[Bug fortran/57749] -ffpe-trap=zero or invalid produces SIGFPE on complex zero ** 1e0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57749 --- Comment #12 from Vittorio Zecca --- > --- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres --- >> Yes, I agree that there is a bug, ... > > Then you should report to the library maintainers, not to gfortran. The notion that this may be a library bug wa

[Bug rtl-optimization/57763] [4.9 Regression]: comp-goto-1.c: ICE verify_flow_info failed, error: EDGE_CROSSING missing across section boundary

xgcc (GCC) 4.9.0 20130630 (experimental) [trunk revision 200569]

[Bug c++/57588] [C++11] static constexpr in class fails to link

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57588 Richard Smith changed: What|Removed |Added CC||richard-gccbugzilla@metafoo

[Bug c++/55425] constexpr does not work in many situations (both built-in and user supplied literals)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55425 Richard Smith changed: What|Removed |Added CC||richard-gccbugzilla@metafoo

[Bug tree-optimization/57400] [4.9 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (definition in block n follows the use)

/gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions. GCC 4.9.0 20130630 (experimental).

[Bug regression/57766] New: [4.9 Regression]: gcc.sum c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/sec_implicit_ex.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57766 Bug ID: 57766 Summary: [4.9 Regression]: gcc.sum c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/sec_implicit_ex.c Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/57765] New: [C++11] Variadic Template Specialization does not follow the INCITS/ISO​/IEC 14882-2011 standard

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57765 Bug ID: 57765 Summary: [C++11] Variadic Template Specialization does not follow the INCITS/ISO​/IEC 14882-2011 standard Product: gcc Version: 4.8.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/57764] New: class static constexpr variables cannot be references

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57764 Bug ID: 57764 Summary: class static constexpr variables cannot be references Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compone

[Bug rtl-optimization/57763] [4.9 Regression]: comp-goto-1.c: ICE verify_flow_info failed, error: EDGE_CROSSING missing across section boundary

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57763 Steven Bosscher changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/57564] regmove switched operands?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57564 Mikael Pettersson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se --- Comment #2

[Bug fortran/57749] -ffpe-trap=zero or invalid produces SIGFPE on complex zero ** 1e0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57749 --- Comment #11 from Harald Anlauf --- (In reply to Vittorio Zecca from comment #9) > Yes, I agree that there is a bug, and IMO it is in cpow/cpowf/cpowl. Vittorio, I'm even still not convinced that there is a bug here, you might be hitting unde

[Bug fortran/57749] -ffpe-trap=zero or invalid produces SIGFPE on complex zero ** 1e0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57749 --- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Yes, I agree that there is a bug, ... Then you should report to the library maintainers, not to gfortran.

[Bug fortran/57749] -ffpe-trap=zero or invalid produces SIGFPE on complex zero ** 1e0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57749 --- Comment #9 from Vittorio Zecca --- Yes, I agree that there is a bug, and IMO it is in cpow/cpowf/cpowl. With -ffpe-trap=invalid,zero, as I wrote earlier, complex zero**I where I is integer equal to one, does not raise any exception and deliver

[Bug c++/43694] G++ accepts a template friend with the wrong template parameters

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43694 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org| Known to fail|

[Bug other/56811] [4.8/4.9 Regression] libbacktrace causes undefined symbol "_Unwind_GetIPInfo" on ia64-hpux

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56811 --- Comment #6 from Misty De Meo --- The config.log for libbacktrace shows that it believes it found _Unwind_GetIPInfo: configure:11652: checking for _Unwind_GetIPInfo configure:11667: /usr/local/bin/gcc-4.4 -c -g -Werror-implicit-function-declar

[Bug other/56811] [4.8/4.9 Regression] libbacktrace causes undefined symbol "_Unwind_GetIPInfo" on ia64-hpux

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56811 --- Comment #5 from Misty De Meo --- Created attachment 30414 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30414&action=edit libbacktrace config.log

[Bug other/56811] [4.8/4.9 Regression] libbacktrace causes undefined symbol "_Unwind_GetIPInfo" on ia64-hpux

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56811 --- Comment #4 from Misty De Meo --- Created attachment 30413 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30413&action=edit Build logs for PowerPC MacOS X 10.4.11 failure

[Bug other/56811] [4.8/4.9 Regression] libbacktrace causes undefined symbol "_Unwind_GetIPInfo" on ia64-hpux

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56811 Misty De Meo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||misty at brew dot sh --- Comment #3 from M

[Bug rtl-optimization/57763] [4.9 Regression]: comp-goto-1.c: ICE verify_flow_info failed, error: EDGE_CROSSING missing across section boundary

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57763 --- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak --- Looking at the BB 28, we have following in _.212r.gcse2: ;; basic block 28, loop depth 0, count 0, freq 0, probably never executed ;; Invalid sum of outgoing probabilities 0.0% ;; prev block 27, next block 29,

[Bug rtl-optimization/57763] [4.9 Regression]: comp-goto-1.c: ICE verify_flow_info failed, error: EDGE_CROSSING missing across section boundary

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57763 --- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak --- Created attachment 30412 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30412&action=edit Corresponding .gcda file

[Bug rtl-optimization/57763] [4.9 Regression]: comp-goto-1.c: ICE verify_flow_info failed, error: EDGE_CROSSING missing across section boundary

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57763 --- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak --- Created attachment 30411 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30411&action=edit Preprocessed source

[Bug rtl-optimization/57763] New: [4.9 Regression]: comp-goto-1.c: ICE verify_flow_info failed, error: EDGE_CROSSING missing across section boundary

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57763 Bug ID: 57763 Summary: [4.9 Regression]: comp-goto-1.c: ICE verify_flow_info failed, error: EDGE_CROSSING missing across section boundary Product: gcc Version: 4.9

[Bug fortran/34640] ICE when assigning item of a derived-component to a pointer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34640 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nerge at informatik dot uni-hambur

[Bug fortran/57733] pointer assignment internal compiler error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57733 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/57749] -ffpe-trap=zero or invalid produces SIGFPE on complex zero ** 1e0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57749 --- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > And I still believe the result should not depend on the optimization level. Well, it does and IMO it has to (see below). > Note that compiling without -ffpe-trap the result > with default optimizati

[Bug fortran/56596] Invalid read of size 4 gfortran.dg/class_array_7.f03

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56596 --- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres --- I have opened pr57762 for the memory leak reported in comments #2 and #3 (with the right bracketing this time).

[Bug fortran/57762] New: [4.9 Regression] Memory leak in gfortran.dg/class_array_7.f03 after revision 200084

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57762 Bug ID: 57762 Summary: [4.9 Regression] Memory leak in gfortran.dg/class_array_7.f03 after revision 200084 Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severi

[Bug boehm-gc/57761] New: USE_PROC_FOR_LIBRARIES does not work correctly

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57761 Bug ID: 57761 Summary: USE_PROC_FOR_LIBRARIES does not work correctly Product: gcc Version: 4.8.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: boe

[Bug c++/57504] invalid this pointer passed in call to virtual function that returns a struct

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57504 Mikael Pettersson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se --- Comment #2

[Bug c++/57746] rejected valid specialization of member function of class template (I think)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57746 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > It does for G++, it's been accepted as an extension in C++03 mode for years. What I actually meant to say with my comment is that for a proper bug report the c

[Bug target/57735] ICE with -mtune=xscale (error: could not split insn) when building webkit

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57735 Mikael Pettersson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se --- Comment #4

[Bug c++/57746] rejected valid specialization of member function of class template (I think)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57746 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #1) > I also think that the meaning of the code is well-defined only for C++11, > because in C++03 the concept of an explicit instantiation declaration did > not exis

[Bug fortran/50554] INQUIRE cannot redefine DO index (r178939)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50554 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|tkoenig at gcc dot

[Bug preprocessor/57760] preprocessor directive supress g++ warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57760 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/57690] bextr sometimes used instead of shr

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57690 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug preprocessor/57760] New: preprocessor directive supress g++ warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57760 Bug ID: 57760 Summary: preprocessor directive supress g++ warning Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: preproc

[Bug testsuite/57687] FAIL: c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/comma_exp.c on x86_64-apple-darwin10

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57687 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/57329] ICE with -O2 and -mthumb

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57329 --- Comment #4 from Terry Guo --- Now the fix is in 4.8 branch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-06/msg01005.html. I think we can close this bug.

[Bug translation/57759] New: Concatenated messages are not translated

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57759 Bug ID: 57759 Summary: Concatenated messages are not translated Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: translati