http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46488
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sparc64-sun-solaris2.* |
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46690
Summary: Using declaration of a dependent name
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46690
--- Comment #1 from ilpoilves at hotmail dot com 2010-11-28 09:38:04 UTC ---
Here is the result of gcc -v, which was left out by accident.
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Debia
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46691
Summary: Null pointer in template deduction
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46683
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46683
--- Comment #1 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-11-28 10:22:59 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sun Nov 28 10:22:55 2010
New Revision: 167219
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167219
Log:
2010-11-28 Paolo Carlini
PR libs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46683
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46689
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46691
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23055
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ilpoilves at hotmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42112
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas 2010-11-28 11:17:03
UTC ---
Tobias,
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > One probably needs:
> >
> > a) If "a" is no TARGET:
> > deallocate (a)
> > f(&a)
At present, this is not done. I g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46690
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46488
--- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou 2010-11-28
12:28:27 UTC ---
It appears that inlining brigade_move into ap_core_input_filter and
ap_core_output_filter at -O3 causes (one of) the latter functions to be
miscompiled with -fstrict-aliasing.
The co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46675
--- Comment #13 from Uros Bizjak 2010-11-28 12:46:10
UTC ---
Whoa.
Negative logic should be banned from sources.
Index: tree-ssa-loop-niter.c
===
--- tree-ssa-loop-niter.c(revi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46692
Summary: Missing LM32 multilibs for divider and sign extender
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46488
--- Comment #18 from Eric Botcazou 2010-11-28
13:21:51 UTC ---
Using
#define APR_RING_SENTINEL(hp, elem, link)\
(struct elem *)((char *)(hp) - APR_OFFSETOF(struct elem, link))
should be safer wrt strict aliasing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35810
--- Comment #11 from Paul Thomas 2010-11-28 13:47:31
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Nov 28 13:47:26 2010
New Revision: 167220
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167220
Log:
2010-11-28 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/35810
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46692
Ralf Corsepius changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||corsepiu at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46647
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46531
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46576
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46531
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46505
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45114
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46628
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46468
--- Comment #9 from marcus at jet dot franken.de 2010-11-28 14:55:31 UTC ---
(gdb) bt
#0 0xe425 in __kernel_vsyscall ()
#1 0xf7d1eb46 in kill () from /lib/libc.so.6
#2 0x7efab485 in server_protocol_error (err=0x7efcfe71 "write errnp=%d,
reqf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46675
--- Comment #14 from Uros Bizjak 2010-11-28 15:07:39
UTC ---
Hm, no. The patch in comment #13 is not correct fix.
However, the comment of bound_difference says that no overflows are assumed:
/* Stores the bounds on the value of the expression X
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46468
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-28 15:23:22
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
>
>
> So we basically exited our thread, closed the fd already ... and crash during
What caused the crash?
> the final unwinding. The crash wants to attach the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46262
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle 2010-11-28
15:23:56 UTC ---
I believe I have this isolated to the changes in resolve.c
Eliminating those changes in the offending patch eliminates the ICE. Of
course, though the code compiles, it does not link.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46693
Summary: incorrect code generation with -O2 optimization
enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46693
--- Comment #1 from Sergey Matyukevich 2010-11-28
15:48:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 22554
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22554
testcase
code example
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46693
--- Comment #2 from Sergey Matyukevich 2010-11-28
15:48:48 UTC ---
Created attachment 22555
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22555
dumpspecs
gcc dumpspecs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46693
--- Comment #3 from Sergey Matyukevich 2010-11-28
15:49:27 UTC ---
Created attachment 22556
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22556
gcc version
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46262
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle 2010-11-28
15:52:06 UTC ---
Specifically, this line is involved with the problem.
Index: resolve.c
===
--- resolve.c(revision 167220)
+++ resol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46675
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther 2010-11-28
15:54:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Hm, no. The patch in comment #13 is not correct fix.
>
> However, the comment of bound_difference says that no overflows are assumed:
>
> /* Stores th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46693
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm-gnueabi
--- Comment #4 from Richar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46675
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-28 16:10:08
UTC ---
--
void
foo (int n)
{
int npairs, i;
npairs = n - (-__INT_MAX__ - 1);
if (npairs > 0)
for (i = 0; i < npairs; i++)
j++;
}
--
is miscompiled. But
--
void
foo (int n)
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46693
--- Comment #5 from Sergey Matyukevich 2010-11-28
16:12:47 UTC ---
I am using an arm gcc cross-toolchain created with OpenEmbedded. Toolchain
version and its dumpspecs are available in attachements. Wrong code for
attached simple testcase is gene
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46693
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
Severity|major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46693
Sergey Matyukevich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Component|target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46675
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-28 16:25:34
UTC ---
For
npairs = n - -2147483648;
VRP1 concludes
Value ranges after VRP:
i_1: [0, 0]
n_2(D): VARYING
npairs_3: VARYING
But for
npairs = n + 2147483648;
VRP1 concludes
Value ranges after
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46693
Sergey Matyukevich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
Severity|major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46675
--- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-28 17:09:17
UTC ---
Good gimple dump:
unsigned int n.0;
unsigned int D.2691;
int j.1;
int j.2;
int npairs;
int i;
n.0 = (unsigned int) n;
D.2691 = n.0 + 2147483648;
npairs = (int) D.2691;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46694
Summary: driver does not pass all options to the compiler gnat1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
Assign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46675
--- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-28 17:20:23
UTC ---
Good original dump:
int npairs;
int i;
int npairs;
int i;
npairs = (int) ((unsigned int) n + 2147483648);
Bad dump:
int npairs;
int i;
int npairs;
int i;
np
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46675
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de
2010-11-28 17:22:58 UTC ---
On Sun, 28 Nov 2010, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46675
>
> --- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-28 17:20:23
> UTC --
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46675
--- Comment #21 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-28 17:58:49
UTC ---
Does this:
[...@gnu-6 bad]$ cat x.c.083t.forwprop3
;; Function foo (foo)
Replaced 'npairs_3 > 0' with 'n_2(D) != -2147483648'
foo (int n)
{
int npairs;
int j.1;
int j.0;
:
if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46675
--- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-28 18:12:14
UTC ---
fold_binary_loc turns
npairs = n - -2147483648;
if (npairs > 0)
into
if (n != -2147483648)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46662
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-28 18:37:58 UTC ---
I will commit the following patch as obvious:
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/resolve.c(r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46675
--- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-28 18:56:51
UTC ---
We check "op + 2147483648" for overflow. I don't think we properly
check "op - -2147483648" for overflow.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46468
--- Comment #11 from marcus at jet dot franken.de 2010-11-28 19:31:27 UTC ---
it is unclear. ... it seems to crash in libgcc_s.so.1 (both the installed 4.5
and the built 4.6 trunk versuon) during this pthread_exit unwinding.
behaviour changes if t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46468
--- Comment #12 from marcus at jet dot franken.de 2010-11-28 19:31:58 UTC ---
the gcc or glibc unwinding is in use, not wine's if I take it correctly from
the bakctrace.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46468
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-28 19:47:02
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> it is unclear. ... it seems to crash in libgcc_s.so.1 (both the installed 4.5
> and the built 4.6 trunk versuon) during this pthread_exit unwinding.
>
> behavio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46468
--- Comment #14 from marcus at jet dot franken.de 2010-11-28 19:53:45 UTC ---
actually it is built with it and crashes.
Atfer i change thread.o with -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables
it starts to work again.
so somehting in there confuses the glibc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46662
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-28 20:22:32 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Nov 28 20:22:29 2010
New Revision: 167225
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167225
Log:
2010-11-28 Janus Weil
PR fortran/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46662
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46468
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-28 20:38:46
UTC ---
Which glibc are you using?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46695
Summary: [4.6 regression] failure to build X from darwin to
cris-elf with lto enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46468
--- Comment #16 from marcus at jet dot franken.de 2010-11-28 20:44:38 UTC ---
glibc-32bit-2.11.2-3.3.1.x86_64
/lib/libc.so.6
GNU C Library stable release version 2.11.2 (20100531), by Roland McGrath et
al.
[...]
Configured for i686-suse-linux.
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46675
--- Comment #24 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-28 21:04:10
UTC ---
Does this patch make any senses?
---
diff --git a/gcc/fold-const.c b/gcc/fold-const.c
index c195073..4bcdd07 100644
--- a/gcc/fold-const.c
+++ b/gcc/fold-const.c
@@ -10225,6 +10225,22 @@ f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46468
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-28 21:05:41
UTC ---
It sounds like this bug
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3597
But your glibc should be OK.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46675
--- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-28 21:18:39
UTC ---
Created attachment 22557
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22557
A patch
Does it look OK?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46693
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- Comment #6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46675
--- Comment #26 from Richard Guenther 2010-11-28
23:14:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> fold_binary_loc turns
>
> npairs = n - -2147483648;
> if (npairs > 0)
>
> into
>
> if (n != -2147483648)
That's ok.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46675
--- Comment #27 from Richard Guenther 2010-11-28
23:16:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> Created attachment 22557 [details]
> A patch
>
> Does it look OK?
It doesn't make any sense.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn 2010-11-29 00:17:54
UTC ---
Has anyone reported this AIX assembler behavior to IBM? It would be much more
effective coming from an external customer than from me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46621
--- Comment #2 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2010-11-29 00:50:09 UTC ---
Author: amylaar
Date: Mon Nov 29 00:50:04 2010
New Revision: 167230
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167230
Log:
PR tree-optimization/46621
* gim
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46685
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.6.0 |---
--- Comment #3 from John David An
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46685
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #10 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2010-11-29 02:53:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> * POINTER_SIZE and ADA_LONG_TYPE_SIZE I haven't looked at in detail -
We have several possible substitutes for POINTER_SIZE:
GET_MODE_BITSIZE (pt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46696
Summary: Implicit copy constructor can't construct array of
subtype with user-defined copy constructor.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
++ (Debian 20101128-1) 4.6.0 20101128 (experimental) [trunk revision 167220]
Here's the un-preprocessed source (preprocessed source attached):
#include
#include
void f (const std::string &name, const std::string &val)
{
std::map::value_type (name, val);
}
Compiled w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46701
--- Comment #1 from miles at gnu dot org 2010-11-29 04:25:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 22559
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22559
preprocessed source showing crash
Generated with: g++-snapshot -E -std=c++0x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46701
--- Comment #2 from miles at gnu dot org 2010-11-29 04:30:16 UTC ---
BTW, sorry about the duplicate bugs.
Bugzilla complains about not being able to autodetect the attachment
content-type, and says "hit BACK and try again" -- but doesn't mention t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44756
--- Comment #9 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2010-11-29 04:38:27 UTC ---
Author: amylaar
Date: Mon Nov 29 04:38:21 2010
New Revision: 167234
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167234
Log:
PR bootstrap/44756
* cppbuiltin.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46674
Jie Zhang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution||DUPLICATE
I don't know if this is the same as the other ICEs in
build_data_member_initialization, but it's at a different line number anyway...
Compiler version is:
g++ (Debian 2010112
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46701
--- Comment #3 from miles at gnu dot org 2010-11-29 05:14:29 UTC ---
*** Bug 46697 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46701
--- Comment #4 from miles at gnu dot org 2010-11-29 05:14:53 UTC ---
*** Bug 46698 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution||DUPLICATE
I don't know if this is the same as the other ICEs in
build_data_member_initialization, but it's at a different line number anyway...
Compiler version is:
g++ (Debian 2010112
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution||DUPLICATE
I don't know if this is the same as the other ICEs in
build_data_member_initialization, but it's at a different line number anyway...
Compiler version is:
g++ (Debian 2010112
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46701
--- Comment #5 from miles at gnu dot org 2010-11-29 05:15:18 UTC ---
*** Bug 46699 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46701
--- Comment #6 from miles at gnu dot org 2010-11-29 05:15:43 UTC ---
*** Bug 46700 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution||DUPLICATE
I don't know if this is the same as the other ICEs in
build_data_member_initialization, but it's at a different line number anyway...
Compiler version is:
g++ (Debian 2010112
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46702
Summary: inlining generates strict-aliasing warnings
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46685
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa-unknown-linux-gnu |hppa,sparc-unknown-linux-gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45354
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|ebotcazou at gcc dot|
|gnu.org
87 matches
Mail list logo
