[Bug tree-optimization/39974] [4.5 regression] Bogus "array subscript is below array bounds" warning in compiler generated code

2009-05-05 Thread reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-05 22:00 --- Here's a reduced version without includes: === struct X { X(int, const int& = 0); ~X(); }; X x[2][3] = { { 0, 0, 0 }, { 0, 0, 0 } }; struct A { A(int); }; struc

[Bug libstdc++/39909] non-TLS version of std::call_once causes terminate

2009-05-05 Thread jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-05-05 22:14 --- Fixed for 4.5.0 and 4.4.1 -- jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/40035] New: ICE when cross-compiling with -Os

2009-05-05 Thread bje at gcc dot gnu dot org
When cross-compiling the attached test case with -Os, the x86_64 cross-compiler produces an ICE: /home/bje/44bug/main.c: In function ‘unknown_bootoption’: /home/bje/44bug/main.c:34: internal compiler error: in simplify_subreg, at simplify-rtx.c:4975 Please submit a full bug report, with preprocess

[Bug middle-end/40035] ICE when cross-compiling with -Os

2009-05-05 Thread bje at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from bje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-06 00:22 --- Created an attachment (id=17804) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17804&action=view) minimised test case -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40035

[Bug c/36892] Support __attribute__((deprecated("text string")))

2009-05-05 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-05-06 00:30 --- The updated patch is at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg00208.html -- hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/40035] ICE when cross-compiling with -Os

2009-05-05 Thread bje at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- bje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconf

[Bug tree-optimization/33928] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] 30% performance slowdown in floating-point code caused by r118475

2009-05-05 Thread lucier at math dot purdue dot edu
--- Comment #53 from lucier at math dot purdue dot edu 2009-05-06 03:43 --- I posted a possible fix to gcc-patches with the subject line Possible fix for 30% performance regression in PR 33928 Here's the assembly for the main loop after the changes I proposed: .L4230: movq

[Bug tree-optimization/33928] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] 30% performance slowdown in floating-point code caused by r118475

2009-05-05 Thread lucier at math dot purdue dot edu
--- Comment #54 from lucier at math dot purdue dot edu 2009-05-06 03:50 --- Created an attachment (id=17805) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17805&action=view) svn diff of cse.c to fix the performance regression This partially reverts r118475 and adds code to call f

[Bug c++/40036] New: Initializer incorrectly reordering arguments

2009-05-05 Thread jwbates at mac dot com
This bug was found with the following command-line option: g++ -I ../../Headers -g -o Runtime0 Runtime0.cpp It has appeared with all variations of the command-line that I have tried. I'm building a fairly complex (all right, maybe a little insane) c++ template metaprogram to do efficient probabi

[Bug c++/40036] Initializer incorrectly reordering arguments

2009-05-05 Thread jwbates at mac dot com
--- Comment #1 from jwbates at mac dot com 2009-05-06 04:09 --- Created an attachment (id=17806) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17806&action=view) output of g++ -save-temps -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40036

[Bug middle-end/40022] [4.4 Regression] Alpine miscompilation

2009-05-05 Thread mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40022

[Bug fortran/40005] segfault in gt_ggc_mx_lang_tree_node

2009-05-05 Thread jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
--- Comment #14 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-05-06 04:36 --- (In reply to comment #13) > Is there a self contained (one file) source that I could use? Gfortran is > known > to emit a lot of blocks inside blocks and I wonder if this is the cause. And > the GC is only setup to do

[Bug c++/40036] Initializer incorrectly reordering arguments

2009-05-05 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-06 05:02 --- Are you sure you are not running into unspecified behavior dealing with subexpression is computed without a sequence point? Because from your description you are running into that issue. As you mentioned you swappe

[Bug middle-end/39927] [4.5 Regression]: build breakage for cris-elf building libstdc++-v3

2009-05-05 Thread hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #13 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-06 05:06 --- (In reply to comment #12) > HP, is this still a problem? No, I guess Matz just forgot to close it. Done. -- hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug c++/40036] Initializer incorrectly reordering arguments

2009-05-05 Thread jwbates at mac dot com
--- Comment #3 from jwbates at mac dot com 2009-05-06 05:25 --- Not sure at all, as I have very little experience dealing with this kind of issue. To clarify one point of ambiguity: when I mentioned swapping the order of the arguments to match the correct evaluation behaviour. So, my con

[Bug c++/40036] Initializer incorrectly reordering arguments

2009-05-05 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-06 06:08 --- hmm, valgrind says there are some uninitiated memory. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40036

[Bug c++/40036] Initializer incorrectly reordering arguments

2009-05-05 Thread jwbates at mac dot com
--- Comment #5 from jwbates at mac dot com 2009-05-06 06:39 --- All of the uninitialized memory errors in valgrind appear to occur after I do the computation, when I'm just trying to print the results. I can convince myself that there's a good chance that the address swap is leaving bi

<    1   2