http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
--- Comment #6 from Kostya Serebryany ---
> Would a fallback implementation of BlockingMutex::{Lock,Unlock}() that uses
> pthread_mutex_*() be sensible here?
That would be non-trivial. We intercept the pthread_ functions so we can't
call them di
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58267
Bug ID: 58267
Summary: Alignment specifier allowed within array declarator;
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58134
--- Comment #4 from Sharad Singhai ---
I think perhaps it would be better if I remove this deprecated option
-ftree-vectorizer-verbose= completely. It is confusing in its current form and
the equivalent functionality is already available via -fopt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58266
Bug ID: 58266
Summary: gcc-4.7.3: memleaks reported by valgrind
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58208
--- Comment #12 from Tammy Hsu ---
I installed the required i686 rpms on the Fedora 19 system, and the testcase
works without crash (using the /bin/g++).
I then built gcc481 on the Fedora 19 system, the testcase also works fine when
I compile/lin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58255
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Aug 28 22:40:34 2013
New Revision: 202061
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202061&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2013-08-28 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58255
* init.c (b
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 28, 2013, at 3:15 PM, Wei Li wrote:
> I am actually doing some instrumentation on the binary code generated
> by gcc. I did it successfully for class methods and external functions
> but failed on the static functions.
Well that is not supported and is undefined.
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58255
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
#12 from Walter Spector ---
Adding myself (Walter Spector) to the cc list. My contribution is a simple
little test case that works with current versions of Intel (with -assume
realloc_lhs option) and NAG. As of todays gfortran snapshot (20130828), I get
a lot of 'Deferred-length char
I am actually doing some instrumentation on the binary code generated
by gcc. I did it successfully for class methods and external functions
but failed on the static functions.
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:12 PM, wrote:
>
> On Aug 28, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Wei Li wrote:
>
>> It's a static function. 32
On Aug 28, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Wei Li wrote:
> It's a static function. 32bit x86. I tried both gcc4.5.2 and gcc4.7.2,
> the behavior is same.
Then this is not a bug. Why would you care about the abi? Are you using some
inline asm also?
Andrew
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:00 PM, wrote:
It's a static function. 32bit x86. I tried both gcc4.5.2 and gcc4.7.2,
the behavior is same.
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:00 PM, wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Aug 28, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Wei Li wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am trying to disable pass arguments by register in my project. I
>> suppos
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 28, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Wei Li wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to disable pass arguments by register in my project. I
> suppose -mregparm=0 can do this but unfortunately it doesn't work with
> -O3. The arguments are still through registers even I specified
> -mregparm=0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58265
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.0 |---
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini --
Hi,
I am trying to disable pass arguments by register in my project. I
suppose -mregparm=0 can do this but unfortunately it doesn't work with
-O3. The arguments are still through registers even I specified
-mregparm=0.
I am not sure if this intentional or a bug? -mregparm is a specific
option.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58265
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143
--- Comment #15 from Bernd Edlinger ---
This patch was posted at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg01733.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
Daniel Richard G. changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||skunk at iskunk dot org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58265
Bug ID: 58265
Summary: std::string move assignment should be noexcept
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52243
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58228
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This is nested vectorization, where the step in the inner loop is 0, while in
the outer loop is bigger than that, and for inv_p we look at the step in the
outer loop in that case, while we perhaps should look
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58263
--- Comment #6 from vova7890 ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> How about looking into the MyClass1 to see if there is a friend class and
> have a quick heuristic about the spelling mistake when doing the error
> message?
Good idea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58263
--- Comment #5 from vova7890 ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> But that will warn about valid code, where you didn't spell the name wrong.
Yes, but it can be not in one file, as in example. If it in one file, and
friend class is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57393
--- Comment #28 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Easwaran Raman from comment #27)
> These two test cases pass for me (compiles with -O3) with the attached patch
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30690).
> gcc --version ret
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58263
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
How about looking into the MyClass1 to see if there is a friend class and have
a quick heuristic about the spelling mistake when doing the error message?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57393
--- Comment #27 from Easwaran Raman ---
These two test cases pass for me (compiles with -O3) with the attached patch
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30690).
gcc --version returns:
gcc (GCC) 4.9.0 20130821 (experimental)
At what r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58263
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
But that will warn about valid code, where you didn't spell the name wrong.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57287
--- Comment #16 from davidxl ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15)
> Confirmed. David, can you have a look here? I had a hard time following
> what
> exactly to do with the dataflow in the uninit pass for abnormal control flow
> (abn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58067
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Aug 28 16:31:41 2013
New Revision: 202055
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202055&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/58067
* config/i386/i386.md (*tls_global_dynamic_64_large
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58263
--- Comment #2 from vova7890 ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Do we warn in A.cc that B is not defined? It is defined in another header,
> but that isn't included by A.cc because it isn't needed.
We warn about implicit friend
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58264
Bug ID: 58264
Summary: Incorrect 'First when assigning function-call.all (of
access String;) to an indefinite String object
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58260
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> (In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #4)
> > (I always build gmp/mpfr/mpc with --disable-shared exactly to avoid such
> > issues.)
>
> Why not just b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56933
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 30712
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30712&action=edit
fixed test case
Looking deeper into the matter it seems like this an example
where vectorisation is not supposed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58259
Sebastian Huber changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58262
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Hoorah! Thanks, Jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58262
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58261
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58106
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58263
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|trivial |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Jonatha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58263
Bug ID: 58263
Summary: [feature request] friend class $UndefinedClass
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58261
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Aug 28 14:41:27 2013
New Revision: 202051
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202051&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR spam/58261
PR spam/58262
Fix up ChangeLog entry whitespace.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58262
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Aug 28 14:41:27 2013
New Revision: 202051
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202051&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR spam/58261
PR spam/58262
Fix up ChangeLog entry whitespace.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58262
Bug ID: 58262
Summary: Test bug 2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: spam
Assignee: unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58261
Bug ID: 58261
Summary: Test bug 1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: spam
Assignee: unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57511
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spop at gcc dot gnu.org
Bloc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885
Paulo J. Matos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pa...@matos-sorge.com
--- Comment #3 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58100
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58260
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #4)
> (I always build gmp/mpfr/mpc with --disable-shared exactly to avoid such
> issues.)
Why not just build them in tree and avoid all problems?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58260
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson ---
You got several 'conftest.c:16:1: internal compiler error: Bus Error' from the
newly built compiler.
You should try one of those compilation attempts manually, in gdb, to see where
the SIGBUS is coming fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58260
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The relevant part of the file is:
configure:3055:
/home/ekarana/ekarana_2013/GCC463_OSE5.6/Solaris_to_Linux/INSTALL/build-gcc/sparc-sun-solaris2.10-i686-pc-linux-gnu/./gcc/xgcc
-B/home/ekarana/ekarana_2013/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58260
anand.karanam at tcs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anand.karanam at tcs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58260
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58245
Rose Garcia changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rose.garcia-eggl2fk@yopmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57685
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm, it's register_edge_assert_for_1 not limiting its recursion and not
avoiding duplicate visits. Which in this case leads to exponential
compile-time behavior.
We can mitigate the latter by only considerin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58260
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to anand.karanam from comment #0)
> checking for suffix of object files... configure: error: in
> `/home/ekarana/ekarana_2013/GCC463_OSE5.6/Solaris_to_Linux/INSTALL/build-gcc/
> sparc-sun-solaris
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58260
Bug ID: 58260
Summary: configure: error: cannot compute suffix of object
files: cannot compile See `config.log' for more
details. gmake[1]: *** [configure-target-libgcc] Error
strexb ip, r1, [r0]
cmp ip, #0
bne .L2
.L3:
mov r2, #0
dmb sy
moveq r0, #1
strbr3, [r2] <-- NULL POINTER WRITE
movne r0, r2
bx lr
.size test_and_set, .-test_and_set
.ident &q
10,0,3
and 4,10,7
andc 8,10,7
cmpw 0,4,5
or 8,8,6
bne- 0,.L3
stwcx. 8,0,3
bne- 0,.L2
.L3:
isync
srw 10,10,9
li 9,0
stb 10,0(9)
mfcr 3
rlwinm 3,3,3,1
blr
.size test_and_set,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58258
Bug ID: 58258
Summary: cp_tree_equal and unknown symbol take up 70% of
(astronomical) build time
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58255
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
I'm finishing testing this:
Index: init.c
===
--- init.c(revision 202020)
+++ init.c(working copy)
@@ -1465,6 +1465,7 @@ build_aggr_init
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58255
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58257
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58257
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58257
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58257
Bug ID: 58257
Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] Bogus warning with OpenMP
collapsed loops
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58250
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58250
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #0)
> Just noticed this issue during a PGO/LTO Firefox build.
> During the -fprofile-use phase I always get the following warning:
> warning: -fprefetch-loop-arr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57967
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58207
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58134
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.2
Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57955
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4
Summary|[4.6/4.7/4.8/4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58239
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58094
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58026
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57732
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.2
Summary|[4.8 / 4.9 Regr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57945
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58242
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58121
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58024
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57422
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58148
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58201
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #20 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #19)
> volatile bitfield case to be audited as well:
>
> /* If the bitfield is volatile, we want to access it in the
> field's mode, not the computed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58106
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 30708
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30708&action=edit
Patch
The problem is that the rdesc chain creation mechanism cannot handle
the case where indirect inlining creat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57927
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57287
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 16 Aug 2013, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
>
> --- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56977
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31593
Bug 31593 depends on bug 31094, which changed state.
Bug 31094 Summary: Support annotating function parameters as read-only and/or
non-escaping
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31094
What|Removed |Ad
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31893
Bug 31893 depends on bug 31094, which changed state.
Bug 31094 Summary: Support annotating function parameters as read-only and/or
non-escaping
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31094
What|Removed |Ad
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31094
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31279
Bug 31279 depends on bug 31094, which changed state.
Bug 31094 Summary: Support annotating function parameters as read-only and/or
non-escaping
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31094
What|Removed |Ad
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener ---
Barking up wrong trees. Hacky fix looks like:
Index: gcc/expr.c
===
--- gcc/expr.c (revision 202043)
+++ gcc/expr.c (working copy)
@@ -4753
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56811
--- Comment #7 from Misty De Meo ---
Checking the GCC database, I noticed a similar issue regarding GCC 4.4.3:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47609
Checking the symbol list in libgcc_s and libstdc++, I can see that it's true
that OS
97 matches
Mail list logo
