http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
vincenzo Innocente changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincenzo.innocente at cern
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #23 from Teresa Johnson 2012-11-15
06:44:00 UTC ---
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:17 PM, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
>
> --- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-15
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44578
--- Comment #4 from kl4yfd at gmail dot com 2012-11-15 06:39:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 28695
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28695
mmX global register no emms
Added example C source file showing the issue mentioned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44578
kl4yfd at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kl4yfd at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55335
Bug #: 55335
Summary: [DR 5] cv-qualifiers of destination type in
copy-initialization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54279
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2012-11-15
04:31:44 UTC ---
libmudflap has the similar issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54279
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2012-11-15
03:40:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Created attachment 28693 [details]
> Patch which I am testing right now
>
> Once my testing finishes (including installing), I will submit this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55333
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[x32] 8 asan test failures |[x32]
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53866
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski 2012-11-15
03:20:16 UTC ---
Does this still happen?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53300
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski 2012-11-15
03:18:18 UTC ---
Does this still happen?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54279
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2012-11-15
02:51:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 28693
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28693
Patch which I am testing right now
Once my testing finishes (including installing), I will
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #22 from Teresa Johnson 2012-11-15
02:46:20 UTC ---
Ok, will see if I can submit that one tomorrow then, after double
checking the performance.
Teresa
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 6:01 PM, hubicka at ucw dot cz
wrote:
>
> h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #11 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-11-15
02:39:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Excess errors:
> > /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/gnu_fext-numeric-literals.C:94:3:
> > ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48636
--- Comment #41 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-15
02:28:26 UTC ---
mgrid regression is now PR55334
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47343
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
Bug #: 55334
Summary: mgrid regression (ipa-cp disables vectorization)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #38 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-15
02:10:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #35)
> >> Is that certain to be soon enough
> Not 100%. I am just warning you.
Considering that the release schedule for llvm 3.2 is close to that of gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #37 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-15
02:06:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 28692
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28692
revised patch with regenerated files and proposed darwin.h link spec change
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #21 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-15 02:01:01
UTC ---
> Ok, I can do that. I had tried that but didn't see any gain yet (need
> to take a look at my results again). I have been playing with teasing
> apart the various uses of this c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53841
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53841
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-11-15
01:56:13 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Nov 15 01:56:05 2012
New Revision: 193528
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193528
Log:
PR libstdc++/53841
* include/s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37276
--- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill 2012-11-15
01:53:55 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 15 01:53:48 2012
New Revision: 193526
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193526
Log:
PR c++/37276
* decl.c (decls_m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55275
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2012-11-15
01:53:34 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Nov 15 01:53:23 2012
New Revision: 193524
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193524
Log:
PR c++/55275
* pt.c (maybe_proc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55333
Bug #: 55333
Summary: [x32] 8 asan test failures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #20 from Teresa Johnson 2012-11-15
01:52:45 UTC ---
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:42 PM, hubicka at ucw dot cz
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
>
> --- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-15 01:42:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-15 01:42:55
UTC ---
> Oh got it - it is this one, right?:
>
> profiling:/home/tejohnson/extra/gcc_trunk_3_obj/libcpp/files.gcda:Invocation
> mismatch - some data files may have been removed
Yes
> Oh got it - it is this one, right?:
>
> profiling:/home/tejohnson/extra/gcc_trunk_3_obj/libcpp/files.gcda:Invocation
> mismatch - some data files may have been removed
Yes, it is this one.
>
> I think this one was there before, but I had to modify it after my
> histogram change. I will take a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53841
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-11-15
01:38:23 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Nov 15 01:38:17 2012
New Revision: 193523
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193523
Log:
PR libstdc++/53841
* include/s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #18 from Teresa Johnson 2012-11-15
01:33:43 UTC ---
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:17 PM, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #17 from Teresa Johnson 2012-11-15
01:28:47 UTC ---
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:17 PM, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
>
> --- Comment #16 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-15
01:17:43 UTC ---
Theresa: I am using gcc10 from compilation farm, but I think it is fairly
universal problem.
Also I think that gcc_assert should not be assert, but an user readable error
about
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-15
01:10:29 UTC ---
Note that profiledbootstrap still dies for me on
config.status: creating tests/rand/Makefile
../../libiberty/cp-demangle.c: In function 'd_print_cast.isra.8':
../../libiberty/cp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-15
01:07:04 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Nov 15 01:07:01 2012
New Revision: 193522
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193522
Log:
PR bootstrap/55051
* gcov-io.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-15
01:03:09 UTC ---
OK, the false positive is on quite sloppy code in gcov-io.c. I attached
testcase to PR55079 and will fix the gcc_assert specifying the loop bounds to
not allow out-of-bound read.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55079
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-15
01:01:30 UTC ---
This is reduced testcase from gcov.c
int a[8];
int
t (void)
{
int ix = 0;
int k;
int b = 0;
int curr = 0;
for (k = 0; k < 2; k++)
{
b = ix * 32;
curr = a[ix++]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53841
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45317
--- Comment #4 from Gianluigi Tiesi 2012-11-15
00:36:10 UTC ---
sorry my comment are for another bug, please ignore them
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55231
--- Comment #3 from Cary Coutant 2012-11-15
00:34:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Another issue:
> markus@x4 ~ % c++ -c -O0 -gsplit-dwarf test.ii -o /dev/null
> /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.8.0/../../../../x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54279
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-15 00:30:51
UTC ---
Revision 193513 gave:
../../src-trunk/gcc/common/common-targhooks.c: In function
'default_target_handle_option(gcc_options*, gcc_options*, cl_decoded_option
const*, unsigned int)'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53145
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55320
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45317
--- Comment #3 from Gianluigi Tiesi 2012-11-15
00:21:58 UTC ---
I've also tested with -malign-double and nothing changes, I don't need mingw32
abi on linux, I need mingw abi on mingw, somehow changed with 4.7.0, I'm not
sure if it's a bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #11 from Teresa Johnson 2012-11-15
00:21:36 UTC ---
Sure, I will see if I can reproduce it.
Teresa
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55320
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-11-15
00:21:16 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Nov 15 00:21:09 2012
New Revision: 193520
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193520
Log:
PR libstdc++/55320
* include/s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55328
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55231
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45317
--- Comment #2 from Gianluigi Tiesi 2012-11-15
00:13:28 UTC ---
so mingw < 4.7.0 has same packing behavior of linux gcc, why in _mingw_ >=
4.7.0 should I add -malign-double to be compatible with mingw < 4.7.0 and msvc
abi?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tejohnson at google dot com
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55291
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55291
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-15
00:03:41 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Nov 15 00:03:37 2012
New Revision: 193516
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193516
Log:
Add support for multilib run-time
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48636
--- Comment #40 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-14 23:54:44
UTC ---
mgrid do not seem to be sensitive to --param min-inline-speedup, so it seems
independent regression of this change.
No idea what goes wrong.
Honza
mgrid do not seem to be sensitive to --param min-inline-speedup, so it seems
independent regression of this change.
No idea what goes wrong.
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #36 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-11-14 23:49:25 UTC ---
Jack,
Could you please post a patch with the regenerated files. I have lost my
struggle with the auto* versions and I am giving up.
TIA
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55328
--- Comment #1 from sterling at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-14 23:36:54 UTC ---
Author: sterling
Date: Wed Nov 14 23:36:50 2012
New Revision: 193515
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193515
Log:
2012-11-14 Sterling Augu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55332
Bug #: 55332
Summary: [4.8 Regression] libsanitizer breaks build on hpux
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55320
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-11-14
23:33:08 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Nov 14 23:33:01 2012
New Revision: 193514
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193514
Log:
PR libstdc++/55320
* include/s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48636
--- Comment #39 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-14
23:22:40 UTC ---
Hmm, indeed. Good catch. I will look into it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53841
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #35 from Konstantin Serebryany 2012-11-14 23:10:00 UTC ---
>> Is that certain to be soon enough
Not 100%. I am just warning you.
>> Will the replacement of mach_override also depend on the Core Foundation
>> framework?
Th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53841
Richard Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard-gccbugzilla at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-14
23:03:27 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Nov 14 23:03:22 2012
New Revision: 193512
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193512
Log:
PR bootstrap/55051
* ipa-inli
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #10 from Uros Bizjak 2012-11-14 22:42:45
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> > Right, thanks, I was just about to analyze that one. Speaking of that
> > commit,
> > some of the new tests fail for me:
> > FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53346
--- Comment #22 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-14
22:38:19 UTC ---
OK, similar loop in C looks like:
float a[1];
float b[1];
t()
{
int mi = 0,i;
for (i=0;i<1000;i++)
if (a[i]")))
(set (pc) (if_then_else
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-14
22:30:51 UTC ---
In fact, however, a Linux target like s390x is also affected:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-11/msg01187.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-14
22:28:19 UTC ---
The latter seems indeed a target issue, as you can read here Hans-Peter
reported it for cris-elf, but have a look to the testresults mailing list to
double check. Personally, I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53346
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #7 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-11-14
22:18:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > I also see failing g++.dg/parse/template23.C and for this one too the
> > problem
> > see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55331
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #34 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-14
22:09:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
> Just want to repeat, that any work on mach_override may end up being wasted
> time
> because we plan to get rid of mach_override *really* soon.
O
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55331
Bug #: 55331
Summary: [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in
substitute_and_fold with -O2 -fno-tree-fre
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #6 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-11-14
21:52:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
>
> Invoke with gnu++0x:
> // { dg-options -std=gnu++0x }
>
> Invoke with new flag:
> // { dg-options -std=c++0x -fe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55330
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-11-14
21:43:28 UTC ---
I don't see it on x86_64-apple-darwin10 (revisions 193495+patches and 193329).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55329
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55330
Bug #: 55330
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE: Maximum number of LRA constraint
passes is achieved (15) on
gfortran.dg/actual_array_constructor_1.f90
Classification: Unclassif
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55321
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #33 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-14
20:56:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
> Just want to repeat, that any work on mach_override may end up being wasted
> time
> because we plan to get rid of mach_override *really* soon.
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55329
Bug #: 55329
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE: internal compiler error: in
operator[], at vec.h:487 with -O
-fno-guess-branch-probability -fnon-call-exceptions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-11-14 20:48:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 28688
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28688
testcase
The testcase is only reduced to 97K, but it gets reduced very slowly
and I'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55328
Bug #: 55328
Summary: ICE: in output_addr_table_entry, at dwarf2out.c:21780
with -gsplit-dwarf
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55323
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-14
20:36:37 UTC ---
If you ask me, I have I slight preference for the latter, because isn't always
obvious what gnu++* includes beyond c++*. But Jason will tell you, and the fix
is straightforward
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55323
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-14 20:29:26 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Nov 14 20:29:07 2012
New Revision: 193505
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193505
Log:
/cp
2012-11-14 Paolo Carlin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #32 from Konstantin Serebryany 2012-11-14 20:21:19 UTC ---
Just want to repeat, that any work on mach_override may end up being wasted
time
because we plan to get rid of mach_override *really* soon.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-11-14
20:20:27 UTC ---
OK, g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-complex.C will fail with the patch to control GNU
literal parsing. i.e. this behavior in intended.
The purpose of th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11750
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Reso
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11750
--- Comment #9 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-14 20:12:56 UTC ---
Author: fabien
Date: Wed Nov 14 20:12:47 2012
New Revision: 193504
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193504
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
2012-11-14 Fa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54717
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54717
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka 2012-11-14 19:43:00
UTC ---
> So for the loop that starting at bb 28 you can see the xxtrt_46 access was not
> put into pretemp. Possible reason is exactly as it was mentioned by Richard -
> there were extr
> So for the loop that starting at bb 28 you can see the xxtrt_46 access was not
> put into pretemp. Possible reason is exactly as it was mentioned by Richard -
> there were extra candidates collected and this one become less anticipatable
>
> Skipping partial partial redundancy for expression
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55079
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8 regression] false |[4.8 regression] false
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #31 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-14
19:10:15 UTC ---
Also fine on i386-apple-darwin10...
howarth% ./use-after-free
=
==82550== ERROR: AddressSanitizer heap-use-aft
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54717
--- Comment #12 from Sergey Ostanevich 2012-11-14
18:56:22 UTC ---
Actually, it is not.
I found that PRE did not collected a memory access within the loop that caused
later missing vectorization. Here is dump before (good one) and after t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55327
Bug #: 55327
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/slp-perm-8.c scan-tree-dump-times
vect "vectorized 1 loops" 2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55254
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55309
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-11-14 17:02:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Also, this comparison doesn't have numbers for pure clang without
> -fsanitize=address and gcc without -faddress-sanitizer, so likely most of th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55325
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-11-14
16:59:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I also see failing g++.dg/parse/template23.C and for this one too the problem
> seems related to the recent changes for PR54413.
Right, thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55318
--- Comment #2 from brunonery+bugzilla at brunonery dot com 2012-11-14 16:55:36
UTC ---
Not -Winit-self alone, but together with -Wuninitialized.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289
--- Comment #30 from Jack Howarth 2012-11-14
16:54:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #29)
Thanks with the patch applied from comment 29, now the use-after-free testcase
works without errors...
howarth% ./use-after-free
==
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
