http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58401
--- Comment #3 from Chen Gang ---
It has too many same issues (maybe they are duplicating), if necessary, I will
list them too (non-reply means not need list them).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58401
--- Comment #2 from Chen Gang ---
Alos for "fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c"
/usr/local/bin/h8300-gchen-elf-gcc -Wp,-MD,fs/ocfs2/dlm/.dlmrecovery.o.d
-nostdinc -isystem /usr/local/lib/gcc/h8300-gchen-elf/4.9.0/include
-I/root/linux-next/arch/h8300
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58401
Chen Gang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gang.chen at asianux dot com
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58401
Bug ID: 58401
Summary: gcc for h8300 internal compiler error: insn does not
satisfy its constraints at fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmdomain.c:
In function 'dlm_query_join_handler'
Product
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58400
--- Comment #3 from Chen Gang ---
If no opitimization (without -Os), it will be OK.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58400
--- Comment #2 from Chen Gang ---
For gcc-4.8.0 and gcc-4.7.4, it has this issue too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58400
Bug ID: 58400
Summary: gcc for h8300 internal compiler error: insn does not
satisfy its constraints at fs/ext4/mballoc.c: In
function 'mb_free_blocks':
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58400
--- Comment #1 from Chen Gang ---
fs/ext4/mballoc.c:1459:1: internal compiler error: in
reload_cse_simplify_operands, at postreload.c:411
0x8e0a95 _fatal_insn(char const*, rtx_def const*, char const*, int, char
const*)
../../gcc-4.9.0/gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58256
Chen Gang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gang.chen at asianux dot com
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58256
--- Comment #3 from Chen Gang ---
The related command line:
/usr/local/bin/h8300-gchen-elf-gcc -Wp,-MD,fs/.namei.o.d -nostdinc -isystem
/usr/local/lib/gcc/h8300-gchen-elf/4.9.0/include
-I/root/linux-next/arch/h8300/include -Iarch/h8300/includ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58256
--- Comment #2 from Chen Gang ---
it is not found in gcc-4.8.0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58256
--- Comment #1 from Chen Gang ---
It is for Linux kernel next-20130828 version.
and for the latest Linux kernel, h8/300 has been removed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58399
Bug ID: 58399
Summary: explicit constructor called implicitly with empty
init-list
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58369
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(All source references here are for vanilla gcc-4.8.1.)
The problem appears to start in choose_reload_regs, in the "if (inheritance)"
block at lines 6497 to 6679. It finds (reg:DF 0 %d0 [orig:109 D.2384
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58389
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|tree-optimiza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58358
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression]|[4.7/4.8 Regression]
|s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58358
--- Comment #24 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Sep 11 22:24:50 2013
New Revision: 202510
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202510&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-09-11 Mitsuru Kariya
Chris Jefferson
PR l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44848
--- Comment #4 from Eero Tamminen ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> This is the same as PR43270 (and the fix for it cures it).
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 43270 ***
Current status is still NEW, but there's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58397
Bug ID: 58397
Summary: Please add host_hooks for NetBSD to make precompiled
headers work
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58397
--- Comment #1 from Martin Husemann ---
Created attachment 30803
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30803&action=edit
host hooks for NetBSD
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58394
Bug ID: 58394
Summary: unrecognizable insn
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58371
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58393
Bug ID: 58393
Summary: Please relax feature check for std::to_string and
std::sto* for uClibc
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhanceme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58398
Bug ID: 58398
Summary: [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/attr-ifunc-4.c runfail
regression after r202111
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58387
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58398
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milesto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58390
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58392
--- Comment #3 from tprince at computer dot org ---
Created attachment 30801
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30801&action=edit
include file needed for compilation from C source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58396
Bug ID: 58396
Summary: [4.9 Regression] heap-use-after-free at
gcc/tree-loop-distribution.c:1959
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35878
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, I never got round to sending it to the reflector, but I'd be interested to
hear the committee's views on a change.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57393
--- Comment #36 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #35)
> The #c34 testcase seems to fail starting r199048 till current HEAD.
Besides John's new testcase from #c34, I've also encountered quite a number of
different testc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58395
Bug ID: 58395
Summary: Undefined behavior vs. exception
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58391
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35878
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58007
Rich Townsend changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||townsend at astro dot wisc.edu
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58393
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini ---
In any case, please send patches to the mailing list, attached to bug report
will be easily overlooked. More specifically, if we are going to be more fine
grained about C99 support, other headers have to be co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58392
Bug ID: 58392
Summary: internal compiler error: in expand_GOMP_SIMD_VF, at
internal-fn.c (omp simd inside omp parallel)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58392
--- Comment #1 from tprince at computer dot org ---
Created attachment 30798
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30798&action=edit
pre-processed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58392
--- Comment #2 from tprince at computer dot org ---
Created attachment 30799
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30799&action=edit
C source
odel: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130911 (experimental) [trunk revision 202489] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -Os small.c
$ a.out
0
$ gcc-trunk -O1 small.c
$ a.out
$
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58337
Hubert Tong changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
--- Comment #16 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #15)
> However, note that it only optimizes the testcase from this PR if we add
> #include at the beginning, otherwise the implicit declaration of
> operator new doesn't h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35878
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #2)
> The only place I can think of where we could tell the compiler to skip this
> check is in the library. I don't know if we should add
> if(p==0)__builtin_unreachabl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58391
Bug ID: 58391
Summary: avr-gcc: Certain functions with computed goto could be
inlined
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58390
Bug ID: 58390
Summary: avr-gcc produces unusable code when label address is
placed in register
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19476
--- Comment #15 from Marc Glisse ---
I posted a patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00676.html
However, note that it only optimizes the testcase from this PR if we add
#include at the beginning, otherwise the implicit declaration
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35878
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57848
--- Comment #13 from Jacek Caban ---
Yes, it helps. Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57797
--- Comment #8 from Kai Tietz ---
please note that bugzilla isn't the proper place to get end-user support about
how to use options. To cite your favorite sentence "please read first the
mail-archive". Actually you weren't the first person havi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58377
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58389
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r202281.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58377
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 11 12:23:15 2013
New Revision: 202498
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202498&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-09-11 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/58377
* passes.c (in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58389
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58377
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 11 12:20:07 2013
New Revision: 202496
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202496&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-09-11 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/58377
* passes.def:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58385
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression]|[4.7 Regression] likely
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58385
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Sep 11 12:17:47 2013
New Revision: 202495
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202495&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/58385
* fold-const.c (build_range_check): If bo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58371
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58389
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot de
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57797
--- Comment #7 from Earnie ---
--disable-bootstrap is an answer I can live with as resolving this issue. Use
of --disable-build-poststage1-with-cxx should become an error in configure with
the suggestion to use --disable-bootstrap instead.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57797
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58388
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57797
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to Earnie from comment #4)
> Your statement doesn't resolve anything at all. It is fine for gcc to
> require c++ but it is not fine for configure to continue if I only specify c
> and c++ is als
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57797
Earnie changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
See http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15930 for the as bugreport.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58385
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Sep 11 11:35:51 2013
New Revision: 202494
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202494&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/58385
* fold-const.c (build_range_check): If bo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58389
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57848
--- Comment #12 from Kai Tietz ---
Does the following patch helps to you?
Index: c/c-decl.c
===
--- c/c-decl.c (Revision 202491)
+++ c/c-decl.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -3604,7 +3604,7 @@
gcc/4.9-trunk
--enable-languages=c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130911 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58388
Bug ID: 58388
Summary: LTO profiledbootstrap fails in stage feedback for
tree-ssa-structalias.c with "internal compiler error:
in try_make_edge_direct_simple_call, at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57797
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18649
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57504
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58377
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to davidxl from comment #10)
> When an incoming edge to a phi is a critical edge, the 'use BB' for the phi
> arg should be in the split BB of the edge. Pushing the use into either the
> Source BB
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55543
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55543
--- Comment #7 from Martin Gieseking ---
I can confirm that the issue seems to be gone in 4.8, and I can't reproduce it
with 4.7.3 either. So it's probably fixed in the recent releases.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58384
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58371
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58387
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Cannot reproduce either.
Maybe you got hit by Jeffs bus introducing random bits into your bootstrap?
So I wonder if it reproduces for you if you rebuild GCC ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58387
--- Comment #4 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Not even with r202421.
> Content of main with that revision for x86_64 -Os is:
> .cfi_startproc
> pushq %rcx
> .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
> mov
79 matches
Mail list logo
