[Bug target/49385] Invalid RTL intstruction for ARM

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49385 --- Comment #6 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-19 08:13:09 UTC --- Author: jye2 Date: Mon Sep 19 08:13:02 2011 New Revision: 178955 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178955 Log: 2011-09-19 Jiangning Liu Backport r1

[Bug rtl-optimization/49169] ARM: optimisations strip the Thumb/ARM mode bit off function pointers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49169 --- Comment #6 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-19 08:13:09 UTC --- Author: jye2 Date: Mon Sep 19 08:13:02 2011 New Revision: 178955 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178955 Log: 2011-09-19 Jiangning Liu Backport r1

[Bug target/50022] [4.7 regression] "incorrect condition in IT block" when building mozilla code base for ARM

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50022 --- Comment #8 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-19 08:35:45 UTC --- Author: jye2 Date: Mon Sep 19 08:35:37 2011 New Revision: 178960 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178960 Log: 2011-09-19 Jiangning Liu Backport r1

[Bug testsuite/50435] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-25.c (-flto)? scan-tree-dump-times slp "basic block vectorized using SLP" 1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50435 --- Comment #13 from Ira Rosen 2011-09-19 08:59:44 UTC --- (In reply to comment #12) > Note that I have replaced all the occurrences of __restrict with __restrict__ > I have found in gcc.dg/vect/* and bb-slp-25.c is the only test for which it >

[Bug target/49437] interrupt return pop sometimes corrupts sp

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49437 --- Comment #4 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-19 09:03:35 UTC --- Author: jye2 Date: Mon Sep 19 09:03:29 2011 New Revision: 178963 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178963 Log: 2011-09-19 Joey Ye Backport r177891

[Bug tree-optimization/46021] 3 tree-ssa tests XPASS almost everywhere

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46021 --- Comment #10 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-19 09:32:59 UTC --- Author: jye2 Date: Mon Sep 19 09:32:54 2011 New Revision: 178967 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178967 Log: 2011-09-19 Terry Guo Backport r1786

[Bug libstdc++/40856] numeric_limits not specialized for __int128_t or __uint128_t

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856 --- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-19 11:05:10 UTC --- But see: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01048.html. Thus, for the time being, I'm going to use __int128_t and __uint128_t in the implementation details: using the latter

[Bug c++/50454] New: Unexpected problems with -pedantic / -pedantic-errors and __int128 and unsigned __int128 specializations

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50454 Bug #: 50454 Summary: Unexpected problems with -pedantic / -pedantic-errors and __int128 and unsigned __int128 specializations Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version:

[Bug middle-end/49886] [4.6/4.7 Regression] pass_split_functions cannot deal with function type attributes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49886 --- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor 2011-09-19 11:43:04 UTC --- Thanks for letting me know about this. However, as described in http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49886 the whole XFAIL will go away after I commit the patch today.

[Bug c++/50454] Unexpected problems with -pedantic / -pedantic-errors and __int128 and unsigned __int128 specializations

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50454 --- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-19 11:44:23 UTC --- Scratch "but still isn't entirely OK, I can still trigger errors post 40856 for the following user code snippet compiled with -std=gnu++0x -pedantic-errors on, eg, x86_64-linux". Lucki

[Bug tree-optimization/50413] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Incorrect instruction is used to shift value of 128 bit xmm0 registrer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50413 --- Comment #8 from irar at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-19 11:46:05 UTC --- Author: irar Date: Mon Sep 19 11:46:00 2011 New Revision: 178968 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178968 Log: PR tree-optimization/50413

[Bug libstdc++/40856] numeric_limits not specialized for __int128_t or __uint128_t

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856 --- Comment #8 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-19 11:52:54 UTC --- Author: paolo Date: Mon Sep 19 11:52:49 2011 New Revision: 178969 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178969 Log: 2011-09-19 Paolo Carlini PR libs

[Bug libstdc++/40856] numeric_limits not specialized for __int128_t or __uint128_t

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/50455] New: duplicate class/constructor silently accepted, wrong constructor linked

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50455 Bug #: 50455 Summary: duplicate class/constructor silently accepted, wrong constructor linked Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.4.5 Status: UNCONFI

[Bug c++/50455] duplicate class/constructor silently accepted, wrong constructor linked

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50455 --- Comment #1 from eda-qa at disemia dot com 2011-09-19 12:20:24 UTC --- The compiler/linker is silently ignoring that a class has been defined twice and this results in the linker linking to the incorrect constructor at instantiation time. This

[Bug c++/50455] duplicate class/constructor silently accepted, wrong constructor linked

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50455 --- Comment #2 from eda-qa at disemia dot com 2011-09-19 12:21:24 UTC --- Created attachment 25317 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25317 2 of 2 reproduction source files

[Bug c++/50455] duplicate class/constructor silently accepted, wrong constructor linked

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50455 --- Comment #3 from eda-qa at disemia dot com 2011-09-19 12:23:13 UTC --- Triage notes: As the issue is that no diagnostic is produced I was uncertain how to locate duplicates -- I tried a few search queries and came up empty. Also note that both

[Bug c++/50455] duplicate class/constructor silently accepted, wrong constructor linked

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50455 --- Comment #4 from eda-qa at disemia dot com 2011-09-19 12:25:08 UTC --- g++ (GCC) 4.4.5 20101112 (Red Hat 4.4.5-2) GNU ld version 2.20.51.0.2-20.fc13 20091009 Linux devbox 2.6.34.9-69.fc13.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue May 3 09:23:03 UTC 2011 x86_64 x86_64 x

[Bug c++/50455] duplicate class/constructor silently accepted, wrong constructor linked

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50455 --- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-19 12:31:58 UTC --- I'm pretty sure that this is one of those cases where the user violates the ODR, thus undefined behavior, but diagnostics isn't required, exactly because would have to produced at *lin

[Bug c++/50455] duplicate class/constructor silently accepted, wrong constructor linked

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50455 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/50455] duplicate class/constructor silently accepted, wrong constructor linked

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50455 --- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-19 12:48:25 UTC --- Indeed, thanks Jakub.

[Bug tree-optimization/50374] Support vectorization of min/max location pattern

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50374 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-09-19 12:51:59 UTC --- I've looked briefly at the http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg00631.html patch, it seems the UNSPEC_REDUC* is unnecessary there (only used in the expanders ending with DONE,

[Bug c++/50455] duplicate class/constructor silently accepted, wrong constructor linked

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50455 --- Comment #8 from eda-qa at disemia dot com 2011-09-19 12:53:33 UTC --- I agree that this is a violation of the ODR. I agree this might be difficult for the linker to detect. However for a user this is a serious problem that can be very hard to

[Bug c++/50454] Unexpected problems with -pedantic / -pedantic-errors and __int128 and unsigned __int128 specializations

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50454 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/49886] [4.6/4.7 Regression] pass_split_functions cannot deal with function type attributes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49886 --- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor 2011-09-19 13:27:00 UTC --- Author: jamborm Date: Mon Sep 19 13:26:50 2011 New Revision: 178973 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178973 Log: 2011-09-19 Martin Jambor PR middle-end/4

[Bug c++/50455] duplicate class/constructor silently accepted, wrong constructor linked

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50455 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|major |normal --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wak

[Bug middle-end/49886] [4.6/4.7 Regression] pass_split_functions cannot deal with function type attributes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49886 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug debug/47471] [4.6/4.7 Regression] stdarg functions extraneous too-early prologue end

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47471 philipp at marek dot priv.at changed: What|Removed |Added CC||philipp at marek dot

[Bug debug/47471] [4.6/4.7 Regression] stdarg functions extraneous too-early prologue end

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47471 --- Comment #7 from Jan Kratochvil 2011-09-19 13:56:39 UTC --- FYI a workaround is now checked in to FSF GDB HEAD: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-09/msg00140.html I confirm gdb-7.3 / 7.3.1 does not have the workaround and gdb-7.4 is fa

[Bug tree-optimization/50413] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Incorrect instruction is used to shift value of 128 bit xmm0 registrer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50413 --- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu 2011-09-19 14:09:08 UTC --- On Linux/x86, I got FAIL: g++.dg/vect/slp-pr50413.cc scan-tree-dump-times slp "basic block vectorized using SLP" 0

[Bug c++/50456] New: attributes ignored on member templates

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50456 Bug #: 50456 Summary: attributes ignored on member templates Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.5.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P

[Bug tree-optimization/50413] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Incorrect instruction is used to shift value of 128 bit xmm0 registrer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50413 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment #10 from

[Bug c++/50454] Unexpected problems with -pedantic / -pedantic-errors and __int128 and unsigned __int128 specializations

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50454 --- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-19 14:33:33 UTC --- Thanks. I'll see if I can quickly adjust that code in this sense or ask Kai's help.

[Bug tree-optimization/50337] -ftree-dse performs wrong elimination on electric-fence

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50337 --- Comment #4 from Colin Watson 2011-09-19 14:56:55 UTC --- Ah yes, it does indeed! I think it's fair enough to have to build efence with -fno-builtin-malloc, so feel free to close this bug.

[Bug tree-optimization/50413] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Incorrect instruction is used to shift value of 128 bit xmm0 registrer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50413 --- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-09-19 15:20:22 UTC --- > On Linux/x86, I got > > FAIL: g++.dg/vect/slp-pr50413.cc scan-tree-dump-times slp "basic block > vectorized using SLP" 0 I get the same failure on x86_64-apple-darwin10. Gre

[Bug tree-optimization/50413] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Incorrect instruction is used to shift value of 128 bit xmm0 registrer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50413 --- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-09-19 15:21:55 UTC --- Created attachment 25318 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25318 slp dump with -fno-vect-cost-model

[Bug tree-optimization/50413] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Incorrect instruction is used to shift value of 128 bit xmm0 registrer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50413 --- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-09-19 15:23:42 UTC --- Created attachment 25319 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25319 slp dump without -fno-vect-cost-model

[Bug testsuite/50076] FAIL: c-c++-common/cxxbitfields-3.c scan-assembler movl.*, var on x86_64-apple-darwin10

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50076 --- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez 2011-09-19 15:37:37 UTC --- I will be contributing a testing harness that is back-end agnostic, so it won't depend on scanning the assembly. Stay tuned.

[Bug tree-optimization/50374] Support vectorization of min/max location pattern

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50374 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-09-19 15:59:06 UTC --- Created attachment 25320 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25320 gcc47-pr50374-wip.patch Here is the ported patch with rejects hopefully resolved and a few bugfixes

[Bug lto/50394] [meta-bug] Issues with building libreoffice with LTO

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50394 --- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka 2011-09-19 16:09:23 UTC --- BTW since the exception seems to be thrown from libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3 that sounds like there is some sort of gcc specific magic that has good chance to break with LTO, I would sugg

[Bug target/50457] New: SH2A atomic functions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50457 Bug #: 50457 Summary: SH2A atomic functions Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.3.5 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compon

[Bug target/50341] calls via function pointer wrongly scheduled giving invalid TOC pointer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50341 Michael Meissner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug tree-optimization/35261] GCC4.3 internal compiler error: verify_flow_info failed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35261 --- Comment #5 from Harald van Dijk 2011-09-19 17:51:44 UTC --- My testcase failed with 4.3 and 4.4. 4.3.6 still rejects it, but it seems to be accepted by 4.4.6, so if 4.3 is no longer maintained, this looks fixed.

[Bug bootstrap/50326] [4.7 regression] ICE in set_lattice_value, at tree-ssa-ccp.c:456

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50326 --- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor 2011-09-19 18:21:25 UTC --- The compilation before and after the patch seems to diverge at expand time and only in one instruction when processing this particular gimple statement: MEM[(struct prop_value_d *)&

[Bug bootstrap/50229] [4.7 Regression] Can't cross compile for i686-apple-darwin10 from x86_64-redhat_linux

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50229 --- Comment #7 from Ruben Van Boxem 2011-09-19 19:28:48 UTC --- I'm still experiencing the same behavior. I don't think the darwinx toolchain has the problems you say? Why do you think it uses a Darwin9 system framework and headers? It has GCC 4

[Bug bootstrap/50229] [4.7 Regression] Can't cross compile for i686-apple-darwin10 from x86_64-redhat_linux

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50229 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added CC||peter at pogma dot com --- Comment #8 from

[Bug c++/50455] duplicate class/constructor silently accepted, wrong constructor linked

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50455 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug lto/50367] -flto and -Wl,--as-needed combination removes some needed libraries

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50367 Matthias Klose changed: What|Removed |Added CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 f

[Bug lto/50367] -flto and -Wl,--as-needed combination removes some needed libraries

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50367 --- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose 2011-09-19 21:21:53 UTC --- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13201

[Bug c++/50458] New: ICE when using brace-initializer for new array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50458 Bug #: 50458 Summary: ICE when using brace-initializer for new array Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug c++/50458] ICE when using brace-initializer for new array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50458 --- Comment #1 from Kerrek SB 2011-09-19 22:13:29 UTC --- (I am told that this is no longer a problem in the latest snapshot.)

[Bug c++/50458] ICE when using brace-initializer for new array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50458 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Status|UN

[Bug c++/50454] Unexpected problems with -pedantic / -pedantic-errors and __int128 and unsigned __int128 specializations

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50454 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug c++/50454] Unexpected problems with -pedantic / -pedantic-errors and __int128 and unsigned __int128 specializations

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50454 --- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-19 23:23:22 UTC --- s/GCC system_error/#pragma GCC system_header/

[Bug c++/50454] Unexpected problems with -pedantic / -pedantic-errors and __int128 and unsigned __int128 specializations

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50454 --- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-19 23:56:22 UTC --- Created attachment 25321 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25321 patchlet Constructively, this is something which should lead to unsigned __int128 treated exactly li

[Bug libstdc++/49561] [C++0x] std::list::size complexity

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49561 Bryce Lelbach (wash) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||blelbach at cct dot lsu.edu --- Co

[Bug libstdc++/49561] [C++0x] std::list::size complexity

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49561 --- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-09-20 00:28:37 UTC --- It's already confirmed, NEW means confirmed.

[Bug rtl-optimization/49452] [4.7 regression] comp-goto-2.c regresses in testing

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49452 --- Comment #25 from carrot at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-20 00:57:44 UTC --- Author: carrot Date: Tue Sep 20 00:57:39 2011 New Revision: 178995 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178995 Log: PR rtl-optimization/49452 * pos

[Bug c/50459] New: alignof doesn't work on plain old constant, works with expressions containing it

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50459 Bug #: 50459 Summary: alignof doesn't work on plain old constant, works with expressions containing it Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.1 Status

[Bug lto/50367] -flto and -Wl,--as-needed combination removes some needed libraries

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50367 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug middle-end/50460] New: [4.7 Regression] __builtin___strcpy_chk/__builtin_object_size don't work

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50460 Bug #: 50460 Summary: [4.7 Regression] __builtin___strcpy_chk/__builtin_object_size don't work Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0

[Bug tree-optimization/50413] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Incorrect instruction is used to shift value of 128 bit xmm0 registrer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50413 --- Comment #14 from Ira Rosen 2011-09-20 06:23:54 UTC --- The basic block that got vectorized on these platforms is in main(). I am going to remove it and leave only shift(), since the main purpose of the test is to check that shift () doesn't g