http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51255
--- Comment #8 from Krisztian Kocsis ---
Hi!
In the meanwhile I'v successfully compiled uClibc 0.9.33.2 with LTO.
It required to patch only a few (2-3) lines to mark these sections as used.
We are running this in an embedded ARM926EJ-S based pro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57208
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
int main() {}
#define A(n) __attribute__ ((used, externally_visible)) int \
tti \
## \
## i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57656
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milesto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51255
Carlos O'Donell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carlos at redhat dot com
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57653
--- Comment #6 from Allan McRae ---
I have also confirmed this issue on Fedora rawhide.
gcc 4.8.1 20130603 (Red Hat 4.8.1-1)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57408
--- Comment #4 from superbem at gmail dot com ---
Thanks for further testing it.
Isn't this confirmed yet? How to do.
I've stumbled across this issue several times, and I'm very admired that I'm
the only one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57648
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57208
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka ---
progret needs a fraction of brain capacity than the preprocessor generator and
I doubt it would be faster :)))
anyway I seem to be still getting error with the patch
evans:/tmp/:[0]# /abuild/jh/trunk-install/b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57657
Bug ID: 57657
Summary: [regression from 4.7] Reports incorrect cache sizes on
corei7
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Pr
gin --with-plugin-ld=ld.gold --with-linker-hash-style=gnu
--disable-install-libiberty --disable-multilib --disable-libssp
--disable-werror --enable-checking=release --program-suffix=-4.9
--enable-version-specific-runtime-libs
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130619 (experimental) (GCC)
Built wit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57653
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
I mean in GCC 4.9.0 (trunk), (that revision is the latest I have built).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57653
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Allan McRae from comment #2)
> # echo "int main() { return }" > foo.c
> # touch foo.h
> # gcc -imacros foo.h foo.c
> : In function ‘main’:
> :1:21: error: expected expression before ‘}’ tok
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57656
Bug ID: 57656
Summary: Wrong constant folding
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57653
--- Comment #2 from Allan McRae ---
# echo "int main() { return }" > foo.c
# touch foo.h
# gcc -imacros foo.h foo.c
: In function ‘main’:
:1:21: error: expected expression before ‘}’ token
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57655
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44613
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||b.r.longbons at gmail dot com
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57646
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57653
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39246
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57655
Bug ID: 57655
Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE: in create_pre_exit, at
mode-switching.c:418 with -mno-fp-ret-in-387
-mvzeroupper -mxop and __builtin_ilogbl()
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33720
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> I still believe it is not needed to slow down the runtime library with
> checks for invalid programs. Negative num_threads is undefined behavior,
> just don
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39246
meadori at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meadori at gcc dot gnu.org
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57208
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57208
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, self contained way to reproduce the bug:
evans:/tmp/:[1]# cat t.c
#include
main()
{
int i;
printf ("int main(){}\n");
for (i=0;i<7;i++)
printf ("__attribute__ ((used, externally_visible)) int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33720
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I still believe it is not needed to slow down the runtime library with checks
for invalid programs. Negative num_threads is undefined behavior, just don't
do it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33720
--- Comment #6 from Geir Johansen ---
Fails in GCC 4.8.0:
$ gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 4.8.0 20130322 (Cray Inc.)
Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45784
--- Comment #2 from Geir Johansen ---
Fails in GCC 4.8.0:
$ gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 4.8.0 20130322 (Cray Inc.)
Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57208
--- Comment #10 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Created attachment 30323
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30323&action=edit
Possible patch
Can you see if this patch fixes the problem?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57208
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #9 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57651
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57652
--- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn ---
Prototype patch to use atexit.
PR driver/57652
* collect2.c (collect_atexit): New.
(collect_exit): Directly call exit.
(main): Register collect_atexit with atexit.
Index: col
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57208
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57654
Bug ID: 57654
Summary: [c++11][constexpr] static class member
reference-to-a-reference will not compile
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57651
meadori at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|meadori at gcc dot gnu.org |doko at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #184 from Jan Hubicka ---
New profiles after Richard's changes to remove pointer maps from straming in.
Stream in:
samples %app name symbol name
3659912.3464 lto1 inflate_fast
27382
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57651
meadori at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57651
--- Comment #4 from Meador Inge ---
OK, I will look into it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57651
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
please lets fix it in gcc. I fixed it in gcc.c last year, and this behaviour
is now re-introduced, so it is a regression. shared libraries work without the
x bit set too, so lets just recognize these too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57651
--- Comment #2 from Meador Inge ---
Since Jakub posted a patch for the PATH problem [1] and it seems that the
permission issue might be a non-issue [2] is there anything else let for this
bug?
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg0112
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57653
Bug ID: 57653
Summary: filename information discarded when using -imacros
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57652
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57652
Bug ID: 57652
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] collect2 does not clean up
temporary files
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57584
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54797
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Any progress on this PR? or should it be closed at WORKSFORME?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45318
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Given Richard's comments and no testcase, I'm in doubt if this PR
> is meaningful?!
Any new opinion about this PR? or should we close it as WONTFIX.
NOTE: I'ld like very much that the -no-protect-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40766
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Component|fortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57651
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose ---
now, working around the permission bit, I get:
$ gcc-ar-4.8
gcc-ar-4.8: Cannot find binary 'ar'
so it only searches ar in the given paths, not on the path of the file system
(/usr/bin in this case)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57651
Bug ID: 57651
Summary: [4.8 / 4.9 Regression] gcc-ar and gcc-nm don't find
the lto plugin
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57650
Bug ID: 57650
Summary: Suboptimal code after TRUTH_AND_EXPR is changed into
BIT_AND_EXPR
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimiz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57649
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Isn't it going to cause problems if we fold some accesses to the static var
> using the expressions in the initializer, we'd end up with not having the
> vars ref
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57649
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Isn't it going to cause problems if we fold some accesses to the static var
using the expressions in the initializer, we'd end up with not having the vars
referenced?
If backporting anything, my preference wo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57483
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57649
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
How about backporting r187719? I don't remember whether there are any
dependencies here, but ... it seems it's the first patch in the series
to cleanup all this stuff.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57649
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Other testcases without __PRETTY_FUNCTION__:
void bar (const char *);
void
foo (void)
{
static const char r[] = "abc";
static const char *s = t;
auto void baz (void) { bar (s); }
baz ();
}
void bar (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57649
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Actually, it ICEs even without inlining, so guess the issue is just that we
have a local static var that is referenced by some other function (thus used)
and we don't mark its DECL_INITIAL as referenced.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57649
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57649
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57649
Bug ID: 57649
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE in set_is_used
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57645
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56544
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57647
--- Comment #8 from Andreas Schwab ---
Postfix operators bind stronger than cast operators. If you need help on the C
language then bugzilla is not the right place.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57647
--- Comment #7 from vijay Nag ---
(In reply to vijay Nag from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #5)
> > ((unsigned long*)foo)++ and ((unsigned long *)foo++) are not equivalent
> > expressions. The former is the same as foo =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57638
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57646
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini ---
Actually PR44613 is most likely the same issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57647
--- Comment #6 from vijay Nag ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #5)
> ((unsigned long*)foo)++ and ((unsigned long *)foo++) are not equivalent
> expressions. The former is the same as foo = (char *)((unsigned long*)foo +
> 1), the latte
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57647
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab ---
((unsigned long*)foo)++ and ((unsigned long *)foo++) are not equivalent
expressions. The former is the same as foo = (char *)((unsigned long*)foo +
1), the latter is foo += sizeof(*foo) (and the cast has no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57647
--- Comment #4 from vijay Nag ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> It should work for any type, but, why don't you do only foo++;, i.e. drop
> the cast? In that case there shouldn't be value computed is not used
> warning.
Pointer A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57644
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Looks related to PR 57573
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57648
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |
Target|ARM Cortex M3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57648
Bug ID: 57648
Summary: Illegal use ARM Cortex M3 instruction LDMIA causes
UserFault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57647
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
It should work for any type, but, why don't you do only foo++;, i.e. drop the
cast? In that case there shouldn't be value computed is not used warning.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57647
--- Comment #2 from vijay Nag ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> While 4.7 issues warning: value computed is not used, 4.8 and 4.9 do not for
> int
> main ()
> {
> char bar = 4;
> char *foo = &bar;
> (unsigned long *)foo++;
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57647
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57643
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
74 matches
Mail list logo
