http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10837
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski 2013-02-03
02:18:59 UTC ---
*** Bug 56165 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
Alexander Kobets changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolutio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56151
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56151
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #46 from Jack Howarth 2013-02-03
00:10:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #40)
Also with the patch in Comment 42, the failing test case converted into a
shared library loaded via dlopen works fine...
% cat libcov.C
struct c18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #70 from Georg 2013-02-02 23:53:35
UTC ---
Don't know whether this matters in any way, but I should perhaps mention that
the system of comment #65 does not have autogen installed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #45 from Jack Howarth 2013-02-02
22:53:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #40)
Also the impact of the proposed patch in Comment 42 could be limited even
further by using...
if (flag_asan && priority == 99)
as the test for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50627
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig 2013-02-02
22:38:22 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Feb 2 22:38:14 2013
New Revision: 195687
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195687
Log:
2013-02-02 Thomas Koenig
Bac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56054
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig 2013-02-02
22:38:22 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Feb 2 22:38:14 2013
New Revision: 195687
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195687
Log:
2013-02-02 Thomas Koenig
Bac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
--- Comment #19 from Martin von Gagern
2013-02-02 22:08:09 UTC ---
Bug 49467 asked about builtins, and got duped here, so small wonder people
wanting a builtin-colored bikeshed like I do end up here...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
--- Comment #18 from Zack Weinberg 2013-02-02 21:59:37
UTC ---
I find it a little disappointing that what should have been a straightforward
additional optimization has gotten totally derailed into bikeshedding of an
enormous class of buil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56180
--- Comment #3 from Paulo Torrens 2013-02-02
21:45:20 UTC ---
According to the man page here on Mac:
Only one character of push-back is guaranteed, but as long as there is
sufficient memory, an effectively infinite amount of push-back is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56187
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45159
--- Comment #28 from Thomas Koenig 2013-02-02
21:31:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 29340
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29340
patch which implements comment #27
Still have to verify that this one is correct in all ca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56173
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-02-02 21:05:42 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor 2013-02-02
> 16:12:35 UTC ---
> Can you verify that the files in libgo/go/archive/tar/testdata are identical
> on
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56187
Bug #: 56187
Summary: void arithmetic in unwind-dw2-fde.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56186
Bug #: 56186
Summary: [4.8 regression] function return ABI change for
128-bit types on Win64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #44 from Jack Howarth 2013-02-02
20:41:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #40)
Doesn't the test case I showed in Comment 28 qualify as working across
translaional units? That test case still compiles and runs fine with
-fsanitize
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #43 from Jack Howarth 2013-02-02
20:19:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #40)
Actually I think we should junk sorting entirely and use the alternative
approach of the patch in Comment 42. That approach should have no impact on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29338|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #41 from Jack Howarth 2013-02-02
20:11:07 UTC ---
Created attachment 29338
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29338
alternative approach of only inserting asan static constructor in front
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56185
Bug #: 56185
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE for Arithmetic exception with -O2
and -fgraphite
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56184
Bug #: 56184
Summary: Internal compiler error in push_reload during
bootstrap stage 2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
m...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
--- Comment #17 from Martin von Gagern
2013-02-02 18:54:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> I somewhat disagree. A program must be correct; it should be secure;
> and it can be efficient. I'm interested in "correct" and "secure".
> If
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50678
--- Comment #69 from Eric Botcazou 2013-02-02
18:38:02 UTC ---
> Apologies to all; I don't know what I did wrong, but now I've rebuilt the
> unpatched tree and a version with register-swap disabled in separate build
> trees, and the regist
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #39 from Jack Howarth 2013-02-02
18:16:39 UTC ---
While testing whether the single qsort was sufficient, the origin of the
problem on darwin was clarified. In machopic_asm_out_constructor, after the
vec_safe_push, the construct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49017
stefan.hladnik at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56181
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
apple-darwin12
--build=x86_64-apple-darwin12
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20130202 (experimental) [trunk revision 195682] (GCC)
Unpatched:
=== acats Summary ===
# of expected passes2319
# of unexpected failures1
*** FAILURES: c52104y
=== gnat Sum
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56033
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|FAIL: |FAIL:
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56033
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-apple-darwin9, |powerpc*-*-*,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
--- Comment #16 from Jeffrey Walton 2013-02-02
17:01:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> I agree. The main point of all of this is optimization. And in terms of
> optimization, one would want to examine some flag immediately after an
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56173
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56172
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56171
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56171
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-02
15:40:20 UTC ---
Author: ian
Date: Sat Feb 2 15:40:14 2013
New Revision: 195686
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195686
Log:
PR go/56171
syscall: Only ru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #38 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-02
15:38:31 UTC ---
Obviously it shouldn't be typedef in that case. Anyway, this part is not a big
deal, just a nit.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56183
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56183
Bug #: 56183
Summary: [meta-bug][avr] Problems with register allocation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: meta-bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #37 from Jack Howarth 2013-02-02
15:31:37 UTC ---
typedef struct GTY(()) ctor_record {
rtx symbol;
int priority; /* constructor priority */
int position; /* original position */
};
fails with...
..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49017
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54888
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
Martin von Gagern changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Martin.vGagern at gmx dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56170
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-02-02
13:30:09 UTC ---
I think that could be useful, although as I don't know how many people still
use the concept checks I'm inclined to say that adding static_assert checks in
C++11 mode is more
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56182
wbrana changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Host|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56182
--- Comment #2 from wbrana 2013-02-02 12:33:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 29336
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29336
gcc/config/i386/t-linux64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56182
--- Comment #1 from wbrana 2013-02-02 12:31:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 29335
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29335
build log
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56182
Bug #: 56182
Summary: [4.6 Regression] gcc/config/i386/t-linux64:29: recipe
commences before first target
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56138
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 2013-02-02
12:21:28 UTC ---
> Paul's patch fixes the issue (similarly to my original patch, which, however,
> regressed).
Confirmed.
> As Paul's patch doesn't regress: OK with reverting my patc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54195
--- Comment #15 from Mikael Morin 2013-02-02
12:13:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> I'm inclined to test and submit both,
They break class_20.f03. Fixed with this (reverts partially patches for
pr44044 and pr48112):
diff --git
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56175
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak 2013-02-02 12:01:56
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Created attachment 29330 [details]
> testcase
>
> This test must be compiled with the following options:
> "-O2 -ffast-math -msse2 -mfpmath=sse -m32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54195
--- Comment #14 from Mikael Morin 2013-02-02
11:15:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> typedef struct
> {
> + gfc_try resolve_cached_result;
> + unsigned resolved:1;
> +
>/* Variable attributes. */
resolve_cached_result
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56180
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: antoine.balest...@gmail.com
Using GCC 4.8.0 as of 20130202 :
$ cat loop.c
int a, b;
void f(void)
{
if(a++)
{
for(a = 0; a <
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54195
--- Comment #13 from Mikael Morin 2013-02-02
11:07:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > The `gfc_namespace' struct has a `resolved' attribute. Maybe we can use it?
>
> Not sure. I was thinking that we ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56180
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50627
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.3
Summary|[4.6/4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50627
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig 2013-02-02
09:51:03 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Feb 2 09:50:58 2013
New Revision: 195684
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195684
Log:
2013-02-02 Thomas Koenig
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56054
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig 2013-02-02
09:51:03 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Feb 2 09:50:58 2013
New Revision: 195684
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195684
Log:
2013-02-02 Thomas Koenig
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56180
Bug #: 56180
Summary: Strange behaviour with optimization (using K&R C)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #36 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-02
08:46:55 UTC ---
} ctor_record;
Why? }; should be enough IMHO in C++. Or does GTY still require it?
int ctor_index = -1;
... ctor_index++
What is this for? Just use vec_safe_length
63 matches
Mail list logo
