http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57409
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57409
Bug ID: 57409
Summary: PIE (-fPIE -pie) prevents any malloc on Solaris 10
sparc
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57408
Bug ID: 57408
Summary: lambda, Variable length arrays, thread, internal
compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:9327
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081
Stefan Kristiansson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stefan.kristiansson@saunala
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57407
--- Comment #2 from Alex ---
I'm very sorry, I don't have the means to do that test easily.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57407
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57407
Bug ID: 57407
Summary: Missing uninitialized warning following assert
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56757
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56757
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
I can't reproduce this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39391
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57406
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57405
--- Comment #4 from jkf ---
Andrew,
BTW, if I only use the printf("act_handler sig %d addr=%p base=%p end=%p\n",
sig, add, &alt_stack[0], alt_top);
There is no SIGSEGV during execution.
So, I don't believe it a hard rule the printf is not allowe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57405
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57406
Bug ID: 57406
Summary: [C++11] function templates don't accept function types
with ref-qualifiers as template arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57403
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57405
--- Comment #2 from jkf ---
Andrew,
According to POSIX the write function is allowed inside a signal handler. Since
eventually printf ends in a write(), I'm assuming it is valid. If printf()
isn't valid than please supply a list of valid libc func
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57405
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.4.7
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56971
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57403
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Nick Maclaren from comment #2)
> That may well be true, but I can't find any such restriction in the C++
> standard. It would be a great help if the library specification weren't
> so ambiguous - i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57405
Bug ID: 57405
Summary: Using printf in signal handler with alternate stack
generates a SIGSEGV
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57403
--- Comment #2 from Nick Maclaren ---
On May 24 2013, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57403
>
> --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Well
> volatile void * is a pointer to volatile void and the po
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57404
Bug ID: 57404
Summary: [4.9 Regression] [C++11] ICE: SIGSEGV in
cp_classify_record with -g
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57403
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Well volatile void * is a pointer to volatile void and the pointer itself does
not have the volatile on it.
I think the only real issue here is the error message. IIRC allocators do not
(and cannot) support
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57403
Bug ID: 57403
Summary: A vector of volatile int doesn't work, but one of
volatile void * does
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130524 (experimental) (GCC)
GCC 4.8 output:
$ gcc testcase.C
testcase.C: In function 'void f(int)':
testcase.C:3:15: error: variable-sized object 'a' may not be initialized
int a[i] = {};
^
Tested revisions:
r199273 - crash
4.8 r198018 - error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57401
Bug ID: 57401
Summary: 'Conflicting declaration' involving using declaration
and dependent name
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19618
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: antoine.balestrat at gmail dot com
Hello !
I'm using GCC 4.9.0 as of 20130524.
$ cat ssa.c
int a;
void f(void)
{
int b;
for(a = 0; a < 23; a++)
b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57397
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini ---
Of course I meant "at least 1" for the original testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57144
Bug 57144 depends on bug 57124, which changed state.
Bug 57124 Summary: 254.gap@spec2000 got miscompare after r198413
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57124
What|Removed |Added
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57124
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57397
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
The core issue is very simple. Funny however the error messages you can get for
some other invalid cases, like I tried:
template
void boo(T1, T2..., Tn...)
{ }
int main()
{
boo(1);
}
then my clang++ (not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
--- Comment #9 from daniel.calcoen at cern dot ch ---
building gcc-4_7-branch instead of gcc-4_8-branch
pass ok
(binutils, GMP, MPFR, MPC, and newlib sources remains the same)
is some regression introduced in 4.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57294
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57294
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57386
--- Comment #4 from Roland Stigge ---
FWIW, I just tried with GCC 4.7.3, configured and built the same way, and it
works. The files
libstdc++-v3/src/c++98/hash_tr1.cc
libstdc++-v3/src/c++98/hash-long-double-tr1-aux.cc
haven't changed rea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56732
gretay at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56732
--- Comment #7 from gretay at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gretay
Date: Thu May 2 15:45:10 2013
New Revision: 198547
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198547&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog
2013-05-02 Greta Yorsh
PR target/56732
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57399
--- Comment #2 from Grzegorz Kowal ---
Yes, you are right. Silly me. Thanks for your clear explanation and quick
response!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57343
--- Comment #7 from Zdenek Dvorak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> We then fall to
>
> if (multiple_of_p (TREE_TYPE (c), c, s))
> {
> /* If C is an exact multiple of S, then its value will be reached
> before
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57399
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48088
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at inbox dot ru
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57391
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57391
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55701
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57397
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57393
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||57337
--- Comment #3 from Joost Vand
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57337
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57392
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57399
Bug ID: 57399
Summary: errors in formatted print of floating numbers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fort
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53944
--- Comment #2 from Konstantin Osipov ---
Objective C++ exception handling is broken in gcc completely, here's a small
example of trying to use C++ and Objective C exceptions together which
SEGFAULTs:
kostja@olah ~ % cat foo.mm
#include
#incl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57398
Bug ID: 57398
Summary: [4.9 Regression] WRF and BWAVES miscompares with LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57287
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57397
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.7.3, 4.8.1, 4.9.0
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57397
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57397
Bug ID: 57397
Summary: Off-by-one error in diagnostic when calling variadic
function template with too few arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57396
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.3.4, 4.6.4, 4.7.2
Summary|[
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57396
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
On x86_64-apple-darwin10, the test gives the right output for GCC 4.7.3.
Revision 187340 (2012-05-09) is OK, but revision 187440 (2012-05-13) is not.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57396
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57386
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
I think this should , anyway.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19618
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org|
Assignee|mueller at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57396
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57386
--- Comment #2 from Roland Stigge ---
Unfortunately, basically same issue:
...
/bin/bash ../../../libtool --tag CXX --tag disable-shared --mode=compile
/home/ernie/gcc-4.8-4.8.1
/build2/./gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc -B/home/ernie/gcc-4.8-4.8.1/buil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57385
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57287
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
#include
jmp_buf buf;
void foo (int);
void bar (int) __attribute__((leaf));
void enumerate_locals (int indent)
{
foo (0);
while (indent--)
{
int local_indent = 8 + (8 * indent);
if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56991
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57377
Chung-Ju Wu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jasonwucj at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56991
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Matheus Izvekov from comment #2)
> I get also a similar bug:
>
> #include
>
> //is accepted by gcc
> constexpr std::initializer_list good1 = { 1, 2, 3 };
>
> struct foo { int a, b; };
>
> //
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57396
--- Comment #1 from Lorenz Hüdepohl ---
As the loop is quite confusing, i wrote a small python program to reproduce the
correct result:
> cat test.py
def foo(n):
r = {}
a = {}
# initialize with some dummy values
for i in range(-n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57396
Bug ID: 57396
Summary: Wrong code with -fpredictive-commoning in Fortran
double-loop
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26572
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25503
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57395
Bug ID: 57395
Summary: GCC-4.7.2 compilation erroe
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25503
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org|
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57393
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57394
--- Comment #2 from lukeallardyce at yahoo dot co.uk ---
Whoops, changed title.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57385
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Kirill Yukhin wrote:
>>
>> Ok for trunk and 4.8 after 4.8.1 is out.
>>
>
> Checked in to trunk:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-05/msg00803.html (+
> http://gcc.gnu.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26572
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org|
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57392
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57393
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57394
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41426
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57385
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
btw it indeed gives a segfault for 4.7 on linux_64 if we change the index from
"-1" to some "-1".
g++ .../src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr57385.c -O1 -S -o pr57385.s
...src/gcc/gcc/testsu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42129
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini ---
Nathan?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43487
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54763
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57389
--- Comment #3 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
humm, this fix is false. Forget about this patch.. rs6000_dbx_register_number
should now handle this case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57394
Bug ID: 57394
Summary: basic_streambuf incorrect constructor / copy
constructor access specifier
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57389
--- Comment #2 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
dbx translation should not be done in TARGET_DWARF_REGISTER_SPAN since this is
handled centrally by DBX_REGISTER_NUMBER.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57385
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64 linux, sent to gcc-patches.
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/246036/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57389
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57365
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
92 matches
Mail list logo
