http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58508
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58892
Bug ID: 58892
Summary: ICE in combine.c when using -Os on alpha
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58890
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||igor.shevlyakov at gmail dot
com
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39693
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Igor, your testcase is exactly PR18501. No fix in sight unfortunately.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58891
Bug ID: 58891
Summary: Bug box when using limited with, between parent and
child packages
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58891
--- Comment #1 from Luke A. Guest ---
Compiled with:
gnatchop source.ada
gnatmake -gnatd.n -c doxmlada-docs.adb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52483
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52483
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sat Oct 26 22:07:37 2013
New Revision: 204097
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204097&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/52483
* config/sh/predicates.md (general_movdst_operand): A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58890
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This looks like a dup of another unitialized warning issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58890
Bug ID: 58890
Summary: Doesn't generate warning about potentially
uninitialized variable
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39693
Igor Shevlyakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||igor.shevlyakov at gmail dot
com
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58885
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Vehbi Esref Bayraktar from comment #4)
> So why doesn't it compile as is
> CGEnum::instances_list CGEnum::msInstances;
> and asks for a specialization notation (template<>)?
Well, because that w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58687
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58887
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this should go through the standards committee instead of being a GNU
extension.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58885
--- Comment #4 from Vehbi Esref Bayraktar ---
So why doesn't it compile as is
CGEnum::instances_list CGEnum::msInstances;
and asks for a specialization notation (template<>)?
Thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58885
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58889
--- Comment #1 from Thiago Macieira ---
This problem also happens with other combinations of functions in use and
compiler options.
My original problem happened on a 64-bit build with -march=corei7-avx and a
function with __attribute__((target("a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58889
Bug ID: 58889
Summary: GCC 4.9 fails to compile certain functions with
intrinsics with __attribute__((target))
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
Bug ID: 5
Summary: [c++11] Rejects-valid: static member with auto and
initializer
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58792
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Hristo Venev from comment #8)
> Created attachment 31092 [details]
> Reduced testcase
>
> b.cpp: In function ‘int f(int)’:
> b.cpp:7:1: internal compiler error: in create_pre_exit, at
> mode-switch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58679
--- Comment #12 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke ---
(In reply to Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke from comment #10)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #7)
>
> > CC author. Hopefully, following part will be reverted:
> >
> > 2013-10-25 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58679
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> There is also a wider issue: the documentation in passes.texi is incorrect
> now.
> It says:
> "Unlike the reload pass, intermediate LRA decisions are reflected in
> RTL as much as possible."
> Now, with t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58792
Hristo Venev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58792
Hristo Venev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #31044|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58679
--- Comment #10 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #7)
> CC author. Hopefully, following part will be reverted:
>
> 2013-10-25 Vladimir Makarov
>
> [...]
> * lra-spills.c (lra_final_code_chan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58729
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58804
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58679
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #8)
> > Or should we use a different approach, and use DF to re-create REG_DEAD
> > notes?
>
> Yes, if you need REG_DEAD/REG_UNUSED notes, just tell DF to compute them:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58679
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58885
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58887
Bug ID: 58887
Summary: Allow recursion in varadic macros?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: preproce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58679
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58687
Max TenEyck Woodbury changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
--- Comment #4 from Max TenE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58839
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
CC|jwakel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58679
--- Comment #6 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> There is no return value copy insn.
>
> The assumption in the mode switching pass, that there is a return value copy
> is not correct anymore, due to rece
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58886
--- Comment #1 from Jo ---
compiler used:
g++ (GCC) 4.9.0 20131020 (experimental)
on SuSe Linux 12.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58886
Bug ID: 58886
Summary: regex with (?s) (valid in Java and boost) yields
regex_error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58679
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Another problem:
--cut here--
int f (long long a, long long b)
{
return (a * b) >> 16;
}
--cut here--
-O2 -mavx -m32 results in the ICE in mode switching due to following sequence:
(insn 14 12 23 2 (paralle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58885
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58627
--- Comment #3 from octoploid at yandex dot com ---
Valgrind shows:
markus@x4 /tmp % valgrind --track-origins=yes --trace-children=yes g++ -O2
-std=c++11 -c test.ii
==6647== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==6647== Copyright (C) 2002-2012, and G
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58679
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58679
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
For reference, the discussion of the change that removed REG_DEAD and
REG_UNUSED notes, started at [1].
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg01781.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58679
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The compile failure with the testcase from Comment #0 has gone latent, but the
problem looks similar to PR 58792 [1].
On a related note, the allocator introduces extra move for pr30185.c testcase
that results i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58679
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58881
--- Comment #4 from Felix ---
Oh sorry, forgot to mention: Simplified code can be compiled with:
gnatchop simplified.adb
gnatmake bug-proc.adb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58881
Felix changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #31089|0 |1
is obsolete|
47 matches
Mail list logo
