http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60121
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60119
Frank Ch. Eigler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52879
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Potential patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2014-02/msg00047.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60121
--- Comment #8 from Chengnian Sun ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to Chengnian Sun from comment #6)
> > The test case can be further reduced to the following code, which is NOT
> > dead or dependent on bug 60115.
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60121
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Chengnian Sun from comment #6)
> The test case can be further reduced to the following code, which is NOT
> dead or dependent on bug 60115.
>
> int b[1];
> int f() {
> return b[];
> }
Bec
-gcc (GCC) 4.9.0 20140208 (experimental)
System type:
Linux wmigda-desktop 3.11.0-13-generic #20-Ubuntu SMP Wed Oct 23 17:26:33 UTC
2013 i686 i686 i686 GNU/Linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60121
--- Comment #6 from Chengnian Sun ---
The test case can be further reduced to the following code, which is NOT dead
or dependent on bug 60115.
int b[1];
int f() {
return b[];
}
||i686 GNU/Linux
Version|4.8.2 |4.9.0
Build||tic6x-none-elf-gcc (GCC)
||4.9.0 20140208
||(experimental)
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60121
--- Comment #5 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Actually the reason for the warning is due to LIM pulling the out of bounds
> access out of the loop, the same reason why bug 60115 fails. It is just
> showing the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60115
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 60121 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60121
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60122
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|DUPLICATE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60115
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fmartinez at gmv dot com
--- Comment #9 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60122
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60122
--- Comment #1 from Fran Martinez Fadrique ---
Created attachment 32085
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32085&action=edit
Test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60122
Bug ID: 60122
Summary: Unexpected warning for uninitialised character
variable
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60121
--- Comment #3 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I think this is expected. out of bounds warnings come not from the front-end
> but the middle-end and are designed not to warn about in dead code. This
> code is de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55916
--- Comment #11 from Jouko Orava ---
Just in case there are users who encounter this bug report,
here is the single-file workaround. Save the following as
nosegfault.c, and follow the instructions in the comments.
It can be compiled into a shared
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60115
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
LIM is pulling the out of bounds load out of the loop.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60121
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60115
--- Comment #7 from Zhendong Su ---
> Should I report the out-out-bound array access warning issue as a separate
> report? Thanks.
Reported it as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60121
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60121
--- Comment #1 from Zhendong Su ---
Here is the testcase:
-
int a, b[1];
int
main ()
{
lbl:
for (; a; a--)
if (b[613])
goto lbl;
return 0;
}
linux-gnu/4.9.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20140208 (experimental) [trunk revision 207627] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -W
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60115
--- Comment #6 from Zhendong Su ---
So, it's also a 4.8 regression.
8/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.8.3/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.8/configure --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.3 20140208 (prerelease) [gcc-4_8-branch revision 207632] (GCC)
$
$ gcc -O3 small.c; a.out
Segmentation
C=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/su/software/local/gcc-4.8/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.8.3/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.8/configure --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.3 20140208 (prerelease) [gcc-4_8-branch revision 207632]
gured with: ../gcc-4.8/configure --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.3 20140208 (prerelease) [gcc-4_8-branch revision 207632] (GCC)
$
$ gcc -m32 -O1 small.c; a.out
2
$ gcc -m64 -Os small.c; a.out
2
$ gcc -m32 -Os small.c; a.out
1
$
$ gcc-4.7.3 -m32 -Os small.c; a.out
2
$ gcc-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59599
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #6)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #5)
> > Patch:
> >
> doesn't work. :-(
ichar's kind argument is optional, so passing a constant number of arguments to
gfc_c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59599
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #5)
> Patch:
>
doesn't work. :-(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59599
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin ---
Patch:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c
index 1eb9490..1e1a137 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c
@@ -4690,7 +4690,7 @@ gfc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59599
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #3)
> we evaluate the string lenth into argarray[curr_arg],
s/lenth/length/
> but argarray[curr_arg]
> is supposed to be the place where the next function argument lies.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59599
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58470
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336
Bug 37336 depends on bug 58470, which changed state.
Bug 58470 Summary: [4.9 Regression] [OOP] ICE on invalid with FINAL procedure
and type extension
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58470
What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58470
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Sat Feb 8 21:32:25 2014
New Revision: 207636
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207636&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-08 Janus Weil
Mikael Morin
PR fortran/584
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60119
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||overseers at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60119
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60119
Bug ID: 60119
Summary: Bugzilla URLs don't work with https.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: web
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57033
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57033
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin ---
Author: mikael
Date: Sat Feb 8 20:51:01 2014
New Revision: 207635
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207635&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
fortran/
PR fortran/57033
* primary.c (gfc_convert_to_structur
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59834
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57033
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin ---
Author: mikael
Date: Sat Feb 8 20:37:55 2014
New Revision: 207634
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207634&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
fortran/
PR fortran/57033
* primary.c (gfc_convert_to_struct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59603
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This patch avoids the self-move:
index 4c6ca8a..6ce2d21 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h
@@ -4430,7 +4430,12 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_ALGO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60111
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59599
--- Comment #2 from Fran Martinez Fadrique ---
*** Bug 60118 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60118
Fran Martinez Fadrique changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60118
Bug ID: 60118
Summary: Internal compiler error gfc_trans_assignment_1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55916
--- Comment #10 from Jouko Orava ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #9)
> I can do the testing on darwin (intel d10 and d13, ppc d9).
That would be very much appreciated.
I've put a tarball and some background info on my web page
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598
--- Comment #43 from Denis Kolesnik ---
you guys yourself have bad culture if you tell me this is not the place to talk
about my not working correctly compiler, but yourself talk about meat.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598
--- Comment #42 from Denis Kolesnik ---
do not even try to intrude my pc remotelly!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598
Denis Kolesnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60110
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598
Denis Kolesnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598
--- Comment #38 from Denis Kolesnik ---
if i find a bug I will reopen it and if I find intrusion in my software I will
take actions accordingly.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598
--- Comment #37 from Denis Kolesnik ---
you are not right in the following: I did not visit sites where would be fair
to contaminate my software with viruses and similar code and I do trust(not
fully, but enough) to Microsoft support because of th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60066
--- Comment #11 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sat Feb 8 16:22:46 2014
New Revision: 207633
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207633&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-08 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/60066
* gfortran.dg/elemental_s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60114
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
> (In reply to Chengnian Sun from comment #2)
> > It seems -pedantic and -Woverflow are different. When I issue
> > $ gcc-trunk -c -Woverflow s.c
> > th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60117
--- Comment #2 from tprince at computer dot org ---
Jakub Jelinek requested this PR filing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60117
--- Comment #1 from tprince at computer dot org ---
Created attachment 32083
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32083&action=edit
f2c style include file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60117
Bug ID: 60117
Summary: simd reduction clause suppresses simd
auto-vectorization when -fopenmp is set
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60115
--- Comment #4 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> I have to use something like:
> int a, b[1];
>
> int
> main ()
> {
> lbl:
> for (; a; a--)
> if (b[1000])
> goto lbl;
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> to a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60115
--- Comment #3 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> I have to use something like:
> int a, b[1];
>
> int
> main ()
> {
> lbl:
> for (; a; a--)
> if (b[1000])
> goto lbl;
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> to a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60114
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19377
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
FWIW Harald's analysis looks right to me
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55916
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> My hardware selection is very limited, but if someone wishes to test the
> possibilities on other hardware, I'd be happy to clean up my benchmarking
> code.
I can do the testing on darwin (intel d10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55916
Jouko Orava changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jouko.orava at iki dot fi
--- Comment #8 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53077
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58000
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60097
dan at math dot uiuc.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59612
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Should not this PR be closed as FIXED?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60112
--- Comment #2 from David Abdurachmanov
---
Tested today on r207627, still the same result.
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/build1/davidlt/ngcc490/a/slc6_amd64_gcc490/external/gcc/4.9.0-cms/bin/../libexec/gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #101 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60091
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58556
--- Comment #7 from clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: clyon
Date: Sat Feb 8 12:14:11 2014
New Revision: 207631
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207631&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-01 Christophe Lyon
Backport from trunk r202875,202
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59927
--- Comment #7 from Kai Tietz ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #6)
> I'll attempt to test this at some point this weekend, but I'm not
> currently in a position to build on x86_64 windows. Kai, can you
> fire something off?
I wil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60115
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52289
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
Author: schwab
Date: Sat Feb 8 09:33:24 2014
New Revision: 207630
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207630&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR translation/52289
* gfortran.dg/coarray_8.f90: Update dg-error match.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59984
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60116
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59984
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The wrong-code issue is now fixed, but we still don't vectorize this.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg00514.html
for details. Note that without making the two pointer parameters linear on the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59984
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Feb 8 09:10:14 2014
New Revision: 207629
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207629&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/59984
* gimplify.c (gimplify_bind_expr): In ORT_SIMD region
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60097
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Feb 8 09:09:01 2014
New Revision: 207628
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207628&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/60092
* tree-ssa-ccp.c (surely_varying_stmt_p): Don't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60114
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
-Woverflow is turned on by default, so it doesn't matter if you specify it or
not; what matters here is the -Wpedantic (we have a bug about that discrepancy:
PR59753). So yeah, expected.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60116
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i386-linux-gnu
Status|UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19377
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60114
--- Comment #2 from Chengnian Sun ---
It seems -pedantic and -Woverflow are different. When I issue
$ gcc-trunk -c -Woverflow s.c
then there is no overflow warning. (There is indeed no overflow.)
But when I use
$ gcc-trunk -c -pedantic s.c
the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60113
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60114
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
91 matches
Mail list logo
