[Bug tree-optimization/54317] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: c45532m c45532n c45532o c45532p

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54317 --- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse 2012-08-22 06:19:17 UTC --- Actually, I reviewed my patch and I just found a bug, which can be seen on x86_64 with: extern void g(); void f(unsigned __int128 x){ unsigned __int128 n2 = 1; n2 <<= 127; if(x>n2)re

[Bug c++/20420] Incorrectly Accepts double declarations

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20420 --- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2012-08-22 00:01:27 UTC --- For Comment #4: the validate_nonmember_using_decl call at the beginning of do_local_using_decl returns NULL_TREE for the second using declaration, but we ignore that and return withou

[Bug target/39423] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] [SH] performance regression: lost mov @(disp,Rn)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39423 --- Comment #33 from Oleg Endo 2012-08-21 23:35:02 UTC --- Author: olegendo Date: Tue Aug 21 23:34:54 2012 New Revision: 190579 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190579 Log: PR target/39423 * config/sh/sh.md (*movhi_i

[Bug other/52885] Request: Add -aslr switch that invokes -fPIE/-pie or -fPIC/-shared as appropriate

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52885 --- Comment #7 from Jeffrey Walton 2012-08-21 22:08:38 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > Also using -fPIC instead of -fPIE is always ok. So I doubt there is a really > issue here. Since the differences between PIC and PIE comes down to if >

[Bug middle-end/53676] [4.7 regression] empty loop is not always removed now

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676 --- Comment #12 from Matt Hargett 2012-08-21 21:40:11 UTC --- I've been doing research into LLVM 3.1 and other GCC versions. LLVM 3.1 correctly eliminate the (near) empty loop, and their current trunk does not regress like 4.7 has. Is the trunk

[Bug rtl-optimization/54343] RTL postreload leaks DF memory

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54343 Diego Novillo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dnovillo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug fortran/54332] [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 takes > 10GB memory to compile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug fortran/54332] [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 takes > 10GB memory to compile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 --- Comment #26 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-21 21:07:07 UTC --- Author: hjl Date: Tue Aug 21 21:07:01 2012 New Revision: 190576 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190576 Log: Restore df_free_collection_rec call in df_b

[Bug c++/54348] confusing error reported for type mismatch in conditional expression : "error: no match for ternary 'operator?:' in 'false ?"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54348 --- Comment #8 from Jason Vas Dias 2012-08-21 20:52:12 UTC --- All I'm suggesting is that g++ should try to find the most basic error, which is that different type objects are returned as the result of a conditional expression, and not "no matc

[Bug fortran/54332] [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 takes > 10GB memory to compile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 --- Comment #25 from dnovillo at google dot com 2012-08-21 20:49:16 UTC --- On 2012-08-21 15:53 , hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 > > --- Comment #24 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 19:53:14 > UTC -

[Bug c++/54348] confusing error reported for type mismatch in conditional expression : "error: no match for ternary 'operator?:' in 'false ?"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54348 --- Comment #7 from Jason Vas Dias 2012-08-21 20:34:06 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #0) > > Shouldn't g++ be complaining about initializing a string with a list > > rather than this cryptic "no match for ternary 'operat

[Bug c++/54348] confusing error reported for type mismatch in conditional expression : "error: no match for ternary 'operator?:' in 'false ?"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54348 --- Comment #6 from Jason Vas Dias 2012-08-21 20:29:53 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > In mainline the diagnostics is better because we output the types. But I agree > that given that the conditional operator cannot be overloaded the error >

[Bug c++/54348] confusing error reported for type mismatch in conditional expression : "error: no match for ternary 'operator?:' in 'false ?"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54348 --- Comment #5 from Jason Vas Dias 2012-08-21 20:27:36 UTC --- Oops, I was interrupted adding this comment to my initial comment - will respond to subsequent commment next : Incidentally, I found this issue while developing a C++-98 replacement

[Bug c++/54348] confusing error reported for type mismatch in conditional expression : "error: no match for ternary 'operator?:' in 'false ?"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54348 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-21 20:24:15 UTC --- I think clang's "incompatible operand types" is simple and fairly clear

[Bug c++/54314] [4.8 Regression] undefined references to 'construction vtable for std::ostream-in-std::basic_ostringstream, std::allocator >'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314 --- Comment #6 from gee 2012-08-21 20:10:01 UTC --- Created attachment 28065 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28065 proposed patch just added one line. _ZTC* is then exported.

[Bug c++/54348] confusing error reported for type mismatch in conditional expression : "error: no match for ternary 'operator?:' in 'false ?"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54348 --- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-08-21 20:08:02 UTC --- Indeed. About my own reply, I'm not sure, the wording here is pretty subtle, we already handle separately the ambiguous overloading case. ICC refers explicitly to the types being inco

[Bug fortran/54332] [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 takes > 10GB memory to compile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 --- Comment #24 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 19:53:14 UTC --- (In reply to comment #23) > > The problem with this is that you are switching a stack vec into a heap > vec. This may not always be what the caller wanted. My patch just restores the ol

[Bug c++/54348] confusing error reported for type mismatch in conditional expression : "error: no match for ternary 'operator?:' in 'false ?"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54348 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-21 19:51:53 UTC --- (In reply to comment #0) > Shouldn't g++ be complaining about initializing a string with a list > rather than this cryptic "no match for ternary 'operator?:'" here ? No, not really.

[Bug fortran/54332] [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 takes > 10GB memory to compile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 --- Comment #23 from dnovillo at google dot com 2012-08-21 19:50:12 UTC --- On 2012-08-21 15:27 , hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 > > --- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 19:27:50 > UTC -

[Bug c++/54348] confusing error reported for type mismatch in conditional expression : "error: no match for ternary 'operator?:' in 'false ?"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54348 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/54348] New: wrong error reported for type mismatch in conditional expression : "error: no match for ternary 'operator?:' in 'false ?"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54348 Bug #: 54348 Summary: wrong error reported for type mismatch in conditional expression : "error: no match for ternary 'operator?:' in 'false ?" Classification: Unclassified

[Bug fortran/54332] [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 takes > 10GB memory to compile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 --- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 19:27:50 UTC --- This seems to work: diff --git a/gcc/df-scan.c b/gcc/df-scan.c index 35100d1..39f444f 100644 --- a/gcc/df-scan.c +++ b/gcc/df-scan.c @@ -4392,6 +4392,7 @@ df_bb_verify (basic_block bb)

[Bug c++/20420] Incorrectly Accepts double declarations

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20420 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|gcc-bugs at g

[Bug fortran/54332] [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 takes > 10GB memory to compile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 --- Comment #21 from Steven Bosscher 2012-08-21 19:19:58 UTC --- (In reply to comment #18) > Odd that this has not triggered anywhere else. It may have triggered elsewhere, see PR54343 ...

[Bug rtl-optimization/54343] RTL postreload leaks DF memory

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54343 Steven Bosscher changed: What|Removed |Added CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug fortran/54332] [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 takes > 10GB memory to compile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 --- Comment #20 from dnovillo at google dot com 2012-08-21 19:07:33 UTC --- On 2012-08-21 14:54 , hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote: > With --enable-gather-detailed-mem-stats, I got > > Alloc-pool Kind Elt size Pools Allocated (elts)

[Bug fortran/54332] [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 takes > 10GB memory to compile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 --- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 18:54:45 UTC --- (In reply to comment #15) > It failed with > > diff --git a/gcc/passes.c b/gcc/passes.c > index b6fe18e..10174c4 100644 > --- a/gcc/passes.c > +++ b/gcc/passes.c > @@ -1449,7 +1449,6 @@ in

[Bug fortran/54332] [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 takes > 10GB memory to compile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 --- Comment #18 from dnovillo at google dot com 2012-08-21 18:31:51 UTC --- OK, I think this is the hunk that's causing grief: diff --git a/gcc/df-scan.c b/gcc/df-scan.c index 39f444f..35100d1 100644 --- a/gcc/df-scan.c +++ b/gcc/df-scan.c @@ -4

[Bug fortran/54332] [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 takes > 10GB memory to compile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 --- Comment #17 from dnovillo at google dot com 2012-08-21 18:19:10 UTC --- On 2012-08-21 14:08 , hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 > > --- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 18:08:49 > UTC -

[Bug fortran/54332] [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 takes > 10GB memory to compile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 --- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 18:08:49 UTC --- There are: opts.c:typedef char *char_p; /* For DEF_VEC_P. */ opts.c:DEF_VEC_P(char_p); opts.c:DEF_VEC_ALLOC_P(char_p,heap); opts-global.c:typedef const char *const_char_p; /* For DEF_VEC_

[Bug driver/54335] -dm doesn't work

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54335 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 18:03:17 UTC --- There are: opts.c:typedef char *char_p; /* For DEF_VEC_P. */ opts.c:DEF_VEC_P(char_p); opts.c:DEF_VEC_ALLOC_P(char_p,heap); opts-global.c:typedef const char *const_char_p; /* For DEF_VEC_P

[Bug fortran/54332] [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 takes > 10GB memory to compile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 --- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 17:57:59 UTC --- It failed with diff --git a/gcc/passes.c b/gcc/passes.c index b6fe18e..10174c4 100644 --- a/gcc/passes.c +++ b/gcc/passes.c @@ -1449,7 +1449,6 @@ init_optimization_passes (void) NEXT_

[Bug c++/2972] -Wuninitialized could warn about uninitialized member variable usage in constructors

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2972 --- Comment #19 from Paolo Carlini 2012-08-21 17:54:12 UTC --- Eh, I'm of course not sure that I can help but I quickly went through the exchange on gcc-patches and got the impression that your work was already in an advanced stage, thus we should

[Bug c++/54341] [4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE (segfault) in cx_check_missing_mem_inits, at cp/semantics.c:6093

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54341 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at redhat dot com Target Milestone|---

[Bug testsuite/54184] [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c failure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54184 --- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-08-21 17:46:26 UTC --- My bad... I'm on this.

[Bug fortran/54332] [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 takes > 10GB memory to compile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 --- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 17:41:10 UTC --- It failed even with diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop.c index 3d650bf..30ac4b5 100644 --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop.c +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop.c @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ tree_ssa_lo

[Bug libstdc++/54307] [4.7 regression] increases in memory usage by some C++11 (and C++03) standard containers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54307 --- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2012-08-21 17:35:25 UTC --- I have no idea what they are doing in their implementation, there are of course trade offs. When we decide to globally break the ABI to implement a C++11 Standard Conforming std:list w

[Bug c++/2972] -Wuninitialized could warn about uninitialized member variable usage in constructors

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2972 --- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-21 17:26:16 UTC --- No, not at present. I tried using default_init_uninitialized_part but it either missed cases or produce ICEs, and I never solved the problems. I can send you my work-in-progress when

[Bug libstdc++/54307] [4.7 regression] increases in memory usage by some C++11 (and C++03) standard containers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54307 --- Comment #3 from Matt Hargett 2012-08-21 17:26:55 UTC --- Paolo, what about list? Does VC11 achieve the size GCC 4.6 has by not being compliant somehow?

[Bug c++/2778] -fdump-translation-unit [Simple patch supplied, needs review]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2778 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org | --- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini 2012-

[Bug c++/2972] -Wuninitialized could warn about uninitialized member variable usage in constructors

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2972 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org | --- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini 2012-

[Bug fortran/54332] [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 takes > 10GB memory to compile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 --- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 17:10:09 UTC --- It can be reproduced with -frecord-marker=4 -O -funswitch-loops.

[Bug fortran/54332] [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 takes > 10GB memory to compile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 Diego Novillo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #12 from Diego Novil

[Bug fortran/54332] [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 takes > 10GB memory to compile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|2012-08-20 00:00:00

[Bug fortran/54332] [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 takes > 10GB memory to compile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 --- Comment #10 from dnovillo at google dot com 2012-08-21 16:44:10 UTC --- On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:20 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 > > --- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 16:20

[Bug fortran/54332] [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 takes > 10GB memory to compile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 --- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 16:20:37 UTC --- Revision 188059 is bad: f951: out of memory allocating 36872 bytes after a total of 583266304 bytes

[Bug target/54347] New: REAL_VALUE_TO_TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE shouldn't be used in i386

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54347 Bug #: 54347 Summary: REAL_VALUE_TO_TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE shouldn't be used in i386 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/46590] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] long compile time with -O2 and many loops

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590 --- Comment #26 from Richard Guenther 2012-08-21 14:56:41 UTC --- For a somewhat reduced testcase I now get at -O1: alias stmt walking : 105.51 (45%) usr 0.33 (24%) sys tree SSA rewrite: 22.01 ( 9%) usr 0.04 ( 3%) sys tree S

[Bug tree-optimization/46590] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] long compile time with -O2 and many loops

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590 --- Comment #25 from Richard Guenther 2012-08-21 14:10:38 UTC --- I have a patch for the SCCVN issue, but trying to gather current trunk status first.

[Bug fortran/54332] [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 takes > 10GB memory to compile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 --- Comment #8 from dnovillo at google dot com 2012-08-21 14:06:34 UTC --- On 2012-08-21 09:58 , hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 > > --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 13:58:05 > UTC ---

[Bug tree-optimization/54346] New: combine permutations

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54346 Bug #: 54346 Summary: combine permutations Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Co

[Bug fortran/54332] [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 takes > 10GB memory to compile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 13:58:05 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > > If it's related to the hash table, then comparing rev 188059 vs rev > 188129 may show the regression. > Neither rev 188059 nor rev 188129 will build: ../../

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

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146 --- Comment #58 from stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com 2012-08-21 13:56:27 UTC --- FWIW, I think all patches addressing parts of this bug are candidates for back-porting to release branches. They are all almost trivial.

[Bug c++/54314] [4.8 Regression] undefined references to 'construction vtable for std::ostream-in-std::basic_ostringstream, std::allocator >'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314 --- Comment #5 from gee 2012-08-21 13:38:57 UTC --- I think symbol _ZTCSt* need to be included in libstdc++/config/abi/pre/gnu.ver so that shared-library can export these symbols unless user did append --disable-symvers. nothing need to be done

[Bug fortran/54332] [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 takes > 10GB memory to compile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 --- Comment #6 from dnovillo at google dot com 2012-08-21 13:38:24 UTC --- On 2012-08-20 22:59 , hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 > > --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2012-08-21 02:59:15 > UTC ---

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

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146 --- Comment #57 from Richard Guenther 2012-08-21 13:34:28 UTC --- Author: rguenth Date: Tue Aug 21 13:34:19 2012 New Revision: 190562 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190562 Log: 2012-08-21 Richard Guenther Backport

[Bug tree-optimization/54345] New: jump threading leaks e->aux heap memory

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54345 Bug #: 54345 Summary: jump threading leaks e->aux heap memory Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: memory-hog Severi

[Bug target/54344] New: Issue with multiple "arch=" function attributes.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54344 Bug #: 54344 Summary: Issue with multiple "arch=" function attributes. Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug c++/54253] [C++11] constexpr constructor crashes with polymorphic base classes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54253 --- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2012-08-21 11:53:53 UTC --- Related to PR54341

[Bug rtl-optimization/54343] RTL postreload leaks DF memory

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54343 Steven Bosscher changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/54341] [4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE (segfault) in cx_check_missing_mem_inits, at cp/semantics.c:6093

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54341 --- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2012-08-21 11:46:12 UTC --- Reduced: template struct enable_shared_from_this { constexpr enable_shared_from_this(); private: int mem; }; class VTableClass { public: virtual void someVirtualMethod() { }

[Bug rtl-optimization/54343] New: RTL postreload leaks DF memory

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54343 Bug #: 54343 Summary: RTL postreload leaks DF memory Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/54341] [4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE (segfault) in cx_check_missing_mem_inits, at cp/semantics.c:6093

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54341 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/54342] [4.8 Regression] Wrong mode of call argument

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54342 --- Comment #3 from Vladimir Yakovlev 2012-08-21 11:18:39 UTC --- I'm working on vzeroupper insertion and my implementation inserts vzeroupper before the call because VALID_AVX256_REG_MODE returns false.

[Bug rtl-optimization/54342] [4.8 Regression] Wrong mode of call argument

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54342 --- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-08-21 11:10:13 UTC --- Btw, please elaborate on why you consider this a bug.

[Bug rtl-optimization/54342] [4.8 Regression] Wrong mode of call argument

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54342 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0 --- Comment #1 from Richard Guen

[Bug rtl-optimization/54342] New: [4.8 Regression] Wrong mode of call argument

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54342 Bug #: 54342 Summary: [4.8 Regression] Wrong mode of call argument Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prior

[Bug c++/54333] sprinf and fprintf work not always equal

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54333 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|enhancement |normal

[Bug c++/54341] New: [4.7 / 4.8 Regression] ICE (segfault) in cx_check_missing_mem_inits, at cp/semantics.c:6093

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54341 Bug #: 54341 Summary: [4.7 / 4.8 Regression] ICE (segfault) in cx_check_missing_mem_inits, at cp/semantics.c:6093 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1

[Bug tree-optimization/46590] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] long compile time with -O2 and many loops

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590 --- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de 2012-08-21 09:59:41 UTC --- On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590 > > Steven Bosscher changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/46590] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] long compile time with -O2 and many loops

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590 Steven Bosscher changed: What|Removed |Added CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug fortran/54221] [4.8 Regression] Explicit private access specifier signals "unexpected defined but not used [-Wunused-function]" warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54221 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Target Milestone|---

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

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224 --- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2012-08-21 08:48:49 UTC --- * Regarding the inlining issue: I think that's known, cf. bug 48636 comment 18. * It seems as if the TREE_USED part should be handled on the Fortran FE side for both (PRIVATE) modul

[Bug fortran/54332] [4.8 Regression] 481.wrf in SPEC CPU 2006 takes > 10GB memory to compile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0 --- Comment #5 from Richard Guen

[Bug fortran/48636] Enable more inlining with -O2 and higher

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48636 --- Comment #18 from Jan Hubicka 2012-08-21 08:14:33 UTC --- With loop_iterations hint, we should now hint the bar function of testcase in comment #4, but we don't because the value is used conditionally: # iftmp.11_3 = PHI <_12(3), 1(2)> a.

[Bug tree-optimization/46590] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] long compile time with -O2 and many loops

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nbhargava at google dot com --- Commen

[Bug middle-end/54337] Dramatic Compilation slow-down on higher Optimizaitons

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54337 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-*-* Status|UNCONFIR

[Bug c++/54293] When a reference is bound to subobject of a temporary, lifetime of the temporary is not extended

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54293 --- Comment #11 from Daniel Krügler 2012-08-21 08:07:28 UTC --- (In reply to comment #10) > > In other words: In this case IsValid(&ref_int) will hold for the same > > reasons > > as it holds for IsValid(&ref_obj). > > That is true, and I didn'

[Bug driver/54335] -dm doesn't work

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54335 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/54339] [4.8 Regression] Update gfortran manual for GCC 4.8's TS29113 changes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54339 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0

[Bug c/54340] internal compiler error: Illegal instruction (int main() returns nothing, only when -O2/-O3 used)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54340 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

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

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146 --- Comment #56 from rguenther at suse dot de 2012-08-21 07:55:14 UTC --- On Mon, 20 Aug 2012, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54146 > > Steven Bosscher changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug c++/54293] When a reference is bound to subobject of a temporary, lifetime of the temporary is not extended

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54293 --- Comment #10 from Jiří Paleček 2012-08-21 07:51:55 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > > I agree with your analysis, but would like to point out that there is > > > change > > > planned to essentially this part of

[Bug c/54340] internal compiler error: Illegal instruction (int main() returns nothing, only when -O2/-O3 used)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54340 --- Comment #3 from Коренберг Марк 2012-08-21 07:32:25 UTC --- Yes, I tested on gentoo, no error appear. I have reported to ubuntu bug tracker: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-4.6/+bug/1039401

[Bug c/54340] internal compiler error: Illegal instruction (int main() returns nothing, only when -O2/-O3 used)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54340 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target||arm-linux-gnueabi --- Comment #2 from And

[Bug c/54340] internal compiler error: Illegal instruction (int main() returns nothing, only when -O2/-O3 used)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54340 --- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-08-21 07:22:09 UTC --- You didn't specify the host, but since it's Ubuntu I'm guessing Linux/x86_64. I can't reproduce the SIGILL with either 4.7.1, 4.6.3, or 4.5.4 on a Core i7. Can you reproduce wi

[Bug fortran/54339] New: [4.8 Regression] Update gfortran manual for GCC 4.8's TS29113 changes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54339 Bug #: 54339 Summary: [4.8 Regression] Update gfortran manual for GCC 4.8's TS29113 changes Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRM

[Bug c/54340] New: internal compiler error: Illegal instruction (int main() returns nothing, only when -O2/-O3 used)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54340 Bug #: 54340 Summary: internal compiler error: Illegal instruction (int main() returns nothing, only when -O2/-O3 used) Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.3

[Bug fortran/54339] [4.8 Regression] Update gfortran manual for GCC 4.8's TS29113 changes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54339 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P5 CC|

[Bug middle-end/54337] Dramatic Compilation slow-down on higher Optimizaitons

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54337 Steven Bosscher changed: What|Removed |Added CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #