[Bug target/59609] [4.9 Regression] LRA generates bad code for libgcc function udivmoddi4 on thumb1 target

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59609 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Terry Guo from comment #1) > Here are some investigations. In the dump of IRA pass, we have jump insn > like: And this is why the old saying of reload not cannot reload a jump instruction comes t

[Bug target/59609] [4.9 Regression] LRA generates bad code for libgcc function udivmoddi4 on thumb1 target

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59609 --- Comment #1 from Terry Guo --- Here are some investigations. In the dump of IRA pass, we have jump insn like: (jump_insn 31 24 172 5 (parallel [ (set (pc) (if_then_else (lt (plus:SI (reg/v:SI 119 [ i ])

[Bug target/59609] [4.9 Regression] LRA generates bad code for libgcc function udivmoddi4 on thumb1 target

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59609 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |4.9.0 Target Milestone|---

[Bug c/59609] New: LRA generates bad code for libgcc function udivmoddi4 on thumb1 target

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59609 Bug ID: 59609 Summary: LRA generates bad code for libgcc function udivmoddi4 on thumb1 target Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: blocker

[Bug sanitizer/59600] no_sanitize_address mishandled when function is inlined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59600 --- Comment #8 from Yury Gribov --- Created attachment 31522 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31522&action=edit Patch which inlines based on caller/callee attribute match (In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #7) > > And second

[Bug c++/59607] Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines re-entered.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59607 vyf at princeton dot edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/59605] [4.9 Regression] error: wrong number of branch edges after unconditional jump in bb 11

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59605 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- A patch is posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg01907.html

[Bug tree-optimization/53804] branch reordering missed optimization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53804 Steven Bosscher changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Target|

[Bug target/50181] insn does not satisfy constraints for 481.wrf when generating profile data

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50181 --- Comment #2 from Steven Bosscher --- gcc 4.6 is no longer maintained. Is there still a bug here to fix? (The testcase of comment #1 works for me with r206195 on ppc64-linux.)

[Bug rtl-optimization/50180] insn does not satisfy constraints for 444.namd when generating profile data

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50180 Steven Bosscher changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libgomp/42519] bootstrap fails on powerpc64-linux because of libgomp

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42519 --- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher --- A serious candidate for WONTFIX... Laurent?

[Bug c/41624] RFE: -fno-nested-functions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41624 Steven Bosscher changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/38219] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp47.c fails on powerpc

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38219 Steven Bosscher changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2011-02-16 18:44:32 |2013-12-27 --- Comment #16 from Steven

[Bug c/35579] false negatives in warn_unused_result

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35579 Steven Bosscher changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug target/59605] [4.9 Regression] error: wrong number of branch edges after unconditional jump in bb 11

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59605 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- Does this --- diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c index 0cf0a9d..07f9a86 100644 --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c @@ -24015,7 +24015,8 @@ ix86_expand_set_or_movmem (

[Bug rtl-optimization/57829] Wrong constant folding

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57829 Steven Bosscher changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cqfu at transmeta dot com --- Comment #

[Bug rtl-optimization/29589] incorrect conversion of (ior (ashiftrt (plus ...))) in combine.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29589 Steven Bosscher changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/59605] [4.9 Regression] error: wrong number of branch edges after unconditional jump in bb 11

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59605 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug bootstrap/48415] GC Warning: Repeated allocation of very large block

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48415 Steven Bosscher changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug regression/59608] Unable to build working poedit v.1.5.x using gcc 4.8.2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59608 Janis changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #31519|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug regression/59608] Unable to build working poedit v.1.5.x using gcc 4.8.2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59608 --- Comment #1 from Janis --- Created attachment 31520 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31520&action=edit configure log

[Bug regression/59608] New: Unable to build working poedit v.1.5.x using gcc 4.8.2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59608 Bug ID: 59608 Summary: Unable to build working poedit v.1.5.x using gcc 4.8.2 Product: gcc Version: 4.8.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: critical Priority: P3 Comp

[Bug c++/59607] New: Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines re-entered.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59607 Bug ID: 59607 Summary: Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines re-entered. Product: gcc Version: 4.7.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug c++/59606] New: Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines re-entered.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59606 Bug ID: 59606 Summary: Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines re-entered. Product: gcc Version: 4.7.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug c++/59598] very simple code using file open for read

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598 --- Comment #13 from Denis Kolesnik --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12) > You want %c. This is not the correct place to ask questions about C > programming. This is a place to report bugs in GCC. :> thanks for help

[Bug c++/59598] very simple code using file open for read

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/59605] [4.9 Regression] error: wrong number of branch edges after unconditional jump in bb 11

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59605 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at ucw dot cz Component|middle

[Bug middle-end/59605] New: [4.9 Regression] error: wrong number of branch edges after unconditional jump in bb 11

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59605 Bug ID: 59605 Summary: [4.9 Regression] error: wrong number of branch edges after unconditional jump in bb 11 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED S

[Bug c++/59598] very simple code using file open for read

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598 Denis Kolesnik changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug c++/59598] very simple code using file open for read

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598 --- Comment #10 from Denis Kolesnik --- :> the "then" is obivious,

[Bug c++/59598] very simple code using file open for read

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598 Denis Kolesnik changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/59598] very simple code using file open for read

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598 Denis Kolesnik changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |INVALID --- Comment #9 from Denis Kolesn

[Bug c++/59598] very simple code using file open for read

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598 --- Comment #7 from Denis Kolesnik --- I found my error, sorry for it.

[Bug c++/59598] very simple code using file open for read

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598 Denis Kolesnik changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug target/59588] No need to check "generic" nor change "i686" for -mtune=

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59588 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/41090] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Using static label reference in c++ class constructor produces wrong code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41090 --- Comment #22 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 26-Dec-13, at 7:28 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41090 > > --- Comment #21 from Dominique d'Humieres ens.fr> --- > The test g++.dg/ext/la

[Bug target/59601] [4.9 Regression] __attribute__ ((target("arch=corei7"))) won't match Westmere processor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59601 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/59604] New: Constant comparisons with -fno-range-check and int(z'...')

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59604 Bug ID: 59604 Summary: Constant comparisons with -fno-range-check and int(z'...') Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prio

[Bug fortran/58003] internal compiler error: in convert_mpz_to_unsigned, at fortran/simplify.c:165

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58003 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug libstdc++/59603] std::random_shuffle tries to swap element with itself

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59603 --- Comment #1 from Fabian Emmes --- Created attachment 31518 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31518&action=edit program triggering the error

[Bug libstdc++/59603] New: std::random_shuffle tries to swap element with itself

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59603 Bug ID: 59603 Summary: std::random_shuffle tries to swap element with itself Product: gcc Version: 4.8.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compone

[Bug target/59588] No need to check "generic" nor change "i686" for -mtune=

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59588 --- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: hjl Date: Thu Dec 26 16:10:55 2013 New Revision: 206213 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206213&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Don't check/change generic/i686 tuning gcc/ PR target/59588

[Bug ipa/58721] [4.9 Regression] The subroutine perdida is no longer inlined in fatigue.f90

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58721 --- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka --- Created attachment 31517 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31517&action=edit Patch to extend __builtin_expect Hi, this patch adds internal use only parameter to builtin_expect that Fortran ca

[Bug fortran/59023] [4.9 regression] ICE in gfc_search_interface with BIND(C)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59023 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug target/59601] [4.9 Regression] __attribute__ ((target("arch=corei7"))) won't match Westmere processor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59601 --- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: hjl Date: Thu Dec 26 14:47:15 2013 New Revision: 206212 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206212&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Map "arch=corei7"/"arch=nehalem" to M_INTEL_COREI7 After Intel proce

[Bug target/59379] [4.9 Regression] gomp_init_num_threads is compiled into an infinite loop with --with-arch=corei7 --with-cpu=slm

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59379 --- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Igor Zamyatin from comment #10) > I could build profiled bootstrap for r204980 successfully It isn't about profiled bootstrap. It is about "make check" in libgomp. All libgomp tests go into an infin

[Bug fortran/50552] type name cannot be statement function dummy argument (r178939)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50552 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/53035] ICE with deferred-length module variable

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53035 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/46485] gfortran.dg/allocatable_scalar_5.f90 fails on s390-ibm-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46485 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/56169] Installation the Chromium from ports fails

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56169 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/59602] New: ARM, __attribute__((interrupt("FIQ"))) causes internal compiler error with -O0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59602 Bug ID: 59602 Summary: ARM, __attribute__((interrupt("FIQ"))) causes internal compiler error with -O0 Product: gcc Version: 4.8.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: n

[Bug fortran/59023] [4.9 regression] ICE in gfc_search_interface with BIND(C)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59023 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bur...@net-b.de --- Comment #3 fro

[Bug fortran/56674] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE in check_sym_interfaces

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56674 --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres --- This appeared at r181425.

[Bug target/59379] [4.9 Regression] gomp_init_num_threads is compiled into an infinite loop with --with-arch=corei7 --with-cpu=slm

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59379 --- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Igor Zamyatin from comment #10) > I could build profiled bootstrap for r204980 successfully Is that possible to find a testcase?

[Bug target/59379] [4.9 Regression] gomp_init_num_threads is compiled into an infinite loop with --with-arch=corei7 --with-cpu=slm

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59379 --- Comment #10 from Igor Zamyatin --- I could build profiled bootstrap for r204980 successfully

[Bug target/59601] [4.9 Regression] __attribute__ ((target("arch=corei7"))) won't match Westmere processor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59601 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- Before my cleanup, get_builtin_code_for_version had switch (new_target->arch) { case PROCESSOR_CORE2: arg_str = "core2"; priority = P_PROC_SSSE3;

[Bug c++/41090] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Using static label reference in c++ class constructor produces wrong code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41090 --- Comment #21 from Dominique d'Humieres --- The test g++.dg/ext/label13.C XPASS after r20182 on darwin.

[Bug target/59576] "sorry, unimplemented: making multiple clones" error on *-apple-darwin*

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59576 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comme

[Bug target/59601] [4.9 Regression] __attribute__ ((target("arch=corei7"))) won't match Westmere processor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59601 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0

[Bug target/59601] [4.9 Regression] __attribute__ ((target("arch=corei7"))) won't match Westmere processor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59601 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/59601] [4.9 Regression] __attribute__ ((target("arch=corei7"))) won't match Westmere processor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59601 --- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1) > mv1.C failure migh be a testcase problem. However, the testcase works for me > on ivybridge, which is also corei7 arch with popcnt. It also fails for me if I remove

[Bug sanitizer/59600] no_sanitize_address mishandled when function is inlined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59600 --- Comment #7 from Yury Gribov --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6) > Move the check to before the check of the target > attribute table. My bad. > And second you should compare the current function > attribute to fndecl attribute.

[Bug target/59601] [4.9 Regression] __attribute__ ((target("arch=corei7"))) won't match Westmere processor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59601 --- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #0) > 1. No change. __attribute__ ((target("arch=corei7"))) won't > match Westmere and function won't be optimized for Westmere. > 2. Make PROCESSOR_NEHALEM to match "corei7"

[Bug sanitizer/59600] no_sanitize_address mishandled when function is inlined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59600 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- Comment on attachment 31516 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31516 New patch based on Andrew's review No this wrong in two ways. Move the check to before the check of the target attribute t