http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56912
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abel at gcc dot gnu.org
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56077
--- Comment #16 from Andrey Belevantsev 2013-04-11
06:17:41 UTC ---
The patch adds more pending list flushes and thus more dependencies. So by
itself it is conservative and should not result in correctness issues that
arise when the sched
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56077
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-11
05:37:30 UTC ---
No, it shouldn't be reverted, silent wrong code is IMHO more severe than LTO
only ICE.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56904
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2013-04-11
02:54:34 UTC ---
See also DR 125:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#125
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56904
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56842
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56913
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56914
--- Comment #1 from Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira 2013-04-11 01:01:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 29852
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29852
The preprocessed source file.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56914
Bug #: 56914
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56913
Bug #: 56913
Summary: [C++11] SFINAE for ill-formed pointer-to-member
operators with incompatible ref-qualifiers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56912
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2013-04-11
00:39:29 UTC ---
>No simple test case unfortunately as it is LTO
Actually it should not be hard to get a testcase if you use mutli-delta. I
have reduced some LTO testcases already using mutl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56077
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski 2013-04-11
00:38:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> The fix has been reverted on the 4.6 and 4.7 branches.
I think it should also be reverted on the 4.8 branch, see PR 56912.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56912
Bug #: 56912
Summary: scheduler change breaks linux kernel LTO build with
4.8
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56895
--- Comment #13 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2013-04-10 20:04:03 UTC ---
struct B
{
void operator<< (B& ());
void operator<< (int);
};
B b;
struct A
{
bool foo ();
A bar ();
};
A *a;
template
void
fn1 ()
{
b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56895
--- Comment #12 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2013-04-10 19:56:00 UTC ---
Just double checked and the original testcase still ICEs.
markus@x4 tmp % cat test.cpp
#include
extern struct A { bool foo (); A bar (); } *a;
template
void
fn1 ()
{
std:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56911
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2013-04-10 18:42:07 UTC ---
gcc version 4.8.0 (GCC) in my case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56911
--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak 2013-04-10 18:39:14
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Hmm, I can confirm the ICE (and it's not the only one in this directory):
To be precise, 4.8 branch that works for me:
xgcc (GCC) 4.8.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56911
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56824
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56911
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56911
Bug #: 56911
Summary: [4.8 Regression] g++.dg/cpp0x/enum25.C:14:19: ICE: in
finish_class_member_access_expr, at cp/typeck.c:2673
with -fpic
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56910
Bug #: 56910
Summary: Syntax error seemingly sneaks through gcc
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56900
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56909
--- Comment #1 from Arthur Zhang 2013-04-10
16:32:49 UTC ---
Less undefined references if add '--with-arch=i486 --with-tune=i686' to
configure.
s-atopri.o: In function `system__atomic_primitives__lock_free_read_64':
e:\test1\bd\wk\build
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56872
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56909
Bug #: 56909
Summary: [4.8 regression] Ada: s-atopri.adb:multiple undefined
references on mingw32
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56908
Bug #: 56908
Summary: Spurious warning when XOR-ing uint8_t values
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56907
Bug #: 56907
Summary: C_LOC shall not call internal-PACK when an array
argument is used
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56878
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener 2013-04-10
15:05:44 UTC ---
Like with the simple
Index: gcc/tree-vect-data-refs.c
===
--- gcc/tree-vect-data-refs.c (revision 196872)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56906
Bug #: 56906
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/opt/vt4.C -std=gnu++* scan-assembler-not
_ZTV.A
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56881
--- Comment #5 from devspam at moreofthesa dot me.uk 2013-04-10 15:02:54 UTC ---
The tarball which I've attached also provides its own test case – compile it
then pass it one of its own source files. It'll either segfault or not
depending on compi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56878
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener 2013-04-10
14:58:00 UTC ---
Hmm, it seems to be a rather unfortunate choice of aligning x vs. v1 which
seems to only depend on the order in which the data-refs appear in the
data-ref array. That is, vect
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56881
--- Comment #4 from devspam at moreofthesa dot me.uk 2013-04-10 14:49:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 29850
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29850
Full source of the problem program, both in original form and fully
pre-proc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56905
Bug #: 56905
Summary: [C++11][DR 1130] std::copy_exception should be removed
or no longer be used
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37132
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2013-04-10
13:08:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Draft patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00560.html
The draft patch fails for dummy arguments as the shipping comes to early: There
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56904
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56903
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-10
12:02:27 UTC ---
Slightly cleaned up testcase:
/* PR rtl-optimization/56903 */
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-Os" } */
/* { dg-additional-options "-march=pentium3" { target ia32 } }
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56903
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.3
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56903
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56903
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56903
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56904
Bug #: 56904
Summary: rejection of legal code in c++11 mode. (maybe
namespace lookup problem)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Statu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55524
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56903
Bug #: 56903
Summary: gcc is 4.8.0 fails to compile netdev.c from the linux
kernel [internal compiler error: Maximum number of LRA
constraint passes is achieved]
Classification: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56902
Bug #: 56902
Summary: Fails to SLP with mismatched +/- and negatable
constants
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56901
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56899
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener 2013-04-10
09:29:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> That said, removing that hunk completely would remove it even for the case
> where the type has defined overflow, shouldn't we remove it just for und
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56900
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52748
Nathan Ridge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56901
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56901
--- Comment #1 from Nathan Ridge 2013-04-10
08:30:23 UTC ---
Tested with r197663.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56901
Bug #: 56901
Summary: [4.9 regression] lambda with implicit capture by
reference
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56899
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-10
08:24:46 UTC ---
That said, removing that hunk completely would remove it even for the case
where the type has defined overflow, shouldn't we remove it just for undefined
overflow (or, replace t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56900
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab 2013-04-10 08:23:59
UTC ---
Created attachment 29848
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29848
vrp87.c.128t.cddce2
attachment 29847
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29847
vrp87.c.127t.vrp2
spawn /daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20130410/Build/gcc/xgcc
-B/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20130410/Build/gcc/
/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20130410/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp87.c
-fno-diagnostics-show-caret -O
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56899
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Targe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||laurent.alfonsi at st dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56894
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56824
Magnus Reftel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56899
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-10
08:05:52 UTC ---
Better testcase:
__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void
foo (int v)
{
int x = -214748365 * (v - 1);
if (x != -1932735285)
__builtin_abort ();
}
int
main ()
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56899
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #5 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56899
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse 2013-04-10 07:49:24
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> What's the target? I can't reproduce on x86_64, armv5tel, or m68k.
I've reproduced it with -O2 on x86_64-linux-gnu using trunk.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56899
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson 2013-04-10
07:45:20 UTC ---
What's the target? I can't reproduce on x86_64, armv5tel, or m68k.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56899
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56899
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56813
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56899
Bug #: 56899
Summary: Wrong constant folding
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
67 matches
Mail list logo
