http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54844
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-20
06:55:45 UTC ---
*** Bug 54994 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54994
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54963
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54995
Bug #: 54995
Summary: Converting lambda to C-style functions when there is
template
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54989
bin.cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker.cheng at gmail dot
Morning Day Traders!!!
T_LP C is making ripples! Top Queried Stock On Board Central This
Morning! Get Your Orders In Pronto!!!
Trade Date: Oct, 22nd
Company Name: TELPAC INDUSTRIES, INC.
Ticker: T_LP C
Price: .32
Long Term Target: 2.50
T_LP C has hired established mobile application developers
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54844
Wolfgang Bangerth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bangerth at gmail dot com
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54994
Bug #: 54994
Summary: [4.8 regression] New ICE in tsubst_copy
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54961
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-19
23:18:39 UTC ---
> Something I'm going to test:
It does not fix the ICE, at least on x86_64-apple-darwin10.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54967
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-19
22:15:09 UTC ---
The test libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-6.c fails to execute with a bus error
on x86_64-apple-darwin10 at revision 192538. Is it related to this PR or should
I open a ne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54985
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law 2012-10-19 22:00:45
UTC ---
This is definitely something introduced when I extended the threading code last
year.
When threading across a backedge in the CFG we run the risk of simplifying a
conditiona
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54961
--- Comment #2 from Steven Bosscher 2012-10-19
21:57:54 UTC ---
Something I'm going to test:
Index: ira-lives.c
===
--- ira-lives.c (revision 192571)
+++ ira-lives.c (work
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54993
Bug #: 54993
Summary: [4.8 regression] PIC register not marked as live
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54992
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-19
21:37:08 UTC ---
Revision 187190 is OK, revision 187198 is not -> likely r187192.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54992
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54992
Bug #: 54992
Summary: [OOP] Wrong offset in the array offset calculation
when using nonclass%class(index)%nonclass
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54991
--- Comment #1 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-10-19 18:58:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 28495
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28495
testcase, including source, .mod and .gcda files needed. README gives
compilation comman
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54987
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-10-19
18:46:26 UTC ---
Comeau C/C++ 4.3.10.1 (Oct 6 2008 11:28:09) for ONLINE_EVALUATION_BETA2
Copyright 1988-2008 Comeau Computing. All rights reserved.
MODE:strict errors C++ C++0x_extensions
"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54850
--- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-10-19 18:33:27 UTC ---
I'm not seeing the fail with the candidate patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54991
Bug #: 54991
Summary: [LRA] internal compiler error: in lra_assign, at
lra-assigns.c:1361
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8 Regression] Bogus |Warn for unused (private
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-19 17:48:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Leftover things to check/fix:
> * unused-warnings for internal procedues
Test case:
module m
private
contains
subroutine s1
co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-19 17:22:44 UTC ---
r192620 fixes the bogus warning on comment 0, which was a 4.8 regression.
Leftover things to check/fix:
* unused-warnings for internal procedues
* unused-warnings
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-19 17:15:01 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Oct 19 17:14:46 2012
New Revision: 192620
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192620
Log:
2012-10-19 Janus Weil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54990
Bug #: 54990
Summary: [4.8 Regression] [OOP] ICE in tree_operand_check on
SELECT TYPE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
--- Comment #17 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-19
17:03:40 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Oct 19 17:03:07 2012
New Revision: 192619
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192619
Log:
PR54945
Modified:
branches/g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
--- Comment #16 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-19
17:01:37 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Oct 19 17:00:50 2012
New Revision: 192618
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192618
Log:
PR54945
Modified:
branches/g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
--- Comment #15 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-19
16:55:13 UTC ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Oct 19 16:53:39 2012
New Revision: 192617
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192617
Log:
PR54945
Modified:
trunk/gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54983
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
of
bb .* copying expression"
at -m32 and r192611. The test passes at -m64.
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc-fsf-4.8
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/sw/lib/gcc4.8/libexec/gcc/x86_64-apple-darwin12.2.0/4.8.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin12.2.0
Configured with: ../gcc-4.8-20121019/configure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54885
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolutio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54978
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Davis 2012-10-19 16:14:36
UTC ---
Obviously, it would be nice if gcc can build the functions if they are pure
functions. But that would require somehow knowing that those functions should
be built and having acc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54971
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2012-10-19
16:01:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 28493
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28493
Untested patch
I'm currently bootstrapping and testing this patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54988
Bug #: 54988
Summary: fpmath=sse target pragma causes inlining failure
because of target specific option mismatch
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54986
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54986
--- Comment #2 from Rémi Vanicat 2012-10-19
14:13:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 28492
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28492
Small test case
I've isolated the bug to a relatively small file (140 line, with no #include),
here
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54693
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-19
13:49:03 UTC ---
What I had in mind for ivopts is roughly this. Not sure about the last
argument to get_computation_at. For normal statements I'd hope it shouldn't
make a difference, the stmt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54985
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
--- Comment #14 from Marek Polacek 2012-10-19
13:18:12 UTC ---
I agree and do not plan to work on "fixing" that. (The intptr_t change is
already approved and will be comitted shortly though.)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54945
--- Comment #13 from Michael Matz 2012-10-19 13:12:35
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> What do you mean by invalid? It is certainly not undefined behavior.
No, but the expectation implicitely coded into the return code is invalid.
So
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54987
Bug #: 54987
Summary: missed ambiguity in template function call
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54981
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54981
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener 2012-10-19
13:05:45 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Oct 19 13:05:40 2012
New Revision: 192612
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192612
Log:
2012-10-19 Richard Guenther
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54967
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka 2012-10-19
12:50:57 UTC ---
OK,
the problem is that unloop is shuffling a basic block out of the outer loop:
DO m=1,6
after unrolling the inner loop:
DO j=1,2
12 times.
So here are several pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54984
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54693
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-19
12:34:14 UTC ---
Thanks, the threadedge patch looks reasonable (I think gimple_location on debug
stmts is ignored, so we don't need to drop it).
As for ivopts, there is no use in these cases.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54974
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|4.7.2 |4.6.3
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54986
--- Comment #1 from Rémi Vanicat 2012-10-19
12:06:30 UTC ---
I forgot to give you the version:
I'm using debian unstable gcc:
g++-4.7 (Debian 4.7.2-4) 4.7.2
Copyright (C) 2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54983
Bastian Hecht changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |c
--- Comment #2 from Bastian H
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54986
Bug #: 54986
Summary: Internal Error: segmentation fault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54985
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54985
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54569
Lars changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||l.gronning at gmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54981
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener 2012-10-19
11:06:16 UTC ---
+not generating builtin, partition has scalar uses outside of the loop
that check is confused by debug stmts.
I have a simple patch, let's watch for the fallout (the issue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54983
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-10-19
11:01:13 UTC ---
I think there might be an issue with some of the inline-asm in asm/io.h:
static inline __attribute__((always_inline))
__attribute__((no_instrument_function)) void __raw_writew(u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54985
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Yakovlev 2012-10-19
10:59:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 28490
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28490
Main routine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54985
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Yakovlev 2012-10-19
10:58:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 28489
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28489
Test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54985
Bug #: 54985
Summary: Dom optimization erroneous remove conditional goto.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54984
Bug #: 54984
Summary: Array allocated with new in a template class is
default initialised
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54983
Bug #: 54983
Summary: ARM gcc creates invalid assembly: bad immediate value
for 8-bit offset (1024)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54894
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||54976
--- Comment #7 from Rich
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54976
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3187
--- Comment #42 from Arunprasad 2012-10-19
10:34:11 UTC ---
So I'm assuming like the issue still exists in gcc family of tool-chains. Fix
has been temporarily suspended due to ABI compatibility.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54976
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener 2012-10-19
10:32:37 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Oct 19 10:32:29 2012
New Revision: 192611
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192611
Log:
2012-10-19 Richard Biener
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54980
--- Comment #5 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko 2012-10-19
10:26:35 UTC ---
192517 OK
192548 FAIL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54884
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3187
--- Comment #41 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-19
10:05:55 UTC ---
The reason why this hasn't been closed is that we only use an alias of one kind
of ctor (resp. dtor) to the other one if they are the same (and for deleting
dtor just always cal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54978
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54892
--- Comment #4 from xuepeng guo 2012-10-19 09:39:20
UTC ---
Author: xguo
Date: Fri Oct 19 09:39:13 2012
New Revision: 192610
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192610
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog
Backported from main
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54967
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka 2012-10-19 09:35:37 UTC
---
Looking into it. Obviously complette unroling ought not affect loop closedness
:)
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54892
--- Comment #3 from xuepeng guo 2012-10-19 09:24:48
UTC ---
Author: xguo
Date: Fri Oct 19 09:24:39 2012
New Revision: 192609
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192609
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog
PR target/54892
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54977
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54976
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54978
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48636
--- Comment #26 from vincenzo Innocente
2012-10-19 08:45:03 UTC ---
I'm interested to test the patch on our large application currently compiled
with 4.7.2.
would it be possible to get the same patch against gcc-4_7-branch?
thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54967
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|hubicka at ucw dot cz, |hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54937
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54980
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54981
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54966
--- Comment #3 from vincenzo Innocente
2012-10-19 08:36:20 UTC ---
the patch fails w.r.t. 4.7
patch -p0 < ../../inline.patch
patching file ipa-inline.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 473.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 491.
Hunk #3 FAILED at 545.
3 out of 3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54965
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener 2012-10-19
08:36:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > In the above case you probably want big_function_a to have all
> > calls inlined. You can then conveniently use the fl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54725
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
83 matches
Mail list logo
