http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56557
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka 2013-03-12
00:58:48 UTC ---
BTW, one thing i do not understand is why the construction vtables are not
static when they can not be used across .o boundary?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56578
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2013-03-12 00:46:13 UTC ---
GCC 4.8.0, 4.7.3, 4.6.4; build = host = target = i686-pc-linux-gnu; configured
with "--enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-version-specific-runtime-libs
--disable-nls --disable-s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56599
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56599
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53728
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56567
--- Comment #8 from David Krauss 2013-03-11 22:51:12
UTC ---
Oops, I didn't see the preceding comment & checkin before submitting that.
Maybe that's a better place to check, but we might keep the extra test cases.
Make sure that the remain
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53728
--- Comment #7 from Uros Bizjak 2013-03-11 22:43:38
UTC ---
Testcase:
--cut here--
extern int global_options;
extern unsigned char *mode_size;
extern int printf (const char *, ...);
void mergeable_constant_section (int mode, unsig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56567
--- Comment #7 from David Krauss 2013-03-11 22:42:46
UTC ---
Created attachment 29647
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29647
alternative fix
Yes. However, the above fix doesn't catch all instances of doing so; for
ex
gcc: error: varasm.i: -fcompare-debug failure (length)
xgcc (GCC) 4.6.4 20130311 (prerelease) [gcc-4_6-branch revision 196601]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53728
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2013-03-11 21:11:00
UTC ---
Created attachment 29646
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29646
Preprocessed source of the file that miscompares during bootstrap
This is a compare-debug fai
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56039
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49880
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13423
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo 2013-03-11 19:56:20
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
>
> ideally, this would be something like (no insn scheduling applied):
>
> fmov.s @r4+,fr0
> fmov.s @r4+,fr1
> fmov.s @r4+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40797
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56560
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu 2013-03-11 19:34:29
UTC ---
Created attachment 29645
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29645
A patch
This patch adds expand_args to track library calls to
expend arguments. We add vzeroupp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56591
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56599
--- Comment #10 from dave at firstcomp dot biz 2013-03-11 18:58:00 UTC ---
I forgot to add when I reentered stuff. This was from MinGW running
on Windows XP, but got same error messages on a Linux machine (sent it
to someone to check). gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56591
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay 2013-03-11
18:57:35 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Mar 11 18:57:27 2013
New Revision: 196604
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196604
Log:
PR target/56591
* config/avr/a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56599
--- Comment #9 from dave at firstcomp dot biz 2013-03-11 18:54:10 UTC ---
As shown in other attachments, for me it generated references to other
lines (many lines away in the big program I tried to reduce this to),
& if I removed all earlier lines
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56599
--- Comment #8 from dave at firstcomp dot biz 2013-03-11 18:51:12 UTC ---
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:11 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56599
>
> --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 201
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56599
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski 2013-03-11
18:49:38 UTC ---
Works on the trunk on x86_64-linux-gnu just fine:
dlt8.c:4:25: error: expected ‘,’ or ‘;’ before numeric constant
#define SAMPLELONGLONG 123456789012345
^
d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56591
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #2 from Andrew
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56599
--- Comment #6 from Dave 2013-03-11 18:46:35 UTC
---
Created attachment 29644
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29644
second offending program
Compiler error output for this one puts the error in stdio.h:
In file in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56591
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||avr
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56599
--- Comment #5 from Dave 2013-03-11 18:44:44 UTC
---
Created attachment 29643
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29643
first offending program
The compiler error output is as follows:
dlt8.c:7:22: error: expected ',' o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56599
--- Comment #4 from Dave 2013-03-11 18:42:41 UTC
---
It looks as though it threw away everything I'd typed in when I added an
attachment, & then submitted the empty report.
gcc produced extremely confusing error messages, referencing pe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56599
--- Comment #3 from Dave 2013-03-11 18:34:05 UTC
---
Created attachment 29642
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29642
preprocesser output for second program
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56599
--- Comment #2 from Dave 2013-03-11 18:32:51 UTC
---
Created attachment 29641
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29641
preprocesser output for first program
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56591
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54083
--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres
2013-03-11 18:22:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> > Would this be needed for darwin8 as well?
>
> I don't recall the status of D8,
> .. I suspect that, in this case, it is as per D9 (if y
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56557
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-11
18:21:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Sorry for nitpicking ;) :
> + /* Ignore all referrences from external vars initializers - they are not
> really
references
> +part of the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56599
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2013-03-11
18:11:17 UTC ---
No info in bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56557
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka 2013-03-11
18:10:57 UTC ---
I am testing the following that should prevent references from external vtables
to land in LTO symbol table.
Index: lto-streamer-out.c
=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56599
Bug #: 56599
Summary: very confusing compiler diagnostics (for stupid bug on
my part)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56598
Bug #: 56598
Summary: Optimizer can't invert conditional when inlining a
bool function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55362
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resoluti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56597
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53265
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29637|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56597
Bug #: 56597
Summary: unaligned local variable used by implicit sse
instructions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53265
--- Comment #12 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2013-03-11
16:49:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > Not sure about the warning wording
>
> What about (... "iteration %E invokes undefined behavior", max)?
>
> > plus no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53265
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56346
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill 2013-03-11
16:33:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 29638
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29638
tentative patch
__cxa_thread_atexit is in libstdc++; the default implementation doesn't do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56567
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2013-03-11
16:22:28 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Mar 11 16:22:16 2013
New Revision: 196600
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196600
Log:
PR c++/56567
* typeck.c (check_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53265
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Monakov 2013-03-11
16:15:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Not sure about the warning wording
What about (... "iteration %E invokes undefined behavior", max)?
> plus no idea how to call the warning o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53265
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener 2013-03-11
15:58:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Created attachment 29637 [details]
> gcc48-pr53265.patch
>
> Untested patch. Not sure about the warning wording, plus no idea how to call
> the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53265
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-11
15:49:00 UTC ---
Created attachment 29637
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29637
gcc48-pr53265.patch
Untested patch. Not sure about the warning wording, plus no idea how t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55611
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse 2013-03-11 15:14:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I also tried the reverse order (just swap x and y in the GET_CODE comparison).
> It got a crazy process during stage3 compiling tree-ssa-address.c (I ki
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54407
--- Comment #18 from Jack Howarth 2013-03-11
14:51:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Jack,
>
> I see at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-11/msg00331.html that you
> have tested a fix for this PR. I have tested that it ski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55611
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse 2013-03-11 14:44:09
UTC ---
The fortran test that fails is equivalent to the following (use -Ofast -g,
surprisingly it only fails in var tracking)
float f(double*a,double*b){
double x=a[0]*b[0];
x+=a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56470
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE|[4.7 Regression] ICE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56595
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53265
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener 2013-03-11
14:17:28 UTC ---
When warnings are disabled the whole function can be skipped and
both estimate and bound be initialized by the result from
number_of_latch_executions (if that returns a constan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53265
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener 2013-03-11
14:16:20 UTC ---
To warn,
1) add a flag to struct loop whether we warned for the loop already
2) in both discover_iteration_bound_by_body_walk and
maybe_lower_iteration_bound
warn if you r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53265
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener 2013-03-11
14:14:06 UTC ---
The following avoids the "miscompile" in these obvious cases:
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c
===
--- gcc/tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56557
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka 2013-03-11 13:58:07 UTC
---
Yes, I agree it is GNU LD bug.
There is also GCC problem: this particular symbol should not appear in the LTO
symtab. It appears because we see the refernece, but the reference it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56596
Bug #: 56596
Summary: Invalid read of size 4 gfortran.dg/class_array_7.f03
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56595
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev 2013-03-11
13:38:25 UTC ---
Created attachment 29636
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29636
testcase
This test must be compiled with the following options for x86:
-ffree-line-le
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56595
Bug #: 56595
Summary: Tree-ssa-pre can create loop carried dependencies
which prevent loop vectorization.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56594
Bug #: 56594
Summary: Invalid read of size 1 for
gfortran.dg/realloc_on_assign_5.f03
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56593
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener 2013-03-11
13:15:35 UTC ---
Non-profiled LTO bootstrap works with Ada.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56339
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--- Comment #12 from Jakub J
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56593
Bug #: 56593
Summary: LTO profiledbootstrap fails for Ada
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: lto
Severi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56546
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56339
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|uros at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #11 from Uros Bizjak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56470
--- Comment #7 from Richard Earnshaw 2013-03-11
11:48:45 UTC ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Mon Mar 11 11:48:34 2013
New Revision: 196595
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196595
Log:
PR target/56470
* arm.c (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56339
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56574
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener 2013-03-11
10:45:08 UTC ---
Note that the 'wrong-code' bits should not be observable but with runtime
simulation tools.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56574
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56577
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener 2013-03-11
10:32:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> You cannot use union to avoid aliasing rules for normal accesses.
Though some people may read the C standard as allowing this (even just
creating
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56578
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56580
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53265
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppluzhnikov at google dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56589
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54119
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener 2013-03-11
10:12:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Fixed.
-/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "VEC_PERM_EXPR ;" 1
"gimple"} } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "VEC_PERM_EXPR ;" 1
"gimpl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56557
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-11
10:05:39 UTC ---
Note that this behavior (tons of undesirable SHN_UNDEF symbols in binaries
linked with -flto) seems to be specific to ld.bfd, with gold the #c0 testcase
links just fine, and the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56589
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-11
09:51:44 UTC ---
Also, note that gcc 4.8 isn't the first version to actually use undefined
behavior in computation of the number of iterations, just gcc 4.8 now uses the
number of loop iteration
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56589
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-11
09:45:07 UTC ---
Of course there is benefit, one performance benefit for properly written code,
and also people will very quickly fix up their broken code, as has been done
already for numerous
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39326
--- Comment #45 from Steven Bosscher 2013-03-11
09:40:18 UTC ---
Patches posted:
* Restrict GIMPLE loop invariant code motion of loop-invariant loads and
stores to loops with fewer memory references than a certain maximum that
is contro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56557
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-03-11
09:36:24 UTC ---
BTW, even stock cc1plus (i.e. no the above class.c change) against latest 4.8.0
libstdc++ shows the myriads of useless SHN_UNDEF symbols with -flto alone (and
not -rdynamic), ju
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56557
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56589
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener 2013-03-11
08:45:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> There is almost no difference with reduced test case. Assignment in nbench can
> be tested with:
> ./nbench -cCOM.DAT
>
> where file COM.DAT ha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55362
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus 2013-03-11
08:30:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> r196583 seems to break 4_6 branch bootstrap with [...]
I believe that this has been fixed by Rev. 196584 (comment 10), which happened
45 minutes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56589
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
86 matches
Mail list logo
