecessary temporaries

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45159 --- Comment #25 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-06-29 21:44:56 UTC --- > Anything left to be done? I see [macbook] f90/bug% gfc -Warray-temporaries pr45159_4_red.f90 pr45159_4_red.f90:7.15: a(-3:9:3) = a(-6:18:6) 1 Warning: Cr

[Bug c++/53811] ICE: in insn_default_length, at config/i386/i386.md:529 (unrecognizable insn) with -mcmodel=large

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53811 --- Comment #1 from Tobias Hansen 2012-06-29 21:32:47 UTC --- Created attachment 27718 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27718 preprocessed source

[Bug c++/53811] New: ICE: in insn_default_length, at config/i386/i386.md:529 (unrecognizable insn) with -mcmodel=large

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53811 Bug #: 53811 Summary: ICE: in insn_default_length, at config/i386/i386.md:529 (unrecognizable insn) with -mcmodel=large Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc

[Bug c++/53810] template class static not defined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53810 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Robb 2012-06-29 20:41:08 UTC --- template < int n > class Class {

[Bug c++/53810] New: template class static not defined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53810 Bug #: 53810 Summary: template class static not defined Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.5.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/53809] ice then Abort

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53809 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/53809] ice then Abort

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53809 --- Comment #1 from dcb 2012-06-29 19:04:08 UTC --- Created attachment 27717 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27717 gzipped C++ source code

[Bug c++/53809] New: ice then Abort

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53809 Bug #: 53809 Summary: ice then Abort Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c+

[Bug bootstrap/49797] CLooG use of LANGUAGE_C conflicts with MIPS compilers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49797 --- Comment #6 from Matt Hargett 2012-06-29 18:49:35 UTC --- Pinging on this again since this patch has been back ported to a couple of 4.6-based branches now. Anyone attempting to use a recent cloog release with GCC 4.6 will run into this proble

[Bug fortran/46532] [OMP] missing error for loop bounds missing an attribute

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46532 --- Comment #2 from Joost VandeVondele 2012-06-29 18:46:13 UTC --- *** Bug 41737 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug libgomp/41737] [omp] missing error for undeclared variable in a parallel region with default(none)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41737 Joost VandeVondele changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug lto/53808] New: Undefined symbol when building a library with lto

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53808 Bug #: 53808 Summary: Undefined symbol when building a library with lto Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/51652] Allocate with type-spec and source-expr: check whether length type-parameter is the same is lacking

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51652 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 f

[Bug fortran/47844] Array stride ignored for pointer-valued function results

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47844 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/53807] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-11.c scan-tree-dump-times slp "basic block vectorized using SLP" 1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53807 Bug #: 53807 Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-11.c scan-tree-dump-times slp "basic block vectorized using SLP" 1 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0

[Bug fortran/43665] INTENT(IN) etc. optimization of calls: function annotations for noclobber/noescape arguments

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43665 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #28

[Bug fortran/45159] Unnecessary temporaries

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45159 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #24

[Bug fortran/53801] gfortran warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53801 --- Comment #3 from somenath jalal 2012-06-29 16:20:28 UTC --- Thanks kargl. I will update the gcc version. And from "ld" means what? That is the point I did not understand. And importantly ifort is also giving same kind of warning. Though both c

[Bug fortran/53801] gfortran warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53801 --- Comment #2 from somenath jalal 2012-06-29 16:18:35 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > gcc 4.2.1 is really really old. Please update to > something much newer. Try 4.5.4 or newer version. > Also, note the warning is from ld not gfortran. T

[Bug target/53803] --enable-target-optspace gives undefined references to restgpr_*_x

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53803 --- Comment #2 from Alan Modra 2012-06-29 16:03:07 UTC --- Closed as invalid on the assumption that this is really a uclibc build bug.

[Bug target/53803] --enable-target-optspace gives undefined references to restgpr_*_x

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53803 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug lto/53780] [l4.7.1 lto] linker fails with lto and "standard" object file

/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53780 > > --- Comment #8 from vincenzo Innocente > 2012-06-29 15:03:17 UTC --- > NOT when applied on the top of > gcc version 4.8.0 20120629 (experimental) [trunk revision 189073] (GCC) > svn diff > Index: gcc/tree.c > ==

[Bug fortran/53796] I/O INQUIRE of RECL: If not specified in OPEN, the default value should be returned (sequential access)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53796 --- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2012-06-29 15:04:47 UTC --- Steve Lionel points at the following: "If an error condition occurs during execution of an INQUIRE statement, all of the inquiry specier variables become undened, except for variabl

[Bug lto/53780] [l4.7.1 lto] linker fails with lto and "standard" object file

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53780 --- Comment #8 from vincenzo Innocente 2012-06-29 15:03:17 UTC --- NOT when applied on the top of gcc version 4.8.0 20120629 (experimental) [trunk revision 189073] (GCC) svn diff Index: gcc/tree.c

[Bug middle-end/47298] -O3 destroys beautifully vectorized code obtained at -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47298 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/53805] combine_comparisons changes trapping behavior

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53805 --- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-29 14:54:21 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > We happily remove dead trapping statements: > > > > void foo(double x, int y) > > { > > 1

[Bug tree-optimization/34940] contained subroutines called only once are not inlined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34940 Joost VandeVondele changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2008-01-23 11:27:01 |2012-06-29 11:27:01 --- Comment #15

[Bug middle-end/47298] -O3 destroys beautifully vectorized code obtained at -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47298 Joost VandeVondele changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2012-06-29 --- Comment #4 from Joost

[Bug tree-optimization/53805] combine_comparisons changes trapping behavior

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53805 --- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-06-29 14:43:30 UTC --- On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > We happily remove dead trapping statements: > > void foo(double x, int y) > { > 1 / x; Bug with -ftrapping

[Bug middle-end/38474] slow compilation at -O0 due to expand's temp slot goo

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474 --- Comment #65 from Martin Jambor 2012-06-29 14:34:34 UTC --- I have posted the patch to the mailing list: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg01928.html along with an equivalent one for the 4.6 branch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patc

[Bug tree-optimization/53805] combine_comparisons changes trapping behavior

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53805 --- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-29 14:34:08 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > We do not try to preserve traps instead we only try to not produce new ones. > > That's a b

[Bug libgomp/41737] [omp] missing error for undeclared variable in a parallel region with default(none)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41737 Joost VandeVondele changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2012-06-29 --- Comment #3 from Joost

[Bug tree-optimization/47061] VRP doesn't propagate through x<<=1, but it does for x*=2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47061 --- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-29 14:27:34 UTC --- Author: rguenth Date: Fri Jun 29 14:27:24 2012 New Revision: 189076 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189076 Log: 2012-06-29 Richard Guenther PR tree-op

[Bug middle-end/41453] use INTENT(out) for optimization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41453 Joost VandeVondele changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2012-06-29 --- Comment #1 from Joost

[Bug tree-optimization/47061] VRP doesn't propagate through x<<=1, but it does for x*=2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47061 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug tree-optimization/53805] combine_comparisons changes trapping behavior

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53805 --- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-06-29 14:24:18 UTC --- On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > We do not try to preserve traps instead we only try to not produce new ones. That's a bug. -ftrapping-math s

[Bug middle-end/40282] ICE with -fipa-type-escape

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40282 Joost VandeVondele changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug tree-optimization/43965] Missed VRP and/or jump-threading

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43965 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug libstdc++/53578] include/ext/concurrence.h relies on ill-formed narrowing conversions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53578 --- Comment #12 from Zouzou 2012-06-29 14:16:16 UTC --- applying the changes in rev 188646 to a MinGW with GCC 4.7.0 works fine and doesn't reproduce the problem detailed in bug 46455.

[Bug tree-optimization/43768] VRP destroys loop form

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43768 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug middle-end/40194] fortran rules for optimizing

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40194 --- Comment #10 from Joost VandeVondele 2012-06-29 14:14:16 UTC --- this testcase now looks optimized (at least the optimized dump contains return 1; as expected). I guess this can be closed ?

[Bug tree-optimization/37541] VRP fails to optimize single-bit ranges

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37541 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug tree-optimization/37541] VRP fails to optimize single-bit ranges

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37541 --- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-29 13:57:04 UTC --- Author: rguenth Date: Fri Jun 29 13:56:51 2012 New Revision: 189075 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189075 Log: 2012-06-29 Richard Guenther PR tree-op

[Bug debug/16063] Debuggers need more information about enum types in C++

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16063 Tom Tromey changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 fro

[Bug lto/53780] [l4.7.1 lto] linker fails with lto and "standard" object file

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53780 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/32759] False "may be used uninitialized" (missed VRP optimization)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32759 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug fortran/53796] I/O INQUIRE of RECL: If not specified in OPEN, the default value should be returned (sequential access)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53796 --- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2012-06-29 13:29:36 UTC --- I have now ask at http://j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/2012-June/005446.html

[Bug tree-optimization/25643] VRP does not remove -fbounds-check for Fortran

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25643 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|NEW --- Comment #13 from Richard Guent

[Bug lto/53780] [l4.7.1 lto] linker fails with lto and "standard" object file

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53780 --- Comment #6 from vincenzo Innocente 2012-06-29 13:20:31 UTC --- the regression in comment 3 happens with gcc version 4.7.2 20120620 (prerelease) [gcc-4_7-branch revision 188811] (GCC) (and was a fix required by myself) will open a new bug re

[Bug tree-optimization/52589] VRP missed optimization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52589 --- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-29 13:17:49 UTC --- Author: rguenth Date: Fri Jun 29 13:17:44 2012 New Revision: 189073 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189073 Log: 2012-06-29 Richard Guenther PR tree-op

[Bug tree-optimization/52589] VRP missed optimization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52589 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug tree-optimization/52589] VRP missed optimization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52589 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 fr

[Bug lto/53768] [4.7 Regression] Undefined references with boost 1.46/1.48/1.49

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53768 --- Comment #11 from vincenzo Innocente 2012-06-29 12:43:03 UTC --- ok. II think somebody should start building boost and its test-suite with lto: many of these regressions are found "thanks" to boost after all… (I will when they move to cmake).

[Bug tree-optimization/53806] New: Missed optimization (a<=b)&&(a>=b) with trapping

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53806 Bug #: 53806 Summary: Missed optimization (a<=b)&&(a>=b) with trapping Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug tree-optimization/53805] combine_comparisons changes trapping behavior

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53805 --- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-29 12:22:10 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > We do not try to preserve traps instead we only try to not produce new ones. > > That would make a lot of sense, and assumin

[Bug tree-optimization/53805] combine_comparisons changes trapping behavior

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53805 --- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse 2012-06-29 12:19:07 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > We do not try to preserve traps instead we only try to not produce new ones. That would make a lot of sense, and assuming it is the official policy I am happy

[Bug tree-optimization/53805] combine_comparisons changes trapping behavior

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53805 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug lto/53768] [4.7 Regression] Undefined references with boost 1.46/1.48/1.49

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53768 --- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu 2012-06-29 11:49:53 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) > take back: (never do two updates at once) > in SOMETHING ELSE committed between > gcc version 4.7.2 20120615 (prerelease) [gcc-4_7-branch revision 188650] > (GCC

[Bug tree-optimization/53805] New: combine_comparisons changes trapping behavior

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53805 Bug #: 53805 Summary: combine_comparisons changes trapping behavior Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prio

[Bug libfortran/51119] MATMUL slow for large matrices

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119 Steven Bosscher changed: What|Removed |Added CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug lto/53780] [l4.7.1 lto] linker fails with lto and "standard" object file

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53780 --- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-06-29 10:50:48 UTC --- Candidates are +2012-06-19 Jason Merrill + + PR c++/52637 + * dwarf2out.c (modified_type_die): Use scope_die_for. + (gen_type_die_with_usage, dwarf2out_finish)

[Bug lto/53768] [4.7 Regression] Undefined references with boost 1.46/1.48/1.49

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53768 --- Comment #9 from vincenzo Innocente 2012-06-29 10:45:05 UTC --- *** Bug 53337 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug lto/53337] 4.7.1 lto produces warning: relocation refers to discarded section in linker (gold, binutil 2.22)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53337 vincenzo Innocente changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug tree-optimization/53804] branch reordering missed optimization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53804 --- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher 2012-06-29 10:43:19 UTC --- On x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, this case is optimized because the second branch condition is combined for both foo1 and foo2: : D.1723_4 = b_3(D) > 0; D.1724_5 = a_2(D) < 0; D.1

[Bug lto/53768] [4.7 Regression] Undefined references with boost 1.46/1.48/1.49

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53768 --- Comment #8 from vincenzo Innocente 2012-06-29 10:36:46 UTC --- take back: (never do two updates at once) in SOMETHING ELSE committed between gcc version 4.7.2 20120615 (prerelease) [gcc-4_7-branch revision 188650] (GCC) and gcc-4_7-branch re

[Bug tree-optimization/53804] New: branch reordering missed optimization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53804 Bug #: 53804 Summary: branch reordering missed optimization Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Prior

[Bug lto/53780] [l4.7.1 lto] linker fails with lto and "standard" object file

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53780 --- Comment #4 from vincenzo Innocente 2012-06-29 10:34:22 UTC --- take back: (never do two updates at once) in SOMETHING else committed between gcc version 4.7.2 20120615 (prerelease) [gcc-4_7-branch revision 188650] (GCC) and gcc-4_7-branch re

[Bug target/53803] New: --enable-target-optspace gives undefined references to restgpr_*_x

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53803 Bug #: 53803 Summary: --enable-target-optspace gives undefined references to restgpr_*_x Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/53796] I/O INQUIRE of RECL: If not specified in OPEN, the default value should be returned (sequential access)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53796 --- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle 2012-06-29 10:13:13 UTC --- Yes, I am talking about our internal representation. I have to go look at the code detail yet, I am just thinking out loud here on the bug report. It is one possibility of what we are

[Bug fortran/53796] I/O INQUIRE of RECL: If not specified in OPEN, the default value should be returned (sequential access)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53796 --- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2012-06-29 10:07:10 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > But Fortran doesn't have unsigned integers. If the intention is to indicate > no > practical limit, then I guess the value to return is HUGE(0). And we sh

[Bug fortran/53796] I/O INQUIRE of RECL: If not specified in OPEN, the default value should be returned (sequential access)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53796 --- Comment #4 from Clive Page 2012-06-29 10:00:02 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > IIRC recl is an unsigned integer? I will look further on this one. But Fortran doesn't have unsigned integers. If the intention is to indicate no practical l

[Bug tree-optimization/53802] Spurious 'may be used uninitialized' related to shifts

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53802 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Status|UNCONFIR

[Bug fortran/53796] I/O INQUIRE of RECL: If not specified in OPEN, the default value should be returned (sequential access)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53796 --- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle 2012-06-29 09:55:43 UTC --- IIRC recl is an unsigned integer? I will look further on this one.

[Bug tree-optimization/53802] New: Spurious 'may be used uninitialized' related to shifts

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53802 Bug #: 53802 Summary: Spurious 'may be used uninitialized' related to shifts Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/53578] include/ext/concurrence.h relies on ill-formed narrowing conversions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53578 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING --- Comment #11 from Jonathan W

[Bug lto/53780] [l4.7.1 lto] linker fails with lto and "standard" object file

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53780 --- Comment #3 from vincenzo Innocente 2012-06-29 07:39:02 UTC --- The patch HAS a side effect that I observed also in 4.8 and had no time to reduce yet. (At least now I know the origin of it) something pretty weird plenty of error: tmp/slc5_am

[Bug lto/53768] [4.7 Regression] Undefined references with boost 1.46/1.48/1.49

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53768 --- Comment #7 from vincenzo Innocente 2012-06-29 07:25:35 UTC --- It HAS a side effect I observed also in 4.8 and had no time to reduce yet something pretty weird plenty of error: tmp/slc5_amd64_gcc470/src/FWCore/Modules/src/FWCoreModules/Multi

[Bug libfortran/51119] MATMUL slow for large matrices

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119 Joost VandeVondele changed: What|Removed |Added CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat