http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58970
--- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 11 07:57:11 2013
New Revision: 204663
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204663&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2013-11-06 Jakub Jelinek
PR middle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58997
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 11 07:55:25 2013
New Revision: 204662
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204662&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2013-11-05 Jakub Jelinek
PR rtl-opt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58752
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Richard Smith from comment #4)
Richard, could you please explain what precisely you meant with:
"Deducing #1 from #2 gives T=const U, which results in a deduction failure
because enable_if<...co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063
--- Comment #11 from Evgeniy Stepanov ---
(In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > I think in newer versions of glibc, clock_gettime is in libc.so now too.
>
> I think Andrew is right - clock_get
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #9)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> > No. Just add it to STATIC_LIBASAN_LIBS and make sure libasan is linked
> > against librt.
>
> Hm, I was under imp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063
--- Comment #9 from Yury Gribov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> No. Just add it to STATIC_LIBASAN_LIBS and make sure libasan is linked
> against librt.
Hm, I was under impression that these only get activated when user has
spe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59076
Bug ID: 59076
Summary: std::to_string(int ) could not be found in GCC 4.8.2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #7)
> Created attachment 31192 [details]
> Proposed patch
>
> Does this patch make sense?
No. Just add it to STATIC_LIBASAN_LIBS (dunno about tsan, does it require the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063
--- Comment #7 from Yury Gribov ---
Created attachment 31192
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31192&action=edit
Proposed patch
Does this patch make sense?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063
--- Comment #5 from Yury Gribov ---
(In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #4)
> I think Andrew is right - clock_gettime is in libc nowadays. Should we
> wontfix this bug? A trivial WAR for users would be to add -lrt to cmdline.
A patch to add lib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24842
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063
--- Comment #4 from Yury Gribov ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I think in newer versions of glibc, clock_gettime is in libc.so now too.
I think Andrew is right - clock_gettime is in libc nowadays. Should we wontfix
this bug? A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58985
--- Comment #9 from wmi at google dot com ---
Backported r200720 to gcc 4.8 branch at r204660.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think in newer versions of glibc, clock_gettime is in libc.so now too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063
--- Comment #2 from Evgeniy Stepanov ---
Weak symbols. Ouch.
We should link with libasan with librt. In Clang, we add -lrt to the linker
flags when we see -fsanitize=(address|thread|memory).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||y.gribov at samsung dot com
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59075
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57970
--- Comment #5 from Chris King ---
Would a unit test case be acceptable? That should be an easy way to evince
this bug and I'd be glad to write one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59075
Bug ID: 59075
Summary: python pretty printer does not work at OS X
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component: libst
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59074
Bug ID: 59074
Summary: incorrect "call of overloaded .. is ambiguous" error
when changing base class to virtual
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38199
--- Comment #27 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Getting my self up to speed here. I reviewed what we have going on with this.
Currently we call a function called eat_spaces to do what is needed.
Naturally, to keep track of all the flags and counters, ea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59072
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59073
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59073
Bug ID: 59073
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE with missing increment in OpenMP
for-loop
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57970
--- Comment #4 from Chris King ---
Sorry, not interested: like I said above, it's very difficult to trigger, and
the only code I've been able to trigger it with is proprietary.
You can either read sched-deps.c and understand the code path which f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59072
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59072
Bug ID: 59072
Summary: errc values are platform dependent but are used in
error_condition
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57970
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56853
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57970
--- Comment #2 from Chris King ---
If you don't want proposed patches attached to bug reports, then I suggest you
remove the text "proposed patch" which is next to the "Add an attachment" link.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52368
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59032
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to vries from comment #4)
> I've tried to do something similar in cp_build_unary_op. Tentative patch:
That seems very complicated. We know the arguments, so we know which has to be
converted to what.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55651
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58990
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58028
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59065
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59032
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> We already support v=v+1, so it wouldn't be a large extension.
Hmm, indeed. If found some code in cp_builld_binary_op marked with this
comment:
...
/* In case when one of the operands of the bin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52862
--- Comment #11 from Kai Tietz ---
(In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #10)
Please ignore commit-message ... wrong bug-number
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57970
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|other |rtl-optimization
Severity|major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54982
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53966
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also we need a self contained testcase to go any further on this problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57571
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54841
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50643
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53649
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59071
Bug ID: 59071
Summary: sse2 intrinsics and constant expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50366
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25943
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24000
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48318
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53906
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53496
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52708
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59065
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
g95: complains about deallocated array passed to LBOUND
Intel ifort:
1 0 0
1 0 0
1 0 0
1 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51622
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49548
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42970
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51156
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50646
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50338
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47015
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52872
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46891
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52872
--- Comment #10 from Kai Tietz ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Sun Nov 10 19:32:42 2013
New Revision: 204653
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204653&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Merged from trunk
PR plugins/52872
* configure.ac: Adding for expo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42970
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44876
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52872
--- Comment #9 from Kai Tietz ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Sun Nov 10 19:29:34 2013
New Revision: 204652
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204652&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Merged from trunk
PR plugins/52872
* configure.ac: Adding for expor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59070
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52872
--- Comment #8 from Kai Tietz ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Sun Nov 10 19:27:38 2013
New Revision: 204651
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204651&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fixed typo about bug-number ...
PR plugin/52872
* configure.ac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52862
--- Comment #10 from Kai Tietz ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Sun Nov 10 19:24:43 2013
New Revision: 204650
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204650&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR plugin/52862
* configure.ac: Adding for exported symbols ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57288
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57436
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38318
--- Comment #12 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #11)
> So S2 cannot call free (or realloc) on the pointer and then exit or call
> longjmp or do an infinite loop or anything like that in fortran? Maybe we'll
> nee
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59070
Sarfaraz Nawaz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|WORKSFORME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38318
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #10)
> (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #9)
> > Ok. If you used __builtin_abort instead of _gfortran_os_error, I think my
> > current patch would handle it. It
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59070
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> And it works perfectly with
> gcc version 4.8.3 20131029 (prerelease) (GCC)
> gcc version 4.9.0 20131002 (experimental) (GCC)
and
gcc version 4.7.4 20131030
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59070
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59070
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38318
--- Comment #10 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #9)
>
> Ok. If you used __builtin_abort instead of _gfortran_os_error, I think my
> current patch would handle it. It is hard for gcc to guess that
> _gfortran_os
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38318
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #8)
> Marc, looks like the fortran FE changed a lot since this bug was filed, and
> there is no explicit allocate anymore, in fact the variable is created on
> stack
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59070
Bug ID: 59070
Summary: Captured object is being moved from the lambda on
returning it.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59069
Bug ID: 59069
Summary: Bogus error wording for passing array to scalar
dummies with user-defined operator
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyword
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48155
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47756
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The C++ standard has a note saying:
in general programmers should use the < > form for headers provided with
the implementation, and the " " form for sources outside the control of
the implementati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38318
--- Comment #8 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #7)
> (In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #6)
> > Marc, I think your recently posted patch:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg01049.html
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59065
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57902
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30507|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47756
Olaf van der Spek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38318
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #6)
> Marc, I think your recently posted patch:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg01049.html
> could fix the problem with the testcase subroutine S1, eve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38318
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38077
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34881
--- Comment #3 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
On 11/09/2013 06:02 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34881
>
> Andrew Pinski changed:
>
> What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58921
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49892
--- Comment #4 from Jack Howarth ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Bug in the compiler originally used so closing as invalid.
Just to note that Apple finally back ported the llvm-gcc bug fix in Xcode 4.6.1
or later upon their swit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59068
Bug ID: 59068
Summary: libsanitizer doesn't build on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
with Linux 2.6.18
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59067
Bug ID: 59067
Summary: libsanitizer doesn't build with binutils 2.17.50.0.6
on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57288
--- Comment #2 from Mike Sharov ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Can you attach the preprocessed source which is used to create this assembly
> file?
I'm afraid not. This call has been created by a gigantic collection of
template
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59066
Alexandre Hamez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Segmentation fault. |C+11, 'using' instead of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59066
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
