[Bug target/61331] [ARM] GCC build broken since r210964/r210965

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61331 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug libgcc/61353] internal compiler error -recog.c:2208: extract_constrain_insn_cached

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61353 --- Comment #1 from naroyce at hotmail dot com --- Previous commits never had any problems. As a test, I rolledback to a random GCC commit on May 8th and the Static GCC, GLIBC, Final GCC built just fine.

[Bug libgcc/61353] New: internal compiler error -recog.c:2208: extract_constrain_insn_cached

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61353 Bug ID: 61353 Summary: internal compiler error -recog.c:2208: extract_constrain_insn_cached Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/49721] convert_memory_address_addr_space may generate invalid new insns

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721 --- Comment #27 from Andrew Pinski --- This patch breaks ILP32 with stack pointers. For this function: void f(int *a, int b, long long d) __attribute__((noinline,noclone)); void f(int *a, int b, long long d) { if((0x6eff - b) < 11) a[

[Bug debug/61352] gcc 4.9.0 debug code confuses gdb 7.7.1 on darwin11/12 but not gcc 4.8.3 debug code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61352 --- Comment #2 from Jack Howarth --- Well that certainly sounds like a regression on the Darwin target.

[Bug c/61328] valgrind finds problem in find_bswap_or_nop_1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61328 --- Comment #4 from Thomas Preud'homme --- Oh I think I see. When I wrote find_bswap_or_nop_load () I assumed that it would only return in find_bswap_or_nop_1 as called in the GIMPLE_UNARY_RHS case. It seems I was wrong.

[Bug debug/61352] gcc 4.9.0 debug code confuses gdb 7.7.1 on darwin11/12 but not gcc 4.8.3 debug code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61352 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Try using a non temporary .o file. This is darwin not storing the debugging info in the executable.

[Bug debug/61352] New: gcc 4.9.0 debug code confuses gdb 7.7.1 on darwin11/12 but not gcc 4.8.3 debug code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61352 Bug ID: 61352 Summary: gcc 4.9.0 debug code confuses gdb 7.7.1 on darwin11/12 but not gcc 4.8.3 debug code Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Sever

[Bug c++/14932] [3.4/4.0 Regression] cannot use offsetof to get offsets of array elements in g++ 3.4.0 prerelease

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14932 Ryan Johnson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||scovich at gmail dot com --- Comment #16

[Bug c++/61351] New: ICE on valid when deducing template arguments with nested expansions of the same pack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61351 Bug ID: 61351 Summary: ICE on valid when deducing template arguments with nested expansions of the same pack Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED S

[Bug lto/61334] [4.10 Regression] lto-cgraph.c:976:68: error: 'strnlen' was not declared in this scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61334 --- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 28-May-14, at 5:16 AM, tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > Patch posted at >; > please test. Works for me. Thanks, Dave -- Joh

[Bug libstdc++/61347] std::distance(list.first(),list.end()) in O(1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61347 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug java/61350] New: Socorro

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61350 Bug ID: 61350 Summary: Socorro Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: java Assignee: unassigned at

[Bug java/61349] Erro java 28

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61349 henricky changed: What|Removed |Added CC||henricky.mestre at hotmail dot com --- Comme

[Bug java/61349] New: Erro java 28

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61349 Bug ID: 61349 Summary: Erro java 28 Product: gcc Version: lto Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: java Assignee: unassigned at

[Bug target/61331] [ARM] GCC build broken since r210964/r210965

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61331 Bernd Edlinger changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdsandiford at googlemail dot com ---

[Bug java/61348] New: Socorro

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61348 Bug ID: 61348 Summary: Socorro Product: gcc Version: lto Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: java Assignee: unassigned at gcc

[Bug tree-optimization/61346] VRP chooses bad bounds for variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61346 Ian Lance Taylor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/61347] New: std::distance(list.first(),list.end()) in O(1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61347 Bug ID: 61347 Summary: std::distance(list.first(),list.end()) in O(1) Product: gcc Version: 4.10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Compone

[Bug tree-optimization/61346] VRP chooses bad bounds for variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61346 --- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor --- Reverting this patch to tree-vrp.c fixes the problem: 2014-05-27 Richard Biener * tree-vrp.c (vrp_evaluate_conditional_warnv_with_ops_using_ranges): Try using literal operands when comparing v

[Bug tree-optimization/61346] VRP chooses bad bounds for variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61346 --- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor --- This was before 211012. It may be fixed. I will check.

[Bug tree-optimization/61346] VRP chooses bad bounds for variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61346 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Was this before or after revision 211012? There was a bug in VRP which was also exposed by Fortran bounds checking: bug 61335.

[Bug tree-optimization/61346] VRP chooses bad bounds for variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61346 --- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor --- Created attachment 32872 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32872&action=edit test case

[Bug tree-optimization/61346] New: VRP chooses bad bounds for variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61346 Bug ID: 61346 Summary: VRP chooses bad bounds for variable Product: gcc Version: 4.10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: wrong-code Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug debug/55585] compile time hog at -O1 -fboundscheck -g

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55585 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/61345] [4.10 Regression] ICE (segfault) in combine while compiling the linux kernel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61345 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Caused by: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg01543.html

[Bug target/61345] [4.10 Regression] ICE (segfault) in combine while compiling the linux kernel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61345 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|rtl-optimization|target --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug rtl-optimization/61345] [4.10 Regression] ICE (segfault) in combine while compiling the linux kernel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61345 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/61345] New: [4.10 Regression] ICE (segfault) in combine while compiling the linux kernel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61345 Bug ID: 61345 Summary: [4.10 Regression] ICE (segfault) in combine while compiling the linux kernel Product: gcc Version: 4.10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: i

[Bug other/61146] wide-int error when building GCC with clang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146 --- Comment #19 from Mike Stump --- Nope.

[Bug other/61146] wide-int error when building GCC with clang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146 --- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Revision 211023 Author:fxcoudert Date:Wed May 28 15:17:29 2014 UTC (4 hours, 39 minutes ago) Log Message: PR bootstrap/PR61146 * wide-int.cc: Do not include longlong.h when compil

[Bug other/61146] wide-int error when building GCC with clang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146 --- Comment #17 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- The changelog was wrong. This is why bugzilla didn't catch the commit. It should have said: PR bootstrap/61146 instead of PR bootstrap/PR61146 It would be nice to have a commit hook that catches th

[Bug target/61202] gcc generates invalid sqdmulh instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61202 Carrot changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/53874] -Wswitch-enum not properly working with bitfields

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53874 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/61344] New: Wswitch does not work with enum bitfields

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61344 Bug ID: 61344 Summary: Wswitch does not work with enum bitfields Product: gcc Version: 4.10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug other/61146] wide-int error when building GCC with clang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146 --- Comment #16 from Jack Howarth --- (In reply to Mike Stump from comment #15) > Short answer, error checking. Remove them and one removes some error > checking. Will the current fix have any impact on our having the complete wide-int function

[Bug other/61146] wide-int error when building GCC with clang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146 --- Comment #15 from Mike Stump --- Short answer, error checking. Remove them and one removes some error checking.

[Bug other/61146] wide-int error when building GCC with clang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146 --- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Because they are not ignored and are not useless. See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-05/msg00332.html.

[Bug other/61146] wide-int error when building GCC with clang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146 --- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely --- Because they are not ignored and are not useless.

[Bug other/61146] wide-int error when building GCC with clang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146 Jack Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||howarth.at.gcc at gmail dot com --- Comme

[Bug other/61146] wide-int error when building GCC with clang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146 --- Comment #11 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org --- Yes, weird, thanks.

[Bug libgomp/61333] potential target specific performance issue with libgomp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333 --- Comment #14 from Jack Howarth --- Without optimization flags on a 24-core x86_64 Fedora 15 box, the timings for one, two and four OMP processes are… clang-3.4.0 (clang-omp/openmp) 69.988439 sec: 34.962212 sec: 17.641935 sec gcc 4.6.3

[Bug target/61044] Computed goto on AVR fails to use word-addressing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61044 --- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay --- (In reply to Senthil Kumar Selvaraj from comment #3) > The primary reason I added the diff relocs was to prevent linker relaxation > messing up DWARF line number information - as you know, relaxation can >

[Bug fortran/59344] warning for needless pointer attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59344 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Priority|P3

[Bug fortran/60853] Failure to disambiguate generic with unlimited polymorphic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60853 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/61337] Wrong indexing and runtime crash with unlimited polymorphic array.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61337 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/57543] decltype needs explicit 'this' pointer in member function declaration of template class with trailing return type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57543 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug target/61336] ICE on alpha: in print_operand_address, at config/alpha/alpha.c:5454

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61336 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug other/61146] wide-int error when building GCC with clang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug other/61146] wide-int error when building GCC with clang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146 mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED Resolution|FIX

[Bug c++/47202] Endless recursion during mangling

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47202 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/47202] Endless recursion during mangling

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47202 --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Wed May 28 16:38:23 2014 New Revision: 211026 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211026&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/47202 gcc/cp/ * decl.c (cxx_comdat_group): Return a decl.

[Bug other/61146] wide-int error when building GCC with clang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146 Francois-Xavier Coudert changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--

[Bug c++/61343] [C++11] Missing default initialization for class with default constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61343 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/57543] decltype needs explicit 'this' pointer in member function declaration of template class with trailing return type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57543 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|paolo.carlini at

[Bug c++/61242] [4.9/4.10 Regression] Bogus "no matching function for call to ‘Foo::Create()"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61242 --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Wed May 28 15:55:03 2014 New Revision: 211024 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211024&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/61242 * call.c (build_aggr_conv): Ignore passed in flags.

[Bug rtl-optimization/61325] [4.10 regression] aarch64_be build fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61325 Vladimir Makarov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comme

[Bug ipa/61160] [4.9/4.10 Regression] wrong code with -O3 (or ICE: verify_cgraph_node failed: edge points to wrong declaration)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61160 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug libgomp/61333] potential target specific performance issue with libgomp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333 --- Comment #13 from Jack Howarth --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #12) > > Is gcc really optimizing that low by default? ... > > AFAIK the default optimization in gcc is -O0. Now before drawing conclusions > you should answer

[Bug c/61328] valgrind finds problem in find_bswap_or_nop_1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61328 --- Comment #3 from David Binderman --- (In reply to David Binderman from comment #0) > Maybe > > if (!source_expr2) > return NULL_TREE; > > if (n1.size != n2.size) > return NULL_TREE; > > would be better code.

[Bug c++/60430] static_assert and reference to const/constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60430 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Version|4.9.0 |4.8.1 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wak

[Bug pch/60982] Very long compilation of precompiled headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60982 Yuriy Chernyshov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libgomp/61333] potential target specific performance issue with libgomp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333 --- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Is gcc really optimizing that low by default? ... AFAIK the default optimization in gcc is -O0. Now before drawing conclusions you should answer my question in comment 8.

[Bug c++/61343] New: [C++11] Missing default initialization for class with default constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61343 Bug ID: 61343 Summary: [C++11] Missing default initialization for class with default constructor Product: gcc Version: 4.10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norm

[Bug libgomp/61333] potential target specific performance issue with libgomp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333 --- Comment #11 from Jack Howarth --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10) > Also, benchmarking -O0 code is weird. Is gcc really optimizing that low by default? Certainly it is at least doing -O1 when not passed a -O* optimization flag?

[Bug other/61300] powerpc64le miscompile with K&R-style function definition at -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61300 --- Comment #5 from Alan Modra --- Actually, to work the patch in comment #3 would need to be - if (!prototype_p (fun) || stdarg_p (fun)) + if (1) return true;

[Bug middle-end/61010] [4.8 Regression] Infinite recursion in fold

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61010 --- Comment #12 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Wed May 28 12:46:39 2014 New Revision: 211019 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211019&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2014-05-28 Richard Biener Backport from mainline 2014-05-28

[Bug tree-optimization/60979] [4.9 Regression] ICE: in gimple_redirect_edge_and_branch_force, at tree-cfg.c:5544, w/ -O -ftree-loop-linear or -fgraphite-identity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60979 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/60979] [4.9 Regression] ICE: in gimple_redirect_edge_and_branch_force, at tree-cfg.c:5544, w/ -O -ftree-loop-linear or -fgraphite-identity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60979 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Wed May 28 12:46:39 2014 New Revision: 211019 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211019&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2014-05-28 Richard Biener Backport from mainline 2014-05-28

[Bug middle-end/61045] [4.7/4.8/4.9/4.10 Regression] Wrong constant folding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61045 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Wed May 28 12:46:39 2014 New Revision: 211019 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211019&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2014-05-28 Richard Biener Backport from mainline 2014-05-28

[Bug middle-end/61045] [4.7/4.8/4.9/4.10 Regression] Wrong constant folding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61045 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Wed May 28 12:44:11 2014 New Revision: 211018 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211018&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2014-05-28 Richard Biener PR middle-end/61045 * fold-const.c

[Bug sanitizer/61314] Building GCC 4.9.0 breaks in libbacktrace on Ubuntu Lucid and Precise using libfaketime

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61314 Georg Koppen changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Building GCC 4.9.0 breaks |Building GCC 4.9.0 breaks

[Bug c/61340] ipa-pure-const.c, ipa-reference.c: possible missing switch cases ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61340 --- Comment #2 from David Binderman --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #1) > GCC's -Wswitch does not catch this? On checking the gcc trunk build logs, yes. Only clang can find the problem, not trunk gcc. I had a look in gcc/tes

[Bug other/61300] powerpc64le miscompile with K&R-style function definition at -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61300 --- Comment #4 from Alan Modra --- You could do that, but smaller stack frames is one of the nice features of the ELFv2 ABI! What I called the "quick and dirty" fix seems to be the way to go, as the scheme I had in mind to avoid a new INCOMING_R

[Bug tree-optimization/58483] missing optimization opportunity for const std::vector compared to std::array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58483 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/61306] [4.10 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61306 --- Comment #4 from Thomas Preud'homme --- I finally managed to find the root cause for the bootstrap failure with my current fix. I shall be able to improve my fix and should hopefully be ready tomorrow.

[Bug lto/61256] [4.10 regression] Building spec2000/252.eon with LTO got a compfail after r210522

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61256 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug other/61300] powerpc64le miscompile with K&R-style function definition at -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61300 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Alan Modra from comment #1) > So, the "writes way past this" is writing into the parameter save area. > > compare_kr is assuming that it was called with a parameter save area because > it isn

[Bug bootstrap/61315] wide-int.cc cannot be built by darwin system compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315 --- Comment #14 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #13) > In my paranoid days I have the feeling that I don't exist on the gcc > lists!-(although I am only interested by gfortran and optimization, I do > w

[Bug tree-optimization/61335] [4.10 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fbounds-check

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61335 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/61342] New: Segfault when using default clause and VLA in OpenMP task

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61342 Bug ID: 61342 Summary: Segfault when using default clause and VLA in OpenMP task Product: gcc Version: 4.10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug middle-end/61045] [4.7/4.8/4.9/4.10 Regression] Wrong constant folding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61045 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- /* Put the constant on the side where it doesn't overflow and is of lower absolute value than before. */ cst = int_const_binop (TREE_CODE (arg0) == TREE_CODE (arg1)

[Bug tree-optimization/61335] [4.10 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fbounds-check

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61335 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Wed May 28 11:07:06 2014 New Revision: 211012 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211012&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2014-05-28 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/61335 * tree-

[Bug c/61340] ipa-pure-const.c, ipa-reference.c: possible missing switch cases ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61340 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Commen

[Bug c/61339] add mismatch between struct and class to non-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61339 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/61341] internal compiler error: in tsubst, at cp/pt.c:11313

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61341 --- Comment #1 from Ivan Sorokin --- Reduced case: template struct X {}; template void foo(X... a); void test() { foo(X(), X()); }

[Bug tree-optimization/61338] too many permutation in a vectorized "reverse loop"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61338 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Status|

[Bug c++/61341] New: internal compiler error: in tsubst, at cp/pt.c:11313

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61341 Bug ID: 61341 Summary: internal compiler error: in tsubst, at cp/pt.c:11313 Product: gcc Version: 4.8.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compone

[Bug bootstrap/61315] wide-int.cc cannot be built by darwin system compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315 --- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > BTW, having a user-base without developers coming out of that user-base is > useless. If no one from apple-darwin is interested in developing GCC, then > it doesn't matter how big the user base is:

[Bug libgomp/61333] potential target specific performance issue with libgomp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- Note, libgomp is optimized for Linux futexes, it has bare support for other targets, so unless somebody steps up and submits and maintains a port for other OSes, those will keep using pthread_* APIs with no

[Bug c++/60967] ICE with range for in template function with C++11 and cilkplus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60967 --- Comment #1 from Florent Hivert --- The problem doesn't occur anymore with the released version (I was using the cilkplus branch development version). Should this be closed as invalid or should someone find if there is a duplicate ?

[Bug c++/60430] static_assert and reference to const/constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60430 Florent Hivert changed: What|Removed |Added Version|4.8.1 |4.9.0 --- Comment #1 from Florent Hiver

[Bug c/61339] wide-int.h: 3 * mismatched tags

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61339 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- This is a really stupid warning that only exists because the MS compiler has (or had) a bug that treats 'struct' and 'class' differently. GCC (and Clang) correctly implement the C++ standard which says it d

[Bug c++/60245] function with using defined parameter not accepted as constexpr parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60245 Florent Hivert changed: What|Removed |Added Version|4.8.1 |4.9.0 --- Comment #3 from Florent Hiver

[Bug libgomp/61333] potential target specific performance issue with libgomp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333 --- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > ... (gcc 4.10.0 r210749) ... Forgot to say: Target: x86_64-apple-darwin13, Corei7, 4 cores, 8 threads, 2.8Ghz (turbo 3.8Ghz), cache 8Mb. Note that the "turbo" mode may make the serial test faster.

[Bug libgomp/61333] potential target specific performance issue with libgomp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333 --- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Some comments: original shell: 1:1.86:2.9 + -Ofast : 1:1.37:1.8 (gcc 4.10.0 r210749). Does this mean that there is a problem with -Ofast and -fopenmp? The Wallclock time are: original shell: 4

[Bug libgcc/61152] Missing GCC Runtime Library Exception in some files that are included in libgcc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61152 --- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay --- Author: gjl Date: Wed May 28 09:35:19 2014 New Revision: 211005 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211005&root=gcc&view=rev Log: gcc/ PR libgcc/61152 * config/dbx.h (License): Add Runtime Library

[Bug libgcc/61152] Missing GCC Runtime Library Exception in some files that are included in libgcc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61152 --- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay --- Author: gjl Date: Wed May 28 09:33:04 2014 New Revision: 211004 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211004&root=gcc&view=rev Log: gcc/ PR libgcc/61152 * config/dbx.h (License): Add Runtime Library

[Bug c/61340] New: ipa-pure-const.c, ipa-reference.c: possible missing switch cases ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61340 Bug ID: 61340 Summary: ipa-pure-const.c, ipa-reference.c: possible missing switch cases ? Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor

[Bug c/61339] New: wide-int.h: 3 * mismatched tags

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61339 Bug ID: 61339 Summary: wide-int.h: 3 * mismatched tags Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: P3 Component: c Assign

  1   2   >