http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59226
Bug ID: 59226
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE: in record_target_from_binfo, at
ipa-devirt.c:661
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #21 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
$ ~/test1/205036M/build/gcc/cc1 -O1 -Wuninitialized test.c
-fdump-tree-all-all-lineno
$ cat test.c.139t.uninit1
foo (intD.6 iD.1789)
{
intD.6 jD.1792;
intD.6 _5;
intD.6 _7;
;; basic block 2,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #20 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #19)
> (In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #18)
> > This seems to be fixed in the trunk.
>
> Is there an XPASS for gcc.dg/uninit-pr19430.c ?
>
> Als
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
--- Comment #68 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #67)
> *** Bug 59225 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
PR 59225 gave me an idea. Wouldn't it be possible to keep a PHI node with just
two ope
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
--- Comment #67 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
*** Bug 59225 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59225
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #19 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #18)
> This seems to be fixed in the trunk.
Is there an XPASS for gcc.dg/uninit-pr19430.c ?
Also, the testcase from bug 42079?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59223
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59225
Bug ID: 59225
Summary: missing maybe uninitialized warning following single
if
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #18 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
This seems to be fixed in the trunk.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59224
Bug ID: 59224
Summary: std::uncaught_exception always returns true after
exception while constructing another exception.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59223
Bug ID: 59223
Summary: -Wmaybe-uninitialized and -Wuninitialized
relationships
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57683
--- Comment #1 from zqchen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: zqchen
Date: Thu Nov 21 02:32:51 2013
New Revision: 205189
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205189&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-21 Zhenqiang Chen
PR bootstrap/57683
Backpor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59222
Bug ID: 59222
Summary: gcc.c-torture/compile/20050622-1.c ICEs for
aarch64-elf
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
-mpfr=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--with-mpc=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --with-cloog=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20131120 (experimental) [trunk revision 205097] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -Os small.c; a.out
$ gcc-4.8.2 -O2 small.c; a.out
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58774
camille at bountysource dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||camille at bountysource d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59220
Bug ID: 59220
Summary: bogus warning: packed attribute is unnecessary on an
overaligned char
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59219
Bug ID: 59219
Summary: builtin___memcpy_chk and -fno-builtin-memcpy
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49024
--- Comment #5 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Wed Nov 20 22:18:55 2013
New Revision: 205151
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205151&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libfortran/49024
* intrinsics/erfc_scaled.c (erfc_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49204
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ABI |
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49204
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Nov 20 20:59:19 2013
New Revision: 205144
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205144&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/49204
* include/std/future (__future_base::_State_bas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59133
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Nov 20 20:32:57 2013
New Revision: 205141
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205141&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-20 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/59133
* lr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59218
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59218
Bug ID: 59218
Summary: atomic transactions: accesses to volatiles not
disallowed in transaction_safe code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #13 from Kostya Serebryany ---
(In reply to Oleg Smolsky from comment #12)
> Hey Kostya, should I try suppressing the report using the function name?
> Would it work in optimized builds that have inlining?
Excellent question!
If you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #12 from Oleg Smolsky ---
Hey Kostya, should I try suppressing the report using the function name? Would
it work in optimized builds that have inlining?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59208
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> I suspect r205019.
I verified r205019 is the cause.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #11 from Kostya Serebryany ---
> _Atomic_word __count = _M_use_count; < the read
Interesting.
We haven't seen these (we don't use this implementation of shared_ptr).
I think the code is simply wrong -- it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, you're right, that's a different issue. I think we've just been relying on
loads of (correctly-aligned) _Atomic_word being atomic, although that's not
going to keep tsan happy! There's no barrier on t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Smolsky ---
So, let me see if I understand. The case in question is _M_add_ref_lock() :
template<>
inline void
_Sp_counted_base<_S_atomic>::
_M_add_ref_lock()
{
// Perform lock-free add-if-not-zero
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59194
--- Comment #8 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> And the problem with that is? Because the arithmetics is based on the value
> we've read, it shouldn't be a problem.
Ah...right.
> That said, during stag
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #8 from Kostya Serebryany ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> I realise that, but the general point is still valid: for race detectors to
> understand the atomic updates in the library they library needs to be
> compile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54954
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to swalter from comment #7)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> > The header file malloc.h (which is non-standard by the way) has the
> > attribute malloc on the malloc function call.
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> tsan as well, but the point is till ...
s/till/still/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I realise that, but the general point is still valid: for race detectors to
understand the atomic updates in the library they library needs to be compiled
with the race detector enabled. We can update the d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #5 from Kostya Serebryany ---
> > But only if you re-compile stdlibc++ with tsan,
>
> It's libstdc++ not stdlibc++, I don't know why everyone gets that wrong :-)
Sorry (I usually get it right) :)
>
> Anyway, this is already docum
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59194
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And the problem with that is? Because the arithmetics is based on the value
we've read, it shouldn't be a problem.
That said, during stage3 I'll look at how costly would be to use there
__atomic_load_n with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59217
Bug ID: 59217
Summary: GCC fails to cross-build: conflicting declarations of
'basename', 'sbrk', etc.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Oleg Smolsky from comment #0)
> in ...gcc/include/c++/4.8.x-google/x86_64-unknown-linux/bits/atomic_word.h
>
>typedef int _Atomic_word;
>
> Should this be std::atomic ?
No.
(In repl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59194
--- Comment #6 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> I bet tsan complains because the load is
> not atomic, but does it really matter? If we read garbage there, compare
> and swap will fail and next time we'll
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59216
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59194
--- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> I bet tsan complains because the load is
> not atomic, but does it really matter?
I think there are (at least) two possible answers to this.
1) No, it do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59207
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59216
--- Comment #2 from christophe.lyon at st dot com ---
Basically, the working code does:
asrsr3, r2, #31
negsr2, r2
sbc.w r3, r3, r3, lsl #1
while the failing one does:
negsr2, r2
asrsr3, r2, #31
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #3 from Kostya Serebryany ---
> I can try to come up with a minimal test case... Yet, I cannot imagine
> that the following would ever work with TSan:
> typedef int _Atomic_word;
It does not matter how _Atomic_word is de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59207
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Nov 20 17:03:15 2013
New Revision: 205128
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205128&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/59207
* config/sparc/sparc.c (sparc_fold_builtin) :
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59207
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Nov 20 17:02:36 2013
New Revision: 205127
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205127&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/59207
* config/sparc/sparc.c (sparc_fold_builtin) :
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Smolsky ---
Unfortunately, I cannot repro with Clang (we use gcc48 with sysroot, and
I failed to get Clang to latch onto that STL. It only discovers the
system's STL)
I can try to come up with a minimal test case... Yet
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59207
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org |
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59216
Bug ID: 59216
Summary: [ARM] negdi*extendsidi regression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59216
--- Comment #1 from christophe.lyon at st dot com ---
Created attachment 31261
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31261&action=edit
negsidi_test.c
testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #1 from Kostya Serebryany ---
This reminds me http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=17066
Do you have this problem with clang's tsan?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59207
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
Bug ID: 59215
Summary: tsan: warning in shared_ptr_base.h
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
--- Comment #25 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Rounding to zero and setting a sticky bit based on inexactness works as long as
the internal precision has at least two more bits than the final precision for
which correctly rounded results are required.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59153
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59153
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Nov 20 16:01:46 2013
New Revision: 205122
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205122&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2013-11-18 Uros Bizjak
* conf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59211
--- Comment #2 from Nadav Har'El ---
Amazing, this workaround indeed works :-) Thanks!
With the constexpr prio, indeed using prio+0 solved the problem.
For the enum class, prio::second, I can't use addition (because it isn't
implemented in this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59198
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #1)
> However, I can not reproduce the ICE with
> 4.6.4:
Neither with the original test case in comment 0, nor with the reduced version
in comment 1!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58314
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo ---
Created attachment 31260
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31260&action=edit
reduced test case
(In reply to chrbr from comment #6)
> Created attachment 31257 [details]
> test case
>
> cc1 -O2 c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
--- Comment #24 from Rick Regan ---
I don't understand -- won't "mpfr_init2 (m, SIGNIFICAND_BITS);" have the same
problem? Don't we need to change the computation of SIGNIFICAND_BITS in real.h?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59208
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55145
Bug 55145 depends on bug 21718, which changed state.
Bug 21718 Summary: real.c rounding not perfect
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
What|Removed |Added
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59198
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
--- Comment #23 from Joseph S. Myers ---
*** Bug 55145 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55145
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16989
Bug 16989 depends on bug 21718, which changed state.
Bug 21718 Summary: real.c rounding not perfect
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
What|Removed |Added
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
--- Comment #21 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Wed Nov 20 14:34:49 2013
New Revision: 205119
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205119&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/21718
* real.c: Remove comment about decimal string
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59212
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59214
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59214
Bug ID: 59214
Summary: [4.9 Regression] Many plugin test failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: plugins
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59213
Bruce Merry changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54300
--- Comment #13 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Wed Nov 20 13:55:04 2013
New Revision: 205117
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205117&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/54300
gcc/
PR rtl-optimization/54300
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59194
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Because CPUs obviously don't have floating point atomic instructions, what the
compiler does is just load it as an integer, view convert to floating point,
perform arithmetics, view convert result back to inte
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59058
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 31259
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31259&action=edit
candidate patch
Candidate patch.
But I think it's better to remove this functions users.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59212
Diego Novillo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59213
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Bruce Merry from comment #0)
> assuming I've correctly interpreted the C++11 spec [the draft - N3242].
That's a pretty old draft now, you'd be better looking at a current draft
(N3797) not one
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59212
--- Comment #1 from Diego Novillo ---
Author: dnovillo
Date: Wed Nov 20 13:48:40 2013
New Revision: 205115
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205115&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 59212
* g++.dg/plugin/selfassign.c: Include stringpool.h
Modi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59213
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think G++ is implementing the resolution of
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1402
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54954
--- Comment #7 from swalter at lexmark dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> The header file malloc.h (which is non-standard by the way) has the
> attribute malloc on the malloc function call.
>
> So this is invalid.
Sorry, c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59194
--- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele
---
actually it seems more general an issue, the following:
SUBROUTINE S1(m)
REAL :: m
!$OMP ATOMIC
m=m+1.0
END
REAL :: m
m=0.0
!$OMP PARALLEL
CALL S1(m)
!$OMP END PARALLEL
END
flags race for the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59173
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59173
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Nov 20 13:39:33 2013
New Revision: 205114
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205114&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/59173
* include/ext/pointer.h (pointer_traits<>::rebind<>):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59211
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Similar to PR 53017 (does the same +0 workaround work?). The main difference
with constructor seems to be a call to default_conversion.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59213
Bug ID: 59213
Summary: Implicit move constructor created when base class has
no move constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59212
Bug ID: 59212
Summary: [4.9 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/plugin/selfassign.c
compilation
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58314
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to chrbr from comment #5)
> Linux kernel build fails since 4.8
>
> cc1 -O2 consolemap.c
>
> drivers/char/consolemap.c:654:647: error: 'asm' operand requires impossible
> reload
>
> seems to be due to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59211
Bug ID: 59211
Summary: init_priority doesn't work with constant expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59210
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59058
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Still FAILs to vectorize gcc.dg/vect/pr18425.c with -m32. But we have here
=> get_loop_niters:(unsigned long) (__n_7(D) + 4294967295) + 1
that could have been simplified. __n is unsigned int. So I can sp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59206
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #1)
> Can you try it again at SVN revision r205061.
Retrying at that rev ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58314
--- Comment #6 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31257
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31257&action=edit
test case
cc1 -O2 consolemap.c -quiet
drivers/char/consolemap.c:654:647: error: 'asm' operand requires
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58314
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59058
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
I improve this with also using max_stmt_executions I at least get no
vect.exp fail but the testcase in this PR is not vectorized when using
a size_t b.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59210
Bug ID: 59210
Summary: decltype incorrectly accepted as non-first element of
nested-name-specifier
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59058
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Unfortunately
@@ -2930,11 +2931,31 @@ number_of_exit_cond_executions (struct l
if (chrec_contains_undetermined (ret))
return ret;
- ret = chrec_fold_plus (type, ret, build_int_cst (type, 1));
- if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58028
Graham Markall changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||graham at opengamma dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57756
--- Comment #10 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Wed Nov 20 11:59:05 2013
New Revision: 205104
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205104&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/57756
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_option_override_internal): Add
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
