http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54021
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54020
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22553
--- Comment #24 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-07-19
04:58:46 UTC ---
With -fPIC
(CSiBE with -O2 -fPIC)
test namesched1 no-sched1 sched1/no-sched1
bzip2-1.0.2 bzip2.d 11.1433 11.1833 0.996423
bzip2-1.0.2 bzip2recove
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54027
Bug #: 54027
Summary: possible mis-optimization of signed left shift in c89
mode
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54026
Bug #: 54026
Summary: [4.7/4.8 regression] template const struct with
mutable members erroneously emitted to .rodata
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53954
Ai Azuma changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54025
--- Comment #1 from Chip Salzenberg 2012-07-19 02:56:57
UTC ---
Created attachment 27829
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27829
patch to duration default ctor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54025
Bug #: 54025
Summary: atomic won't compile:
chrono::duration::duration() is not C++11 compliant
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22553
--- Comment #23 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-07-19
02:36:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> Kaz, if you have some time, could you do something like that
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-09/msg01539.html
> again (if possible with mpeg2dec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2012-07-19
01:36:55 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jul 19 01:36:50 2012
New Revision: 189639
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189639
Log:
DR 1170
PR c++/51213
* semantics.c (per
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53974
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-07-19 00:33:48 UTC ---
On 18-Jul-12, at 6:15 AM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I have seen the same error on SPARC. The fix is
>
>* config/sparc/sparc.md (adddi3_insn_sp32): Add
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54024
--- Comment #1 from Ian Mackenzie 2012-07-19
00:06:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 27828
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27828
Preprocessed source file
The preprocessed source file itself is too big (5 MB), so had to be zipped.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53973
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54024
Bug #: 54024
Summary: Internal compiler error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53975
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53975
--- Comment #8 from Steven Bosscher 2012-07-18
23:13:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 27827
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27827
Somewhat reduced, preprocessed test case
Fails with a cross-compiler from x86_64 to ia64 with trun
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53975
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54007
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-07-18 22:11:24 UTC ---
On 18-Jul-12, at 4:37 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Supposedly also on trunk. Would need { dg-require-effective-target
> lto }.
> Can you check if that works
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54023
ebeworld changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54023
Bug #: 54023
Summary: [C++0x][initializer list] integer type to floating
type narrowing type is not producing diagnostics
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54022
Bug #: 54022
Summary: [4.8 regression] ICE in hoist_edge_and_branch_if_true
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53967
--- Comment #15 from bfriesen at simple dot dallas.tx.us 2012-07-18 20:42:22
UTC ---
Testing shows that using
-m64 -march=native -O2 -mfpmath=sse -frename-registers
is sufficient to restore good performance.
from Oleg Endo 2012-07-18
20:12:22 UTC ---
On 'gcc version 4.8.0 20120718 (experimental)' I've commented out the
'if (targetm.small_register_classes_for_mode_p (VOIDmode))' block in sh.c
(sh_option_override) and ran some CSiBE result-size tests.
There is a total
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54021
Bug #: 54021
Summary: [c++0x] __builtin_constant_p should be constexpr
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54020
Bug #: 54020
Summary: [c++0x] incorrectly accepted constexpr functions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
:48 |2012-07-18
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo 2012-07-18 19:25:41
UTC ---
As of rev 189601 (4.8.0 20120718 (experimental)) this issue still persists.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53973
--- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-18
19:19:40 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Jul 18 19:19:34 2012
New Revision: 189626
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189626
Log:
Define FFI_SIZEOF_JAVA_RAW to 4 for x32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53982
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-18
19:19:40 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Jul 18 19:19:34 2012
New Revision: 189626
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189626
Log:
Define FFI_SIZEOF_JAVA_RAW to 4 for x32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54019
Bug #: 54019
Summary: [SH] Tail calls with -fPIC use bsrf instead of braf
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53973
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dschepler at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53982
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38621
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53468
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwinge 2012-07-18
18:52:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 27825
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27825
multiarch-2012-07-08
Latest version of the multiarch patch that makes GCC again buildable on
Debia
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53468
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53973
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-18
18:09:56 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Jul 18 18:09:49 2012
New Revision: 189623
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189623
Log:
Skip 67h address size prefix unconditionally
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54014
--- Comment #4 from Fabrizio Ferrandi
2012-07-18 17:41:48 UTC ---
Maybe I missing something but there is a specific code that deals with this
undefined behavior in tree-vrp.c:
else if (code == ABS_EXPR
&& !TYPE_UNSIGNED (type))
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53973
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-18
17:38:46 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Jul 18 17:38:37 2012
New Revision: 189621
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189621
Log:
Check and skip 67h address size prefix for x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54018
Bug #: 54018
Summary: std::uncaught_exception hangs in pthread created
during global initialization from dlopen
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52818
Scott Lipcon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slipcon at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54017
Bug #: 54017
Summary: Incorrect implementation of infinite loops in OpenMP
sections leads to SIGILL
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54016
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53957
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2012-07-18
14:47:49 UTC ---
It helps to make us even consider the loop. We now run into
696: worklist: examine stmt: D.2574_254 = (real(kind=4)) i_5;
696: vect_is_simple_use: operand i_5
696: def_stmt: i_5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53967
--- Comment #14 from bfriesen at simple dot dallas.tx.us 2012-07-18 14:28:04
UTC ---
With
-m64 -mtune=generic -march=x86-64 -mfpmath=sse -O2 -funroll-loops
-fschedule-insns
I see a whole-program performance jump from 0.047 iter/s to 0.156 iter/s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54016
Bug #: 54016
Summary: tree loop optimizer: no "branch on count" on s390
anymore since revision 185913
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53957
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2012-07-18
14:04:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 27823
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27823
Draft patch: Change comparison into bool assignment, decrement conditional jump
(In reply to comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54015
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31079
--- Comment #14 from Richard Guenther 2012-07-18
13:28:41 UTC ---
Smart again - with stock trunk I get everything optimized away ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54015
--- Comment #1 from manoj 2012-07-18
13:19:40 UTC ---
17:30:55: Running build steps for project qgis1.7.4...
17:30:55: Starting: "C:\QtSDK\mingw\bin\mingw32-make.exe"
[ 0%] Built target version
[ 8%] Built target ui
[ 25%] Built target qgis_co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53957
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-07-18 13:18:13 UTC ---
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53957
>
> Tobias Burnus changed:
>
>What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54015
Bug #: 54015
Summary: problem in compiling Qgis source code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51081
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53957
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53990
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-07-18
12:40:42 UTC ---
It's maybe a little confusing for beginners, until they learn how it works, but
it makes certain operations up to three times faster so it's a huge benefit.
All good quality compile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54014
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-07-18
12:21:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I do not agree.
> abs(-2147483648) returns -2147483648.
>
> May be is odd but is how the implementation of abs works. Isn't it?
abs(-2147483648) invokes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53990
--- Comment #3 from litwr 2012-07-18 12:18:54 UTC
---
Thank you very much! Excuse me this little ignorancy. However it is a bit
confusing that this allows to have code executed differently with different
compilers.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53957
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |fortran
--- Comment #3 from Richard Gu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53957
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-07-18
12:02:32 UTC ---
All time is spent in the loop nest starting at line 677, 683, 694, 696 for
all of them we claim they are in bad loop form.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54014
--- Comment #2 from Fabrizio Ferrandi
2012-07-18 11:56:26 UTC ---
I do not agree.
abs(-2147483648) returns -2147483648.
May be is odd but is how the implementation of abs works. Isn't it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54014
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54014
Bug #: 54014
Summary: Value Range propagation bug
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53957
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54013
Bug #: 54013
Summary: Loop with control flow not vectorized
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54012
Bug #: 54012
Summary: printf crush with -lgfortran
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53967
--- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther 2012-07-18
10:49:53 UTC ---
You can also try -frename-registers
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53970
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53970
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53970
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-07-18
10:46:11 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 18 10:46:05 2012
New Revision: 189609
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189609
Log:
2012-07-18 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53974
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53967
Stupachenko Evgeny changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||evstupac at gmail dot com
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23684
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||plasmahh at gmx dot net
--- Comment #9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54011
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33135
--- Comment #8 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-07-18
09:32:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Should this be backported to 4.6 or 4.7?
Maybe. It could be counted as a regression from 4.5 because currently
we have no way to disable mieee on those b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53993
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33135
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo 2012-07-18 09:16:28
UTC ---
Should this be backported to 4.6 or 4.7?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54000
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54007
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53970
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54008
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51081
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Proc-pointer assignment:|[F03] Proc-pointer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54010
Bug #: 54010
Summary: Sockets: C_Recv should restart the call on EINTR
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38621
--- Comment #12 from Oleg Endo 2012-07-18
07:57:07 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Wed Jul 18 07:56:57 2012
New Revision: 189605
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189605
Log:
PR target/38621
* gcc.c-torture/compile/pr3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33135
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo 2012-07-18 07:49:56
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Wed Jul 18 07:49:50 2012
New Revision: 189602
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189602
Log:
PR target/33135
* config/sh/sh.opt (mieee):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54002
--- Comment #3 from Martin von Gagern
2012-07-18 07:09:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> See PR 52366, which makes this a dup of PR 52315
I agree that this is a duplicate of PR 52366. And although I'm still not
convinced that this is really
85 matches
Mail list logo
