http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57495
Bug ID: 57495
Summary: Compiling mingw targets with -mcmodel=large causes
assert
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57489
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57489
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Component|c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57494
Bug ID: 57494
Summary: [4.9 Regression] Failed to bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57493
Bug ID: 57493
Summary: Incorrect name lookup for range loop
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57489
--- Comment #6 from Jim Hand ---
You are correct in that it is undefined in C.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57489
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jim Hand from comment #4)
> One of my coworkers, a former Intel employee, made the point that signed
> integer overflow is precisely defined for X86, in that overflowing and then
> underflowing wi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57489
--- Comment #4 from Jim Hand ---
One of my coworkers, a former Intel employee, made the point that signed
integer overflow is precisely defined for X86, in that overflowing and then
underflowing will produce the correct value 100% of the time.
An
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57438
--- Comment #15 from Dara Hazeghi ---
(In reply to m...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #14)
> Thanks, how about this one?
Seems to be the same - assert in the same spot. Shall I upload the varasm.s
produced with the second patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57489
--- Comment #3 from Jim Hand ---
Thanks Marc, that seems to allow the code to work properly. One thing that is
somewhat troubling, even though the code seems to work properly with the
parenthesis, is that changing the following without the parenth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49146
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56742
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57492
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57438
--- Comment #14 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks, how about this one?
Index: target.def
===
--- target.def(revision 199270)
+++ target.def(working copy)
@@ -225,7 +225,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57421
--- Comment #9 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Well, I checked gcc/gfortran/g++ 4.8.1 today. There, the problem DOES NOT
occur,
so it seems to be a problem of gcc 4.9-LATEST.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57489
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Did you try adding parentheses around c - '0'? Seems to me that you overflow
otherwise.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57438
--- Comment #13 from Dara Hazeghi ---
(In reply to m...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #12)
> Ok, new theory. Does this patch fix it for you:
Thanks for the patch. Just tried bootstrapping with it and checking disabled,
and the same assertion still t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57359
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I think this is invalid, because the assignment that changes the current
union member doesn't go through the union type (cf. DR#236).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57489
--- Comment #1 from Jim Hand ---
One of my coworkers looked at the assembly and said that it appears g++ isn't
even generating code for the conditional "if (expected_v != actual_v ||
expected_i != actual_i)" when this occurs. It appears the compil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57492
Bug ID: 57492
Summary: Optimize 2.0**i to ldexp(1.0,i)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57488
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57491
Bug ID: 57491
Summary: [ia64] internal compiler error: in ia64_split_tmode
-O2, quadmath
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57073
--- Comment #15 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #14)
> The patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-05/msg01050.html
> is wrong
I realized this myself about 6 hours ago, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/201
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57073
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57489
Jim Hand changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.8.1
Severity|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57490
Bug ID: 57490
Summary: ICE on c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/an-if.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57489
Bug ID: 57489
Summary: [4.8 regression]: invalid code generated for
conditional in template function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
(note the only place 'v' is touched is in that
loop). I've tried reducing the testcase further, but any perturabation seems
to hide the bug.
$ gcc-trunk -v
gcc version 4.9.0 20130531 (experimental) [trunk revision 199531] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -O2 wrong.c
$ ./a.out
0
$ gcc-4.8 -O3 wro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55776
Philipp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1 from Phi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57487
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>vterminate.cc
This is compiled with -O2 so this kinda expected to be optimized out.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57487
Bug ID: 57487
Summary: vterminate.cc local variable optimized out
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57484
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler ---
I haven't checked your bit arithmetics, but I have checked the full bit
patterns of the resulting NaNs in hex on my mingw-64 bit system. What I'm
getting for are the following results:
1) gcc 4.7.2/4.9.0 201
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57217
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Backport to 4.8:
Author: janus
Date: Fri May 31 18:10:03 2013
New Revision: 199554
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=199554&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-05-31 Janus Weil
Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57486
Bug ID: 57486
Summary: bootstrap fails on 4.8 and google/4.8 branch on
RHEL6.1 platform
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57485
Bug ID: 57485
Summary: memcpy in aggregate return not eliminated
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57438
--- Comment #12 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ok, new theory. Does this patch fix it for you:
Index: varasm.c
===
--- varasm.c(revision 199270)
+++ varasm.c(working copy)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57438
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57359
--- Comment #8 from Dara Hazeghi ---
Okay, here is I think a more clear example. However, from what Jakub says
above, this is probably undefined.
int printf(const char *, ...);
union
{
int i;
long long ll;
} u;
long long *pll = &u.ll;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56732
--- Comment #9 from Rajiv Gupta ---
Great, it's fixed! :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57484
Bug ID: 57484
Summary: 'std::numeric_limits< T >::signaling_NaN()'
signaling-bit is incorrect for x86 32-bit.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57475
--- Comment #3 from Eric Blake ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #1)
> We could detect the special case where the spelling is the same and report
> where each type is declared.
Be aware that "spelled the same" needs to disregard c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57462
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57452
--- Comment #3 from Balaji V. Iyer ---
Hi H. J.,
Yes, there is a bug in this test case. I have fixed it and it was approved
for trunk and is already checked in.
To answer your 2nd question, the compiler cannot check for out of bounds
erro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56930
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57319
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57483
Bug ID: 57483
Summary: Linux kernel (lto-3.9 branch) compilation fails with
enabled LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57480
--- Comment #4 from Roman Tsisyk ---
I use offsetof on this structure and C++ produces a warning about POD data
type.
std::is_pod is not so important here.
I temporary add -Wno-invalid-offsetof to my code.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57455
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55764
Andrew Haley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |WONTFIX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57455
--- Comment #2 from Artyom ---
> Can you try to get at a backtrace using gdb?
Looks like i found the problem.
gcc -wrapper gdb,--args cmathmodule.i
...
Program received signal SIGFPE, Arithmetic exception.
0xb7f17c31 in __gmpn_divrem_2 () from /
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55764
Andrew John Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gnu_andrew at member dot
fsf.org
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57480
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
My interprettaion is that the standard does not say anything about that (I
think I had once a similar question in regard to another type from the C
Library). I su
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57478
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri May 31 10:58:52 2013
New Revision: 199531
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=199531&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add testcase for PR57478
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55764
Andrew Haley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56274
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57481
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56746
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55374
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55163
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54699
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50176
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56811
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54890
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54873
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55657
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50339
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57221
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50720
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56939
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54540
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57059
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55278
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51680
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57364
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56912
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56326
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56344
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55092
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55307
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55056
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47477
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49152
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #47 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #40 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52272
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55342
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49857
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55145
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54221
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38711
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53363
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55656
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56982
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53203
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57459
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41090
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51855
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55654
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56357
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo
