20130904 (experimental) [trunk revision 202240] (GCC)
$
$
$ time gcc-trunk -O3 reduced.c
0.06user 0.00system 0:00.23elapsed 30%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 51792maxresident)k
0inputs+32outputs (0major+7258minor)pagefaults 0swaps
$
$
$ time gcc-trunk -O3 -g reduced.c
11.70user 0.68system 0:18.93elapsed 65%CPU
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58317
Bug ID: 58317
Summary: Calling a method while preparing to call the
constructor should be illegal
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24926
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24926
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Sep 4 23:52:48 2013
New Revision: 202266
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202266&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2013-09-04 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/24926
* class.c (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58304
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini ---
You should really figure out what's so special about your setup/system, because
we have so many reports of successful builds, just look at gcc-testresults.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58316
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58096
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57370
--- Comment #10 from eraman at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: eraman
Date: Wed Sep 4 17:48:15 2013
New Revision: 202262
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202262&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-09-04 Easwaran Raman
PR middle-end/57370
PR tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58011
--- Comment #2 from eraman at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: eraman
Date: Wed Sep 4 17:48:15 2013
New Revision: 202262
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202262&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-09-04 Easwaran Raman
PR middle-end/57370
PR tre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57366
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58084
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
The patch to "fix" this is issue is proposed at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00078.html
> If a type is refered to by two functions it is by definition not local. But
> as it references a local
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57776
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58316
Bug ID: 58316
Summary: error: call of overloaded ‘foo(long long unsigned int,
long long unsigned int)’ is ambiguous
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58316
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Integer conversions are not ranked by size. The call is ambiguous, G++ is
correct. Intel and clang agree.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58125
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, the testcase no longer reproduces, but the dump seems clear. We introduced
new aliases but did not resize the summary vector, because we do not need info
for these. Then we attempt to free it and ICE.
I am
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58201
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In C++ destructors don't have parameters, so the question is where the bogusly
mangled name comes from. Is that coming from the implicit this argument that
is somehow used again in the mangling (though that w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58186
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka --
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58201
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 30749
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30749&action=edit
Proposed fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58201
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, the destructor is used as:
_ZN1BD2EPPKv/21 (B::~B()) @0x7f56014ecd10
Type: function
Visibility: external public
References:
Referring:
Availability: not_available
Function flags:
Called by: _ZN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58304
--- Comment #3 from Harsha ---
I'm compiling Revision: 202247 using gcc 4.7.3.
git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@202247
138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4
And my OS is Ubuntu 64-bit
Linux DESK 3.8.0-29-generic #42-Ubuntu SMP Tue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58304
--- Comment #4 from Harsha ---
Created attachment 30748
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30748&action=edit
config.log attached
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Unsurprisingly the culprit is var-tracking. Disabling it gets memory use
down to 250MB.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 30747
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30747&action=edit
testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Bug ID: 58315
Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] Excessive memory use with -g
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: memory-hog
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53808
--- Comment #4 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
The equivalent clang bug (llvm.org/pr13124) just got fixed by avoiding the
devirtualization in this case.
Not sure how similar the issues are internally, but I summarized what I found
in clang in:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58076
--- Comment #3 from chenpoyang ---
Before I see an error when compiling gcc, now forgotten...- -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55637
--- Comment #11 from Mark Wielaard ---
It seems somewhat related to the binutils version.
The results form comment #10 are with binutils-2.20.51.0.2-5.36.el6.x86_64
If I build and put current binutils trunk on the path the results change (for
the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55637
--- Comment #10 from Mark Wielaard ---
O wait, it is more complicated than that. My "by hand" tests were using the
interpreter. But there are multiple sourcelocation tests:
PASS: sourcelocation compilation from source
PASS: sourcelocation executi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55637
--- Comment #9 from Mark Wielaard ---
I assume this is some weirdness in the testsuite. It does indeed fail for me in
a make check, but seems to work just fine when ran by hand.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58313
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58201
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot de
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58313
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Probably dup of Bug 58201.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55637
--- Comment #8 from Mark Wielaard ---
What happens when you run it by hand?
$ gij -cp ./libjava/testsuite/libjava.lang/sourcelocation.jar sourcelocation
10
13
15
-1 indicates "something went wrong", which is indeed not very helpful.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55637
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Klose ---
it prints
-1
-1
-1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55637
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #31 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #29)
> (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #28)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #19)
> > > Barking up wrong trees. Hacky fix looks like:
> > >
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #29
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE|[4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #28 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #19)
> Barking up wrong trees. Hacky fix looks like:
>
> Index: gcc/expr.c
> ===
> --- gcc/expr.c (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #27 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #22)
> Created attachment 30732 [details]
> Another attempt at a fix
>
> I simply moved the decision whether to go the misalignp path or not a
> bit down in the funct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58314
Bug ID: 58314
Summary: SH4 error: 'asm' operand requires impossible reload
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58305
--- Comment #7 from Johannes Wienke ---
Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58210
--- Comment #3 from GGanesh ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Please provide preprocessed source and compiler flags and the architecture
> that fails.
Its for 400.perlbench (Spec 1.2) with options -Ofast -march=bdver2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58305
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58305
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Sep 4 08:57:26 2013
New Revision: 202242
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202242&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2013-09-03 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58305
* typeck2.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58308
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58311
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58210
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56750
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
Summary|static -lstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47191
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58313
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44489
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58210
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58313
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
markus@x4 tmp % g++ c -O2 test.ii
markus@x4 tmp % nm test.o|grep _ZN8KNetwork18KPassiveSocketBase
U _ZN8KNetwork18KPassiveSocketBaseC2EPPKv
markus@x4 tmp % /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58313
Bug ID: 58313
Summary: [4.9 Regression] kdelibs build failure
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
56 matches
Mail list logo
