http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60557
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 32380
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32380&action=edit
gcc49-pr60557.patch
This should hopefully fix it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #22 from linzj ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #21)
> What is not satisfying?
>
> struct QualifiedNameComponents {
> StringImpl* m_prefix;
> StringImpl* m_localName;
> StringImpl* m_namespace;
> };
> ...
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60039
--- Comment #7 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Ugh, then this is an old problem and we've missed to give a correct
clobber information to udivsi3_i1 insn for PIC. Does the patch
below fix the issue?
--- gcc/config/sh/sh.md.orig2013-09-13 17:38:22.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58324
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Disregard comment 11. Wrong PR number in change log.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46800
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Wrong PR number in ChangeLog.
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Mar 18 01:20:02 2014
New Revision: 208629
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208629&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-17 Jerry DeLisle
PR libfo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58324
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Mar 18 01:20:02 2014
New Revision: 208629
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208629&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-17 Jerry DeLisle
PR libfortran/58324
* io/list_read
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60039
--- Comment #6 from Valeriy E. Ushakov ---
As far as I can tell the actual problem is in this code:
.loc 1 189 0
mov.l.L91,r0
; ...
addr12,r0
mov.l.L84,r1
jsr@r0; udivsi3 for 32*1024/pagesz
; ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60556
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to reed kotler from comment #12)
>
> Do you know where the original line was that made it fail in the .ii?
Yes:
# 227 "/home/rkotler/llvm_trunk/lib/ExecutionEngine/RTDyldMemoryManager.cpp"
if (N
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60552
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #20 from linzj ---
That's really not satisfying. I am going to dig deeper.Check the expanded RTL.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60556
--- Comment #12 from reed kotler ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> > I should note the code is undefined and has (uint64_t)&stat and that itself
> > is causing the issue. If I change
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60557
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The backtrace for the test in comment 0 with -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow
is the similar to the one I get for the DO loop.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60557
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60557
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
And compiling with just -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow leads to another
ICE:
0x6a0828 contains_struct_check
../../gcc/tree.h:2822
0x6a0828 build_call_expr_loc_array(unsigned int, tree_node*, int,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60557
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 32379
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32379&action=edit
Testcase (test.f90)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60557
Bug ID: 60557
Summary: UBSAN: ICE after ubsan_expand_null_ifn
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60283
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
For OpenMP fixed by the patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg00782.html
For OpenACC, fixed by the patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2014-03/msg00113.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56356
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Summary|DJGPP compiler crashing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60556
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56356
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60556
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
I should note the code is undefined and has (uint64_t)&stat and that itself is
causing the issue. If I change it to be
(uint64_t)(unsigned long)&stat, GCC does not crash.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60556
--- Comment #9 from reed kotler ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> I can reproduce the bug and now I am reducing it.
Awesome! Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60556
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60556
--- Comment #7 from reed kotler ---
Created attachment 32378
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32378&action=edit
.ii gziped
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60556
--- Comment #6 from reed kotler ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Also how did you configure your compiler?
$ /home/rkotler/slave/slavebuildgccbe/build/src/gcc/configure
--prefix=/home/r
kotler/slave/slavebuildgccbe/build/instal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60556
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to reed kotler from comment #4)
> it's too big.
>
> what do you suggest?
Try to use gzip or bzip to compress it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60556
--- Comment #4 from reed kotler ---
it's too big.
what do you suggest?
Where should i put it?
1200k bytes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60556
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60556
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't see the .ii file.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60556
--- Comment #1 from reed kotler ---
Created attachment 32377
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32377&action=edit
.sh file to run the compiler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60556
Bug ID: 60556
Summary: tip of tree crash with mips compiler
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
; > nm test.o | grep _ZN8Calligra6Sheets5qHashERKNS0_10ConditionsE
> > U _ZN8Calligra6Sheets5qHashERKNS0_10ConditionsE
>
> Strange.
>
> # ggcc -c -flto wa.C -O2 -v && nm wa.o
> ...
> GNU C++ (GCC) version 4.9.0 20140317 (experimental)
> (x86_64-un
E
> U _ZN8Calligra6Sheets5qHashERKNS0_10ConditionsE
Strange.
# ggcc -c -flto wa.C -O2 -v && nm wa.o
...
GNU C++ (GCC) version 4.9.0 20140317 (experimental) (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
...
0001 C __gnu_lto_slim
0001 C __gnu_lto_v1
It seems GCC is defa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60390
Adam Butcher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60391
Adam Butcher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60391
--- Comment #1 from Adam Butcher ---
Author: abutcher
Date: Mon Mar 17 20:02:16 2014
New Revision: 208624
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208624&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR c++/60391
PR c++/60391
* parser.c (cp_parser_skip_to_end_o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60390
--- Comment #1 from Adam Butcher ---
Author: abutcher
Date: Mon Mar 17 20:02:26 2014
New Revision: 208625
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208625&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR c++/60390
PR c++/60390
* parser.c (cp_parser_member_declar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
--- Comment #50 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to David Kredba from comment #39)
> MakeFiles/kritametadataeditor.dir/kis_meta_data_editor.cc.o: In function
> `KisMetaDataEditor::KisMetaDataEditor(QWidget*, KisMetaData::Store*)':
> /var/tmp/porta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
--- Comment #49 from David Kredba ---
I am still getting this with revision 208612 without -flto:
CMakeFiles/kritametadataeditor.dir/kis_meta_data_editor.cc.o: In function
`KisMetaDataEditor::KisMetaDataEditor(QWidget*, KisMetaData::Store*)':
/va
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60555
--- Comment #1 from Craig M. Brandenburg ---
To be clear, the attached program outputs: "system:No such file or directory".
It should output: "generic:No such file or directory".
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60555
Bug ID: 60555
Summary: std::system_category().default_error_condition()
doesn't map system errno values to
std::generic_category()
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60516
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8/4.9 regression]: |[4.7/4.8 regression]:
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60516
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 17 19:03:04 2014
New Revision: 208623
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208623&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/60516
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_epilogue): Adjust
sable-libssp
--disable-libgomp --disable-werror --disable-multilib --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20140317 (experimental) (GCC)
markus@x4 /tmp % /var/tmp/gcc_test/usr/local/bin/g++ -flto -c -O2 test.ii && nm
test.o | grep _ZN8Call
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60244
--- Comment #2 from niXman ---
(In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #1)
> Hmm, can't reproduce it. I will do today some additional tests for it.
How can I help you?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60459
--- Comment #3 from Raghu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Can you try a newer version than GCC 4.2.1?
>
> Also can you provide the exact options you compiled your source with? And
> the exact configure options you configured GC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60554
--- Comment #2 from Luchezar Belev ---
sorry, the above code to be correct "setg %al" should be "seta %al" instead.
also in the compiler-generated code, the testl instruction is still redundant,
but when it is removed the following "setg %al" sho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to linzj from comment #18)
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #17)
> > On Mon, 17 Mar 2014, manjian2006 at gmail dot com wrote:
> >
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6054
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60554
--- Comment #1 from Luchezar Belev ---
since all (x^0x8000), (x+0x8000) and (x-0x8000) are equivalend in
this case, if GCC had used the subtraction (instead of the addition) it could
optimize the code even further by considering the fa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60549
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Can't you just invent some other SAVE flag for the MAIN__ variables, such that
it would make TREE_STATIC only very large vars or where it is absolutely
required that they are TREE_STATIC? If there is no way h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60554
Bug ID: 60554
Summary: redundant instruction is generated for setting the
flags on x86
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60553
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 32375
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32375&action=edit
bt 1000
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60553
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 32374
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32374&action=edit
gtype-lto.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60553
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Reduced input object files to ~800, bt consists of ~66K frames.
gdb:
(gdb) bt 10
#0 0x005cec2c in lookup_page_table_entry (p=) at ../../gcc/ggc-page.c:584
#1 0x005cfc5e in ggc_set_mark (p=0x7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
--- Comment #12 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to chrbr from comment #11)
>
> there were neither followup nor objections to the last version. I'll post
> again, the time to cross-check with epiphany or x96.
>
Epiphany has some additional mode sw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58827
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|paolo.carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59571
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rmansfield at qnx dot com
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #18 from linzj ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #17)
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2014, manjian2006 at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
> >
> > --- Comment #16 from linzj ---
> > Yes,th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57425
--- Comment #19 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Mar 17 15:31:43 2014
New Revision: 208620
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208620&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2014-03-17 Mikael Pettersson
Committed by Bill Schmidt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57569
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Mar 17 15:31:43 2014
New Revision: 208620
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208620&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2014-03-17 Mikael Pettersson
Committed by Bill Schmidt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60331
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60553
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #0)
> I do compile Chromium with LTO and there's ICE with enormous call stack:
>
> gcc --version:
> gcc (GCC) 4.9.0 20140313 (experimental)
>
> (gdb) bt 10
> #0 0x000
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014, manjian2006 at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
>
> --- Comment #16 from linzj ---
> Yes,that may work.But what exactly go wrong in t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60540
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014, harald at gigawatt dot nl wrote:
> Only if the int is out of float's range. If the int is in float's range, but
> merely cannot be represented exactly, the value is round
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
--- Comment #11 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #10)
> (In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #9)
> > Although it seems that (1)-(5) in #3 are interesting points, they
> > are almost optimizations.
>
> Ye
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59571
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60553
Bug ID: 60553
Summary: segfault in gt_ggc_mx_lang_tree_node in Chromium with
LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59571
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Mar 17 14:53:05 2014
New Revision: 208619
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208619&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-03-17 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/59571
* typeck2.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #16 from linzj ---
Yes,that may work.But what exactly go wrong in the original algorithm? I can't
change a correct algorithm just because it volatiles TBBA and make the compiler
generate wrong code.Because it's CORRECT logically.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59139
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60183
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57303
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60183
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 17 14:38:55 2014
New Revision: 208618
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208618&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-17 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2013-05-21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57303
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 17 14:38:55 2014
New Revision: 208618
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208618&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-17 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2013-05-21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59139
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 17 14:38:55 2014
New Revision: 208618
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208618&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-17 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2013-05-21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59441
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60535
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> g++.dg/ubsan/pr59437.C
>
> This one shows a bug either in the -fvtable-* verification stuff, or in
> cgraph, but doesn't look related to ubsan:
>
> ==27993== In
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #14 from linzj ---
Well,but I have not figured out what goes wrong in the hashing algorithm. Would
you point it out.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014, manjian2006 at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
>
> --- Comment #12 from linzj ---
> Alright,should I change the algorithm to avoid t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #12 from linzj ---
Alright,should I change the algorithm to avoid this bug?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #9)
> Although it seems that (1)-(5) in #3 are interesting points, they
> are almost optimizations.
Yep. Those are not necessary to get the functionality (of not usin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60534
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60534
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Mar 17 14:15:51 2014
New Revision: 208616
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208616&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/60534
* omp-low.c (omp_max_vf): Treat -fno-tree-loo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60535
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Created attachment 32373 [details]
> gcc49-pr60535.patch
>
> Untested fix.
>
> There are 3 remaining tests I haven't removed the dg-skip-if for yet:
> c-c++-com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60535
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
--- Comment #9 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Although it seems that (1)-(5) in #3 are interesting points, they
are almost optimizations. I guess that programs with frequent FP
mode switchings are simply rare in real world and would be a bit
special or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
linzj changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60552
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60429
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.3, 4.9.0
Summary|[4.7/4.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60485
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 17 13:08:41 2014
New Revision: 208615
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208615&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-17 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2014-03-11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60429
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 17 13:08:41 2014
New Revision: 208615
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208615&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-17 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2014-03-11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60535
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9 Regression] Link |Link failure with -flto and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #9 from linzj ---
If this is an illegal expression, it should be reported at compile time,not
generating a wrong code.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60546
--- Comment #8 from linzj ---
I don't think it can be mark as resolved-invalid that fast.This code is used by
WebKit for a long time and no one would say this is an illegal algorithm.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60040
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60552
--- Comment #2 from Sivaprasad ---
with GCC 4.6.3 also, we are facing same problems.
1 - 100 of 166 matches
Mail list logo
