http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir 2012-11-19 07:56:26
UTC ---
Sorry for stupid questions :)
Is this bug planned to be fixed in future?
Can I help in any way to do that?
2012/11/19 daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com :
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55353
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler
2012-11-19 07:26:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> What does 'rejects-valid' keywords mean?
It means that the compiler rejects valid code, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/describekeywords.cgi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55378
--- Comment #5 from philippe.coustaux at gmail dot com 2012-11-19 06:05:17 UTC
---
I have added a #include
and calls to fegetround
The return value is 0 in thread or in main.
Reproducible with cygwin and mingw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55353
--- Comment #2 from wmi at google dot com 2012-11-19 05:54:44 UTC ---
Hi Kostya,
Ok, I will extract the change from the tsan patch and send out a
separate patch about it.
Regards,
Wei.
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 9:20 PM, konstantin.s.s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir 2012-11-19 05:47:19
UTC ---
What does 'rejects-valid' keywords mean?
18.11.2012 22:05 пользователь "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> написал:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55381
Venkataramanan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||venkataramanan.kumar at amd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55051
--- Comment #30 from tejohnson at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-19 05:21:06 UTC ---
Author: tejohnson
Date: Mon Nov 19 05:20:59 2012
New Revision: 193612
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193612
Log:
This patch addresses t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55353
Konstantin Serebryany changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55378
--- Comment #4 from philippe.coustaux at gmail dot com 2012-11-19 05:19:07 UTC
---
Ok, I have found for the rouding mode.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55378
--- Comment #3 from philippe.coustaux at gmail dot com 2012-11-19 05:00:07 UTC
---
Hi,
The difference is not always 1ulp. If you look at 'RUN-LOG-30.txt' output file
you can see that its 3ulp. If you ran the binary with a value of 100 the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55377
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55354
--- Comment #13 from Konstantin Serebryany 2012-11-19 04:13:23 UTC ---
>> of course everything would need to be done only given appropriate benchmarks
>> of real-world programs.
We have a synthetic benchmark which perfectly reflects the o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958
--- Comment #8 from Nathan Ridge 2012-11-19
03:49:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> No. The resolution of 1395 will not make the testcase in #1 valid, only the
> case where you have a degenerate overload, like
>
> template
> int&
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54630
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-19
02:11:53 UTC ---
I see...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55380
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2012-11-19
01:57:16 UTC ---
No. The resolution of 1395 will not make the testcase in #1 valid, only the
case where you have a degenerate overload, like
template
int& f(const T&, Args...);
template
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55378
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|Mingw, cygwin |i?86-*-mingw*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55386
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54165
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meng at g dot clemson.edu
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55386
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|meng at g dot clemson.edu |
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55387
Bug #: 55387
Summary: Build problem: malloc error in genautomata
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55386
Bug #: 55386
Summary: operator void called for class objects converted to
void type.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55384
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at google dot com
2012-11-19 01:05:32 UTC ---
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 7:21 PM, dje at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55384
>
> --- Comment #4 from David Edelsohn 201
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55385
Bug #: 55385
Summary: g++ failed to call final overrider of a virtual
function.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55384
--- Comment #4 from David Edelsohn 2012-11-19 00:21:59
UTC ---
AIX /usr/include/stdlib.h includes
#define vec_free free
And vec.h defines two functions named vec_free, which get renamed, causing
ambiguity in the splay_tree_new calls.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-19
00:21:29 UTC ---
Oh yes, nice. I'm only a bit nervous because the status is still drafting but
it looks like there is very solid agreement about the issue. Tomorrow I mean to
add the testcase to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55319
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-19
00:16:03 UTC ---
If it does depend on I/O please trim down all the rest, and, if at all
possible, please use standard functions for that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55006
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-11-18
23:11:19 UTC ---
Reverting the change to gcc/web.c in revision 192526, i.e., re-removing
DF_RD_PRUNE_DEAD_DEFS, fixes the miscompilation without regression.
> Well done to us all for pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Ridge 2012-11-18
22:28:59 UTC ---
I filed the same bug for clang, and I was pointed to DR1395 [1]. GCC and
clang's behaviour are both in line with the resolution of this DR.
I guess this can be closed as invali
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55382
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse 2012-11-18 22:13:37
UTC ---
Seems related to PR 53017.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55319
--- Comment #2 from m101010a at gmail dot com 2012-11-18 22:13:23 UTC ---
Actually, it does depend on IO; the optimizations aren't performed in either
case if I declare but don't define putchar, and if do something simple like
assigning to a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55384
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55384
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55384
--- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn 2012-11-18 22:02:44
UTC ---
Created attachment 28728
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28728
tree-dump.c preprocessed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55384
--- Comment #1 from David Edelsohn 2012-11-18 22:01:56
UTC ---
Created attachment 28727
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28727
c-lex.c preprocessed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55384
Bug #: 55384
Summary: [4.8 Regresson] VEC merge AIX bootstrap failure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47226
--- Comment #4 from Johannes Schaub
2012-11-18 21:29:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Is this a duplicate of Bug 41933 ?
This looks like a different one. I am not trying to capture a list of variables
that result of expansion of a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55383
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55367
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-18
21:05:23 UTC ---
Indeed it does, but we badly need a mingw maintainer to resolve this (or these)
issues
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55381
--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-11-18
20:17:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > /tmp/hpautotest-gcc0/gcc/libgfortran/generated/matmul_i1.c:79:1: internal
> > compiler error: Illegal instruction
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55354
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-18
20:09:39 UTC ---
That would effectively require building libtsan as libtsan.so.0, libtsan.a
(both -fPIC built) and libtsan_pie.a (-fPIE built), where the gcc driver would
do:
%{static-libtsan:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55354
--- Comment #11 from Konstantin Serebryany 2012-11-18 19:59:42 UTC ---
The above comment is correct.
-fPIE is only applicable if we build libtsan.a and link it statically to the
pie executable.
This mode however, works pretty well and mo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55354
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-18
19:54:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> NOT-SO-BAD: -fPIC -shared -ftls-model=initial-exec
> % gcc x.c -O2 -fPIC -shared -o x.so -ftls-model=initial-exec ; objdump -d
> x.so
> | grep f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55381
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-11-18
19:47:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> /tmp/hpautotest-gcc0/gcc/libgfortran/generated/matmul_i1.c:79:1: internal
> compiler error: Illegal instruction
Not observed with gcc-4.7.2-2.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55367
Pawel Sikora changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pluto at agmk dot net
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55367
--- Comment #3 from walid riabi 2012-11-18 19:43:25
UTC ---
I just tried that with the latest version (4.7.2) of MingW under windows 8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55367
--- Comment #2 from walid riabi 2012-11-18 19:41:00
UTC ---
I just tried that with the latest version (4.7.2) of MingW under windows 8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55354
--- Comment #9 from Konstantin Serebryany 2012-11-18 19:35:43 UTC ---
As dvyuokv@ pointed out,
-ftls-model=initial-exec improves the situation, but does not fully help.
Experiment:
% cat x.c
__thread int a;
int foo() {
return
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55379
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-18 19:35:21
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Note: fully static linking is not supported by libsanitizer at all and I don't
> think it will.
> Reason: on linux asan uses "dlsym(RTLD_NEXT, ...)" and o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55383
Bug #: 55383
Summary: -Wcast-qual reports incorrect message
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55352
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-18 19:16:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> This solves the problem for me, thank you very much
You're welcome ...
> I'm impressed by your quick and competent work :-)
Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55379
Konstantin Serebryany changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||konstantin.s.serebryany at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55376
--- Comment #3 from Konstantin Serebryany 2012-11-18 18:47:19 UTC ---
>> Are all upstream changes considered reviewed and automatically approved for
>> gcc repo?
all upstream changes are pre- or post- reviewed, so my answer here is "yes"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55382
Bug #: 55382
Summary: Constant class member as alignment specifier
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55352
--- Comment #5 from AstroFloyd 2012-11-18
17:53:36 UTC ---
Created attachment 28726
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28726
My adaptation of the patch in #3
This solves the problem for me, thank you very much - I'm imp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47226
gnzlbg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gonzalobg88 at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55316
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-11-18 17:18:20 UTC ---
On 17-Nov-12, at 3:01 AM, hp at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> This should be fixed now by the general disabling of libsanitizer.
In theory, it should be fairly easy t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55369
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin 2012-11-18
17:16:53 UTC ---
Created attachment 28725
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28725
Reduced testcase
Problem occurs because of gcc_assert expression checking. If disabled
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55381
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-11-18
17:04:03 UTC ---
Random cutnpasted suspicious warning, maybe related:
g++ -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55368
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55381
Bug #: 55381
Summary: [4.8 Regression]: build fails on cris-elf building
libgfortran with host-gcc-4.4, ICE compiling
matmul_i1.c
Classification: Unclassified
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55380
Bug #: 55380
Summary: All search_line_fast implementations read beyond
buffer
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55350
--- Comment #2 from William J. Schmidt 2012-11-18
15:04:27 UTC ---
I'm on vacation this week, but I'll have a look when I get back on the 26th.
Sorry for the delay!
Bill
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55379
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-static -static-libasan |-static -static-libasan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55379
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-18 14:52:24
UTC ---
It should be
[hjl@gnu-tools-1 gcc]$ ./xgcc -B./ x.o -o x -faddress-sanitizer
-B../x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libsanitizer/asan/.libs/ -static-libasan -static
[hjl@gnu-tools-1 gcc]$
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55379
Bug #: 55379
Summary: -static -static-libasan doesn't create static binary
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-11-18 14:33:49 UTC ---
> ... in wich case could you, please, update the testcase to be valid and remove
> the XFAIL I introduced?
I cannot commit anything, but the XFAIL can be fixed in seve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55378
philippe.coustaux at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||Mingw, cygwin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55367
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-18
14:04:00 UTC ---
Does it happen only on Windows? Which kind of system exactly, mingw, Cygwin? In
case should be , as Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55319
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-18
14:00:37 UTC ---
In order to quickly make progress on the issue, I recommend filing something
much smaller and less obfuscated. Also, not using internal stdio interfaces
(anyway, very likely i/o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55355
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55348
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |middle-end
Severity|ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55373
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeratul976 at hotmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54795
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu 2012-11-18 13:15:59
UTC ---
I got
/tmp/cc5sWfOD.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp/cc5sWfOD.s:824391: Error: invalid character (0xf7) in mnemonic
make[7]: *** [/tmp/ccpgVF41.ltrans24.ltrans.o] Error 1
lto-wrapper: make ret
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55378
Bug #: 55378
Summary: Inconsistant double 387 computation when using
osthread
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55377
Bug #: 55377
Summary: ipa-pure-cont produces wrong code on AVR
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55376
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
82 matches
Mail list logo
