[Bug other/38966] libiberty make_relative_prefix_1 mistakes directories for executables

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38966 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/54277] Template class member referred to with implicit this inside lambda is incorrectly const-qualified

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54277 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler at |

[Bug c++/54276] Lambda in a Template Function Undefined Reference to local static

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54276 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler at |

[Bug other/54279] [4.8 Regression] first stage build with g++ fails with "." as the first component of $PATH

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54279 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||build Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug other/54279] New: first stage build with g++ fails with "." as the first component of $PATH

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54279 Bug #: 54279 Summary: first stage build with g++ fails with "." as the first component of $PATH Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCON

[Bug rtl-optimization/54269] [4.8 Regression] memory usage too large when optimizing

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54269 --- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele 2012-08-16 05:29:46 UTC --- 4.7 configured with --enable-checking=yes also needs < 1.0Gb. for a checking enable compiler, time went from 25s with 4.7 to 1m27s with 4.8

[Bug other/53313] Add warning levels

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53313 David Stone changed: What|Removed |Added CC||david at doublewise dot net --- Comment #2

[Bug target/54142] [4.8 regression] ppc64 build failure - Unrecognized opcode: `sldi' (and `srdi`)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54142 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug target/54142] [4.8 regression] ppc64 build failure - Unrecognized opcode: `sldi' (and `srdi`)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54142 --- Comment #19 from Segher Boessenkool 2012-08-16 00:57:44 UTC --- Author: segher Date: Thu Aug 16 00:57:37 2012 New Revision: 190427 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190427 Log: 2012-08-15 Segher Boessenkool gcc/

[Bug c++/54278] __attribute__((noreturn)) called from destructor when another auto-scoped variable has a non-trivial dtor erroneously fails with "control reaches end of non-void function" at -O0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54278 Travis Gockel changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |4.7.0 Summary|"control reaches

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #47 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-16 00:00:25 UTC --- Created attachment 28028 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28028 A patch Here is a patch which should be applied on top of http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg0

[Bug c++/54278] New: "control reaches end of non-void function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54278 Bug #: 54278 Summary: "control reaches end of non-void function Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priori

[Bug bootstrap/54260] GCC 4.7.1 fails to build.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54260 --- Comment #3 from Feto 2012-08-15 23:48:07 UTC --- Hi, Thanks for the response. I've looked at the corresponding config.log, and looked into the problems there, but I can't seem to make sense of what's going on. I get: 98 configure:3373: /

[Bug bootstrap/54128] [4.8 Regression] GCC does not bootstrap on little endian mips due to mis-compare on tree-data-ref.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128 --- Comment #10 from Steve Ellcey 2012-08-15 23:21:42 UTC --- Created attachment 28026 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28026 Cutdown test case that fails in little endian mode Here is a second cut-down test case, this one fai

[Bug c++/54277] New: Template class member referred to with implicit this inside lambda is incorrectly const-qualified

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54277 Bug #: 54277 Summary: Template class member referred to with implicit this inside lambda is incorrectly const-qualified Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown

[Bug fortran/54244] [OOP] ICE in gfc_add_component_ref, at fortran/class.c:210

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54244 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug fortran/54243] [OOP] ICE (segfault) in gfc_type_compatible for invalid BT_CLASS

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54243 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug fortran/54244] [OOP] ICE in gfc_add_component_ref, at fortran/class.c:210

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54244 --- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-15 22:11:13 UTC --- Author: janus Date: Wed Aug 15 22:11:03 2012 New Revision: 190420 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190420 Log: 2012-08-15 Janus Weil PR fortran/5

[Bug fortran/54243] [OOP] ICE (segfault) in gfc_type_compatible for invalid BT_CLASS

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54243 --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-15 22:11:15 UTC --- Author: janus Date: Wed Aug 15 22:11:03 2012 New Revision: 190420 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190420 Log: 2012-08-15 Janus Weil PR fortran/5

[Bug fortran/54244] [OOP] ICE in gfc_add_component_ref, at fortran/class.c:210

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54244 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|una

[Bug target/28896] -fstack-limit-symbol and m68k and non 68020

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28896 Steven Bosscher changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug target/28896] -fstack-limit-symbol and m68k and non 68020

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28896 Larry Baker changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #27999|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug other/38966] libiberty make_relative_prefix_1 mistakes directories for executables

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38966 --- Comment #10 from Tom Tignor 2012-08-15 21:34:50 UTC --- Created attachment 28023 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28023 Simple repro for "gcc" subdir in PATH bug.

[Bug other/38966] libiberty make_relative_prefix_1 mistakes directories for executables

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38966 Tom Tignor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ttignor at us dot ibm.com --- Comment #9 fro

[Bug c/37995] using fails if gcc invoked in a directory which has a subdirectory called "gcc"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37995 --- Comment #15 from Tom Tignor 2012-08-15 21:27:31 UTC --- Created attachment 28022 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28022 Simple repro for "gcc" subdir in PATH bug.

[Bug c++/54276] New: Lambda in a Template Function Undefined Reference to local static

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54276 Bug #: 54276 Summary: Lambda in a Template Function Undefined Reference to local static Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/54250] Segmentation fault when decltype of a struct field is used in nested lambdas

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54250 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler at |

[Bug c/37995] using fails if gcc invoked in a directory which has a subdirectory called "gcc"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37995 Tom Tignor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ttignor at us dot ibm.com --- Comment #14 fr

[Bug middle-end/54224] [4.8 Regression] Bogus -Wunused-function warning with static function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug bootstrap/54128] [4.8 Regression] GCC does not bootstrap on little endian mips due to mis-compare on tree-data-ref.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128 --- Comment #9 from Steve Ellcey 2012-08-15 18:01:58 UTC --- That is correct, the original test fails with -fcompare-debug on a mipsel* target or a mips* (big-endian) target. The cutdown test case only fails on mips* big-endian targets. The ori

[Bug middle-end/28831] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] Aggregate copy not elided when using a return value as a pass-by-value parameter

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28831 --- Comment #18 from Chip Salzenberg 2012-08-15 18:00:39 UTC --- What will it take to get this fixed? Pass by value is Big in C++11 style, with move semantics designed to tie right into the optimization that's being missed here. This is sucking

[Bug c++/54111] function return type template deduction

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54111 --- Comment #5 from Leonid Volnitsky 2012-08-15 17:34:41 UTC --- More combinatorics and more test (gcc-trunk, clang-trunk and gcc463). Now everything in one file. - #include #inc

[Bug inline-asm/54273] New: [4.7] ICE in extract_constrain_insn_cached with --float=soft, --target=powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54273 Bug #: 54273 Summary: [4.7] ICE in extract_constrain_insn_cached with --float=soft, --target=powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.2

[Bug target/54272] [SH] Add support for addv / subv instructions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54272 Oleg Endo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 fro

[Bug target/54272] New: [SH] Add support for addv / subv instructions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54272 Bug #: 54272 Summary: [SH] Add support for addv / subv instructions Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement

[Bug target/52933] SH Target: Use div0s for integer sign comparisons

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52933 Oleg Endo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #46 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-15 16:01:15 UTC --- (In reply to comment #45) > Changing this is generally very risky for ABI incompatibilities, many targets > base some of the decisions how to pass parameters or return values on the type >

[Bug target/54267] std::exception not catched when -O3 (-Os is fine, link static, FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE-p3)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54267 --- Comment #8 from David Keller 2012-08-15 15:55:16 UTC --- According to http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=28191, the man is wrong, FreeBSD look at LD_LIBRARY_PATH before rpath. So, when LD_LIBRARY_PATH contains /lib:, it crashes as se

[Bug middle-end/54146] Very slow compile with attribute((flatten))

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146 --- Comment #47 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-15 15:07:05 UTC --- (In reply to comment #46) > Created attachment 28020 [details] > Faster rewrite_into_loop_closed_ssa After this patch, IRA is the only major bottle-neck left, although there are st

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #45

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #44 from Gary Funck 2012-08-15 14:45:42 UTC --- (In reply to comment #43) > The problem is we return a TI union in XF register > because the x86-64 psABI. Is this the same problem documented in comment #9? The patch that you suggest

[Bug c++/54259] [4.7 Regression] Regression in move construction for std::pair

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54259 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-15 14:46:11 UTC --- Re component -> c++ Although the error is due to a limitation in the FE, it's not a regression in the FE, as SFINAE has never respected access control until very recently on trunk.

[Bug target/54252] [4.7 Regression] Bad alignment code generated for Neon loads

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54252 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added Target|arm |arm-linux-gnueabi, arm-eabi K

[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 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-15 14:34:53 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > I actually wonder how could target attribute work the way it is implemented > right now so far. It works by miracle. See PR 37565.

[Bug middle-end/54146] Very slow compile with attribute((flatten))

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146 Steven Bosscher changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #27930|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug libstdc++/54268] std::string::reserve not consistent with std::vector::reserve

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54268 --- Comment #2 from vincenzo Innocente 2012-08-15 14:31:48 UTC --- clang behaves similarly (even with -stdlib=libc++)

[Bug tree-optimization/54271] [4.7/4.8 Regression] libgcrypt CRC24RFC2440 30% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54271 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 f

[Bug web/53632] [bugzilla] Bugzilla being very slow to submit changes, sending duplicate emails

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632 --- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-15 14:28:02 UTC --- yes it was only ok very briefly, and has been slow again since then

[Bug tree-optimization/54271] New: [4.7/4.8 Regression] libgcrypt CRC24RFC2440 30% slower

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54271 Bug #: 54271 Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] libgcrypt CRC24RFC2440 30% slower Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[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 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 fro

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #43 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-15 14:21:05 UTC --- The problem is we return a TI union in XF register because the x86-64 psABI.

[Bug libstdc++/51359] std::string::reserve inefficiency/possible accidental behavior with reserve()

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51359 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vincenzo.innocente at cern

[Bug libstdc++/54268] std::string::reserve not consistent with std::vector::reserve

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54268 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[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 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 f

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #42 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-15 13:58:16 UTC --- (In reply to comment #37) > (In reply to comment #36) > > (In reply to comment #35) > > > Note that for the test case in comment #34 (and comment #9) to fail that > > > the > > > MAX_FIXED

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #41 from Gary Funck 2012-08-15 13:47:37 UTC --- (In reply to comment #38) > What are the code generation deficiencies you are targeting with this? For > testcase #1 I get > > sptr_result: > .LFB0: > .cfi_startproc >

[Bug tree-optimization/54245] [4.8 regression] incorrect optimisation

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54245 William J. Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug tree-optimization/54245] [4.8 regression] incorrect optimisation

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54245 William J. Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug tree-optimization/54245] [4.8 regression] incorrect optimisation

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54245 --- Comment #4 from William J. Schmidt 2012-08-15 13:27:38 UTC --- Author: wschmidt Date: Wed Aug 15 13:27:29 2012 New Revision: 190412 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190412 Log: gcc: 2012-08-15 Bill Schmidt PR tr

[Bug tree-optimization/54240] Routine hoist_adjacent_loads does not work properly after r189366

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240 William J. Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug tree-optimization/54240] Routine hoist_adjacent_loads does not work properly after r189366

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240 --- Comment #12 from William J. Schmidt 2012-08-15 13:17:47 UTC --- Author: wschmidt Date: Wed Aug 15 13:17:42 2012 New Revision: 190411 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190411 Log: gcc: 2012-08-15 Bill Schmidt PR t

[Bug middle-end/54224] Bogus -Wunused-function warning with static function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization --- Comment #3 from T

[Bug target/54252] [Neon] Bad alignment code generated for Neon loads

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54252 --- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-08-15 13:03:41 UTC --- That ain't the root cause and that patch should really not be applied. The problem really is in neon_dereference_pointer where we expand such builtins - that's the one that is

[Bug fortran/54270] [4.8 Regression] spurious warning with -Wunused-function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54270 --- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2012-08-15 12:44:02 UTC --- (In reply to comment #0) > Considering the following test case: By the way, if you compile your test case with "-O" you will see that the compiler has properly optimized away the func

[Bug middle-end/54224] Bogus -Wunused-function warning with static function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 f

[Bug fortran/54270] [4.8 Regression] spurious warning with -Wunused-function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54270 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug fortran/54270] New: [4.8 Regression] spurious warning with -Wunused-function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54270 Bug #: 54270 Summary: [4.8 Regression] spurious warning with -Wunused-function Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/54269] [4.8 Regression] memory usage too large when optimizing

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54269 --- Comment #4 from Joost VandeVondele 2012-08-15 11:37:51 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > Well, that's ENABLE_CHECKING code. Are you sure 4.7 built with > --enable-checking=yes does not exhibit this behavior? it looks like --enable-checking

[Bug target/54252] [Neon] Bad alignment code generated for Neon loads

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54252 --- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-08-15 11:18:12 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > hmmm MEM_SIZE for the offending load appears to be 32 bytes. Something is > fishy > here. > > vld1.32 {d16}, [r3:128]! <= Offending load (insn 1

[Bug target/54252] [Neon] Bad alignment code generated for Neon loads

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54252 --- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-08-15 11:00:53 UTC --- hmmm MEM_SIZE for the offending load appears to be 32 bytes. Something is fishy here. vld1.32 {d16}, [r3:128]! <= Offending load

[Bug rtl-optimization/54269] [4.8 Regression] memory usage too large when optimizing

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54269 --- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele 2012-08-15 10:59:38 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > Well, that's ENABLE_CHECKING code. Are you sure 4.7 built with > --enable-checking=yes does not exhibit this behavior? I'm pretty sure this was not ob

[Bug target/54252] [Neon] Bad alignment code generated for Neon loads

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54252 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Status|UNCO

[Bug rtl-optimization/54269] [4.8 Regression] memory usage too large when optimizing

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54269 --- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-08-15 10:05:26 UTC --- Well, that's ENABLE_CHECKING code. Are you sure 4.7 built with --enable-checking=yes does not exhibit this behavior?

[Bug rtl-optimization/54269] [4.8 Regression] memory usage too large when optimizing

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54269 --- Comment #1 from Joost VandeVondele 2012-08-15 09:57:13 UTC --- seems like it is triggered by unrolling, using gfortran -O2 -funroll-loops -ffree-form -D__LIBINT hfx_contraction_methods.F is enough. A bt at the first point where memory seems

[Bug rtl-optimization/54269] New: [4.8 Regression] memory usage too large when optimizing

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54269 Bug #: 54269 Summary: [4.8 Regression] memory usage too large when optimizing Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED S

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #40 from rguenther at suse dot de 2012-08-15 09:29:02 UTC --- On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, chip at pobox dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 > > --- Comment #39 from Chip Salzenberg 2012-08-15 > 09:13:36 UTC

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #39 from Chip Salzenberg 2012-08-15 09:13:36 UTC --- avoiding BLKmode avoids unnecessary spills to memory. See Bug 28831 and Bug 41194 for examples.

[Bug middle-end/54201] XMM constant duplicated

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54201 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW AssignedTo|rguenth at gcc

[Bug c++/54259] [4.7 Regression] Regression in move construction for std::pair

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54259 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Component|libst

[Bug c++/54264] internal compiler error on sample program from the C++ standard

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54264 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||error-recovery, |

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #38 from Richard Guenther 2012-08-15 08:57:51 UTC --- What are the code generation deficiencies you are targeting with this? For testcase #1 I get sptr_result: .LFB0: .cfi_startproc movqS+8(%rip), %rdx mo

[Bug bootstrap/54128] [4.8 Regression] GCC does not bootstrap on little endian mips due to mis-compare on tree-data-ref.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54128 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Target||mipsel-unknown-linux-gnu Target Mile

[Bug fortran/54263] C_F_POINTER wrongly accepts a SHAPE= for scalar pointers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54263 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug libstdc++/54268] New: std::string::reserve not consistent with std::vector::reserve

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54268 Bug #: 54268 Summary: std::string::reserve not consistent with std::vector::reserve Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/53432] [4.8 Regression] ICE failed to reclaim unneeded function in same comdat group

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53432 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug middle-end/53420] [4.8 Regression] ICE in iterative_hash_expr, at tree.c:7039

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53420 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 f

[Bug fortran/54262] LOC shouldn't use copy-in/copy-out

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54262 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug target/54212] ARM: invalid instruction (vdupeq.32) generated

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54212 --- Comment #3 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-08-15 07:56:48 UTC --- Author: ramana Date: Wed Aug 15 07:56:41 2012 New Revision: 190407 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190407 Log: Fix PR target/54212 2012-08-15 Ramana Rad