http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57248
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57248
Bug ID: 57248
Summary: string parameter to constexpr functions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57246
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57247
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49366
David Blaikie changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dblaikie at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57247
Bug ID: 57247
Summary: ICE when referencing 'this' in lambda function inside
array
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57246
Bug ID: 57246
Summary: ICE on lambda in template function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57245
Bug ID: 57245
Summary: Floating-point constant truncation ignores
-frounding-math
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55278
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54320
--- Comment #13 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #10)
FWIW, I fully agree with Jason: VLAs are very restricted and don't even allow
for forming references to them, so that the standard library won't even try to
provi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54320
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to vincenzo Innocente from comment #3)
> int foo2(int N) {
> int v[N];
> for ( auto a : v)
> if (a) return a;
> return 0;
> }
>
> works, though was similar to std::begin(v) std::end(v)
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54320
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57244
--- Comment #3 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30095
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30095&action=edit
disassembly dump
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57244
--- Comment #2 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30094
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30094&action=edit
original source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57244
--- Comment #1 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30093
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30093&action=edit
preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57244
Bug ID: 57244
Summary: Missed optimization: dead register move before
noreturn fn call & unnecessary store/load or reg
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54095
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|hubicka at gcc dot g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57238
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57238
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57242
--- Comment #4 from etherice ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This is by design as -g changes the information produced by the front-end
> and maybe even predefines too.
I created a simpler test to demonstrate the bug. Two files:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57240
--- Comment #2 from etherice ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #1)
> Already fixed.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 57092 ***
Yep that's it, fixed 3 days after my April 27 version of the 4.8 branch. Looks
like th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57243
Bug ID: 57243
Summary: Using auto in range based for with templated container
in templated function requires extraneous template
qualifier
Product: gcc
Version: 4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57241
--- Comment #3 from etherice ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #1)
> > In general, it's safe to say that #pragma diagnostic ignored is very buggy
> > (in C++ at least), we have got many long
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57242
--- Comment #3 from etherice ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This is by design as -g changes the information produced by the front-end
> and maybe even predefines too.
I think you may have read the report too quickly :)
When bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57241
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #1)
> In general, it's safe to say that #pragma diagnostic ignored is very buggy
> (in C++ at least), we have got many long standing PRs.
Well the whole token ahead of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57217
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
See draft patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-05/msg00035.html (see
patch review for what is missing).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57242
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to etherice from comment #0)
> I put a #warning in the my_pch.hpp file to be sure of when PCH were being
> ignored (though, the long delay also made it quite obvious).
You can use -Winvalid-pch for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57242
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is by design as -g changes the information produced by the front-end and
maybe even predefines too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57231
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think there are other bugs about promoting things and then truncating only
when needed. I also think Kai is working on a pass that does that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57242
Bug ID: 57242
Summary: gcc ignores precompiled headers unless the .gch and
TU's are compiled with certain combinations of -g flag
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57241
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini ---
In general, it's safe to say that #pragma diagnostic ignored is very buggy (in
C++ at least), we have got many long standing PRs.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57238
--- Comment #3 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I don't see how this is wrong.
It's wrong to emit dwarf2 because I asked for dwarf4 explicitly.
> Mixing dwarf4 and dwarf2 should be ok.
Ok for what?
One of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57241
Bug ID: 57241
Summary: GCC still issues -Wmultichar warnings despite a
#pragma diagnostic ignored -Wmultichar directive
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57237
--- Comment #5 from cynt6007 at vandals dot uidaho.edu ---
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #4)
> (In reply to Joel Sherrill from comment #3)
> > Patch committed to 4.7, 4.8, and head.
>
> It would have been nice if you'd give the author o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57092
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||scottbaldwin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57240
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57240
Bug ID: 57240
Summary: decltype() on a template non-type parameter causes
"internal compiler error"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57238
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't see how this is wrong. Mixing dwarf4 and dwarf2 should be ok.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> That case is for the
> if (idx > 0)
> {
> si = get_strinfo (idx);
> ...
> }
> block in there, and si != NULL && si->length != NULL_TREE && TREE_CO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57239
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57239
Bug ID: 57239
Summary: GCC cannot handle inner/nested class templates with
non-type parameter packs that were declared in the
outer/containing class
Product: gcc
V
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57237
Ralf Corsepius changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||corsepiu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54577
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57238
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ccoutant at google dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57238
Bug ID: 57238
Summary: GCC passes --gdwarf2 to assembler despite -gdwarf-4 on
command line
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57237
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55149
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini ---
Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54320
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57231
--- Comment #3 from Joshua Conner ---
Exactly - there's no need to truncate every iteration, we should be able to
safely do it when the loop is complete.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57047
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That case is for the
if (idx > 0)
{
si = get_strinfo (idx);
...
}
block in there, and si != NULL && si->length != NULL_TREE && TREE_CODE
(si->length) == INTEGER_CST is what you are looking for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57196
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55149
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #8 from Zack Weinberg ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> We have just one strlen pass instance, and even if we optimize the first
> strlen
> there, having strlen pass duplicate constant propagation functionality just
> t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57237
--- Comment #2 from Joel Sherrill ---
Testing with this patch for just the v850:
2013-03-26 Ralf Corsépius
* config/v850/t-rtems: Use multilibs from gcc < 4.8.0.
diff -Naur gcc-4.8.0.orig/gcc/config/v850/t-rtems
gcc-4.8.0/gcc/config/v850
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57237
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill ---
This patch cannot be merged as is. It includes at least 4 separate issues.
+ v850 multilibs
+ sparc64-rtems definining SVR4
+ WCHAR issues
+ stddef.h issue
Patches can only be single issue.
I am going to us
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
I've thought more like:
int
main ()
{
char p[] = "foobar";
int len = strlen (p);
p[1] = 'O';
p[6] = 'R';
int len2 = strlen (p);
foo (len, len2);
}
thus, there shouldn't be a need for the second str
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57237
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||v850*-*-rtems*
Assignee|unassig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57237
Bug ID: 57237
Summary: Upstreaming the rtems multilib gcc patch
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
We have just one strlen pass instance, and even if we optimize the first strlen
there, having strlen pass duplicate constant propagation functionality just to
handle this weird testcase (storing strlen sizes i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57084
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #5 from Zack Weinberg ---
It might be good to include stores to nonzero offsets in the test case, and
stores to bytes that used to be internal NULs, something like
int main(void)
{
char s[] = "abc\0def";
s[1] = (ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57235
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57236
--- Comment #4 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30092
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30092&action=edit
clang 3.4 generated code of write2()
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57236
--- Comment #3 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30091
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30091&action=edit
4.8.1 generated code of write2()
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57236
--- Comment #2 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30090
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30090&action=edit
original source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57236
--- Comment #1 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30089
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30089&action=edit
preprocessed source
/usr-local/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.9.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ./configure --enable-languages=c,c++ --program-suffix=-4.9.0
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130510 (experimental) (GCC)
Regards, Peter
: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130510 (experimental) [trunk revision 198772] (GCC)
$ ./xgcc -B. -O2 ~/ice.ii
/home/ryan/ice.ii: In member function 'bool
google::protobuf::DescriptorBuilder::OptionInterpreter::SetAggregateOption(const
google::protobuf::FieldDescriptor*, google::protobuf::Unk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57231
Chung-Ju Wu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jasonwucj at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57214
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57231
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57234
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57218
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
Yep, it is just heuristic here. We may get more cureful at -Os (i.e. not so
optimistic about the optimization oppurtunities), but last time I played with
this it actually resulted in code size increase at Mozil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57234
--- Comment #1 from Magnus Reftel ---
For reference: the Clang bug got ID 15954.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57234
Bug ID: 57234
Summary: gcov 4.7.3 segfaults when reading Clang's .gc* files.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39080
Shakthi Kannan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||skannan at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57218
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 30086
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30086&action=edit
gcc49-pr57230.patch
And untested improvement for 4.9+ only.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #8 from daniel.calcoen at cern dot ch ---
Created attachment 30085
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30085&action=edit
wcstol.i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57195
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak ---
Created attachment 30084
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30084&action=edit
Proposed x86 patch that triggers the problem
Attached x86 patch triggers the problem, described in this PR.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57233
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57214
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57216
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57203
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57233
Bug ID: 57233
Summary: Vector lowering of LROTATE_EXPR pessimizes code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
The file /home/dcalcoen/gitMirror/newlib/newlib/libc/stdlib/wcstol.c
preprocessed
by appending -save-temps to the command-line that crashes the compiler. The
preprocessed source will be named wcstol.i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #6 from daniel.calcoen at cern dot ch ---
The sources I use
wcstol.c
http://sourceware.org/git/?p=newlib.git;a=blob;f=newlib/libc/stdlib/wcstol.c;h=e23254dc217854801d1c8be76cfc6501c505cc61;hb=053c8948b774d92ab009b30e70a9e65c11bbd5c3
N
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to daniel.calcoen from comment #4)
> Hi,
>
> Any file in particular?.
The one where the ICE occurs, i.e. preprocessed wcstol.c in this case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #4 from daniel.calcoen at cern dot ch ---
Hi,
Any file in particular?.
I did a git pull on Wednesday on the 4.8 branch. (and binutils and newlib)
I attached the sh I use to build my cross compiler and the only file I
"touched".
Danie
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #3 from daniel.calcoen at cern dot ch ---
Created attachment 30083
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30083&action=edit
my "touched" configure.host for newlib
I added some switches I need to configure.host for newlib
t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #1 from daniel.calcoen at cern dot ch ---
Created attachment 30082
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30082&action=edit
zip with the different configure.out and make.out
zip with the different configure.out and make.ou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
Bug ID: 57232
Summary: wcstol.c:213:1: internal compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57230
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
95 matches
Mail list logo
