[Bug target/58158] internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2150 while compiling ImageMagick on mipsel

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58158 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|major |normal

[Bug tree-optimization/58164] internal compiler error: in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:1147

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58164 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- Similar invalid testcase. void foo (void) { int y; goto *&y; }

[Bug objc/57428] Objective C exceptions completely broken in gcc 4.7

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57428 Alexander Pyhalov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||alp at rsu dot ru --- Comment #1 from

[Bug tree-optimization/58164] internal compiler error: in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:1147

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58164 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/58164] New: internal compiler error: in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:1147

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58164 Bug ID: 58164 Summary: internal compiler error: in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:1147 Product: gcc Version: 4.8.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug libstdc++/58163] [C++11] Pedantic assert on str[str.size()] is wrong in C++11

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58163 --- Comment #3 from Paul Pluzhnikov --- The fix: http://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=7e66313066525b0ce38e140e6d9c815e19d119bf I don't believe the test is quite correct: +// { dg-options "-std=gnu++11 -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG_PEDANTIC" } I don'

[Bug libstdc++/58163] [C++11] Pedantic assert on str[str.size()] is wrong in C++11

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58163 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/58160] Power8 fusion support has a bug that shows up in running spec 2006

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58160 --- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner --- I forgot to mention, with this patch, I have built and successfully run 403.gcc and 435.gromacs using the -O2 -m32 -mcpu=power7 -mtune=power8 options that broke 403.gcc, and also with the -O3 -funroll-loops

[Bug target/58160] Power8 fusion support has a bug that shows up in running spec 2006

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58160 --- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner --- Created attachment 30659 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30659&action=edit Proposed patch to fix problem

[Bug libstdc++/58163] [C++11] Pedantic assert on str[str.size()] is wrong in C++11

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58163 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/58163] New: [C++11] Pedantic assert on str[str.size()] is wrong in C++11

if (s[0] != '\0') return 2; return 0; } /// --- cut --- Using trunk gcc g++ (GCC) 4.9.0 20130814 (experimental) g++ -g t.cc -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG_PEDANTIC -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG -std=c++11 && ./a.out /gcc-svn-install/include/c++/4.9.0/bits/basic_string.h:848: std::basic_string<_Cha

gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org

Using trunk: g++ (GCC) 4.9.0 20130814 (experimental) g++ -c -std=c++11 t.cc t.cc: In constructor ‘constexpr B::B()’: t.cc:6:8: error: use of deleted function ‘constexpr A::A(const A&)’ struct B { ^ t.cc:1:8: note: ‘constexpr A::A(const A&)’ is implicitly declared as deleted because ‘

[Bug c++/51912] [C++11] G++ accepts floating point case labels

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51912 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/58161] internal compiler error while compiling SemaDeclCXX.cpp

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58161 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/58146] Array slice bounds checking

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58146 --- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #5) > Technically a(n+1:n+4) is within the bounds, the out of bounds comes from > the loop with a 5-sized array. The array expressions are not conformable, so it is a b

[Bug middle-end/58143] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143 Mikael Pettersson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug c++/58161] internal compiler error while compiling SemaDeclCXX.cpp

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58161 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|blocker |normal --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug c++/58161] internal compiler error while compiling SemaDeclCXX.cpp

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58161 --- Comment #1 from SebastiansPublicAddress at googlemail dot com --- Created attachment 30658 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30658&action=edit preprocessed file compressed because of file size limit

[Bug c++/58161] New: internal compiler error while compiling SemaDeclCXX.cpp

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58161 Bug ID: 58161 Summary: internal compiler error while compiling SemaDeclCXX.cpp Product: gcc Version: 4.7.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: blocker Priori

[Bug target/58160] Power8 fusion support has a bug that shows up in running spec 2006

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58160 Michael Meissner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/58159] unique_ptr::reset should have debug assertion for "self-reset"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58159 Paul Pluzhnikov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppluzhnikov at google dot com --- Comme

[Bug target/57949] [powerpc64] Structure parameter alignment issue with vector extensions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57949 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/58145] [Regression]: volatileness of write is discarded, perhaps in "lim1" related to loop optimizations

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58145 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/58160] New: Power8 fusion support has a bug that shows up in running spec 2006

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58160 Bug ID: 58160 Summary: Power8 fusion support has a bug that shows up in running spec 2006 Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/58159] unique_ptr::reset should have debug assertion for "self-reset"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58159 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- I think all existing Debug Mode checks only trigger for genuine undefined behaviour

[Bug libstdc++/58159] unique_ptr::reset should have debug assertion for "self-reset"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58159 --- Comment #3 from Geoff Romer --- What's the standard of review here? If we can only assert on undefined behavior, even in debug mode, then this just can't be done (although maybe we should make this undefined in the Standard). If we can assert

[Bug c++/51912] [C++11] G++ accepts floating point case labels

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51912 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|paolo.carlini

[Bug libstdc++/58159] unique_ptr::reset should have debug assertion for "self-reset"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58159 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- I'm also a little concerned that doing a self-reset followed by release() is indeed valid ... but probably rare enough that we can still assert anyway at the time of the self-reset. I think this is a good i

[Bug libstdc++/58159] unique_ptr::reset should have debug assertion for "self-reset"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58159 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- What if the deleter doesn't actually destroy the object, and doing self-reset is used as a crazy way to trigger the deleter to do something with the pointer, but not to alter the value of the pointer? If th

[Bug libstdc++/58159] unique_ptr::reset should have debug assertion for "self-reset"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58159 Geoff Romer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gromer at google dot com Severity

[Bug libstdc++/58159] New: unique_ptr::reset should have debug assertion for "self-reset"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58159 Bug ID: 58159 Summary: unique_ptr::reset should have debug assertion for "self-reset" Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/58139] PowerPC volatile VSX register live across call

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58139 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Peter Bergne

[Bug fortran/58146] Array slice bounds checking

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58146 --- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #4) > (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #0) > > neither does it do so with -fcheck=all at runtime: > > > There is no out of bound at run time because the scalarizer

[Bug fortran/58157] ICE on character function with len given by a PURE function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58157 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/58146] Array slice bounds checking

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58146 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 f

[Bug target/58158] New: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2150 while compiling ImageMagick on mipsel

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58158 Bug ID: 58158 Summary: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2150 while compiling ImageMagick on mipsel Product: gcc Version: 4.8.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/58007] [OOP] ICE in free_pi_tree(): Unresolved fixup - resolve_fixups does not fixup component of __class_bsr_Bsr_matrix

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58007 --- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 30656 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30656&action=edit tentative hack For some reason this patch fixes the internal error on comment #6, but not on comment #4.

[Bug fortran/58007] [OOP] ICE in free_pi_tree(): Unresolved fixup - resolve_fixups does not fixup component of __class_bsr_Bsr_matrix

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58007 --- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #5) > I suppose the following is happening (based on Janus' test): > > [...] > This may well be wrong as the typebound procedure in the just-submitted reduced testcase is

[Bug fortran/58007] [OOP] ICE in free_pi_tree(): Unresolved fixup - resolve_fixups does not fixup component of __class_bsr_Bsr_matrix

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58007 --- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin --- further reduced test below. Fails with trunk-20130619 and 4.7.3 here. And works with 4.8-20130416. module matrix type :: sparse_matrix integer :: max_degree end type end module module bsr use matr

[Bug fortran/58157] ICE on character function with len given by a PURE function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58157 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code

[Bug target/57907] warning: switch -mcpu=cortex-a15 conflicts with -march=armv7-a switch [enabled by default]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57907 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/10837] noreturn attribute causes no sibling calling optimization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10837 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jay.foad at gmail dot com --- Comment #10

[Bug target/58152] ARM: unnecessary push before call to noreturn function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58152 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug testsuite/52641] Test cases fail for 16-bit int targets

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52641 Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org --- C

[Bug fortran/58157] New: ICE on character function with len given by a PURE function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58157 Bug ID: 58157 Summary: ICE on character function with len given by a PURE function Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug middle-end/58145] [Regression]: volatileness of write is discarded, perhaps in "lim1" related to loop optimizations

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58145 --- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > Created attachment 30653 [details] > gcc49-pr58145.patch > > Updated patch. Thank you very much, Jakub! The missing opportunity to learn trees :) is offset

[Bug c++/58156] New: c++11 bogus ambigous overload with variadic template

les with Clang, errors with current trunk GCC: g++ (GCC) 4.9.0 20130814 (experimental) g++ -c t.cc -std=c++11 t.cc: In function ‘void Bar()’: t.cc:9:14: error: call of overloaded ‘Foo(const int&)’ is ambiguous Foo(a); ^ t.cc:9:14: note: candidates are: t.cc:2:7: note

[Bug target/58105] wrong code generation for multiversioned functions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58105 --- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger --- Sorry to bother you... With Richard's E-mail today he approved this patch. Could you as i386-port maintainer please do the check-in for me? Thanks.

[Bug target/58152] ARM: unnecessary push before call to noreturn function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58152 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- This is expected behavior as noreturn functions are not sibcalled optimized. The main reason is that even without debugging information, you want to find out where the noreturn function was called from.

[Bug rtl-optimization/57459] [4.8 Regression] LRA inheritance bug

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57459 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/57459] [4.8 Regression] LRA inheritance bug

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57459 --- Comment #9 from Vladimir Makarov --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8) > Created attachment 30643 [details] > rh995446.i > > We've got this reported in > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995446 too. > I've created a self-

[Bug c/58154] if declaration and definition of a function differ in scope, emit a warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58154 --- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab --- All references are from N1570.

[Bug c/58154] if declaration and definition of a function differ in scope, emit a warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58154 --- Comment #4 from Alexander Huemer --- Maybe I really do not correctly understand the difference between storage class and linkage. To me it seems like in one case the linkage of a function is inherited from the declaration, in the other case no

[Bug c++/58155] New: -Wliteral-suffix warns about tokens which are skipped by preprocessor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58155 Bug ID: 58155 Summary: -Wliteral-suffix warns about tokens which are skipped by preprocessor Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic

[Bug c/58154] if declaration and definition of a function differ in scope, emit a warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58154 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |INVALID --- Comment #3 from Andreas Schw

[Bug c/58154] if declaration and definition of a function differ in scope, emit a warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58154 Alexander Huemer changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |FIXED --- Comment #2 from Alexander Hu

[Bug ada/58128] Problem using NAME (STANDARD_INPUT) in gcc-4.7.2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58128 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c/58154] if declaration and definition of a function differ in scope, emit a warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58154 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/58154] New: if declaration and definition of a function differ in scope, emit a warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58154 Bug ID: 58154 Summary: if declaration and definition of a function differ in scope, emit a warning Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: en

[Bug middle-end/58106] ICE: in ipa_edge_duplication_hook, at ipa-prop.c:2839

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58106 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug ada/58128] Problem using NAME (STANDARD_INPUT) in gcc-4.7.2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58128 --- Comment #2 from Ellis N. Thomas --- Further Information about the Exception Added extra "others" handler for Unexpected exceptions to TryStdIP3. Compiled: bash> gnatmake TryStdIP3.ada gcc -c -x ada trystdip3.ada gnatbind -x trystdip

[Bug ada/58128] Problem using NAME (STANDARD_INPUT) in gcc-4.7.2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58128 --- Comment #1 from Ellis N. Thomas --- Created attachment 30654 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30654&action=edit Source code showing problem handling the exception (TryStdIP3) Further Ada source program, modified as describ

[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119 JamesH changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jnahughes at googlemail dot com --- Comment #10

[Bug libstdc++/58153] unordered_multimap::erase(iterator) is not constant-time when many entries have the same key

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58153 --- Comment #2 from Kenton Varda --- > The standard says average case O(1), worst case O(a.size()), so if every > element in the container has the same key then it's O(n). I'm not sure that follows. Yes, the standard says "worst case O(n)", but

[Bug target/58067] ICE in GFortran recog.c:2158

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58067 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Aug 14 09:09:58 2013 New Revision: 201720 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=201720&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/58067 * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_delegitimize_address): Fo

[Bug libstdc++/58153] unordered_multimap::erase(iterator) is not constant-time when many entries have the same key

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58153 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Kenton Varda from comment #0) > I do not know exactly what the standard requires here, but all of the > references I can find claim that erase(iter) should be average-time O(1), > and none of th

[Bug libstdc++/58153] New: unordered_multimap::erase(iterator) is not constant-time when many entries have the same key

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58153 Bug ID: 58153 Summary: unordered_multimap::erase(iterator) is not constant-time when many entries have the same key Product: gcc Version: 4.8.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/58145] [Regression]: volatileness of write is discarded, perhaps in "lim1" related to loop optimizations

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58145 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #30648|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/58152] New: ARM: unnecessary push before call to noreturn function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58152 Bug ID: 58152 Summary: ARM: unnecessary push before call to noreturn function Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 C

[Bug c++/56260] [C++11] GCC hangs/crashes on potentially invalid source

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56260 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code Status|UN

[Bug c++/55540] The C++ literal -9223372036854775808 is misinterpreted

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55540 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ada/58151] New: "conflict of writable function parameter in construct with arbitrary order of evaluation" is often a spurious error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58151 Bug ID: 58151 Summary: "conflict of writable function parameter in construct with arbitrary order of evaluation" is often a spurious error Product: gcc Version: 4.