http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53131
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-05-07
13:42:10 UTC ---
In fact, the main show-stopper for adding -Wlogical-op to -Wextra (or -Wall) is
PR40172, which was the reason it was moved out of -Wextra in the first place.
Someone would need
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49844
--- Comment #8 from xunxun 2012-05-07 13:44:47
UTC ---
GCC4.7 also has the problem now:
-
g++.exe -shared -Wl,--out-implib=devel\libwxpropgrid.a -Wl,--dll
-Lbase\tinyxm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53264
Bug #: 53264
Summary: gcc/gcov-io.c and gcc/libgcov.c fail to compile
(target vxWorks - gcc 4.7.0)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49844
--- Comment #9 from xunxun 2012-05-07 13:46:30
UTC ---
Also add -flto-partition=none to linker option can solve the issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53264
--- Comment #1 from rbmj at verizon dot net 2012-05-07 13:47:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 27333
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27333
Proposed fix (against 4.7.0 sources)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53236
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Krügler
2012-05-07 13:50:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
[..]
> Here the corrected code with proper comments.
[..]
> auto yyy = d.get();// #ifndef WITH_USING_DECLARATION ->
> Compile-time error-> GCC is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-07
13:50:17 UTC ---
Looking at your second patch it looks entirely reasonable, though not
globbing MULT_EXPR together with PLUS/MINUS might be better for readability
(thus, in the end I'd like extract
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49844
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53245
--- Comment #5 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-07
13:57:49 UTC ---
Duh!
Index: gimplify.c
===
--- gimplify.c (revision 187219)
+++ gimplify.c (working copy)
@@ -1658,6 +1658,10 @@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53236
--- Comment #10 from Fernando Pelliccioni
2012-05-07 13:58:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> [..]
> > Here the corrected code with proper comments.
> [..]
> > auto yyy = d.get();// #ifndef WITH_USING_DECLARA
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49844
--- Comment #11 from xunxun 2012-05-07 13:59:49
UTC ---
Also add -flto-partition=none to linker option can solve the issue.(In reply to
comment #10)
> These are all references to virtual tables taken local. Maybe Honza has an
> idea,
> but unfor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53265
Bug #: 53265
Summary: Warn when undefined behavior implies smaller iteration
count
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53128
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Monakov 2012-05-07
14:07:58 UTC ---
I have opened PR 53265
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53265
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2012-05-07
14:21:30 UTC ---
<21e> is there as a local stub so that multiple references to the same
.debug_types type can use (smaller) local DIE references instead of all needing
to use DW_FORM_sig8.
The testcas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53266
Bug #: 53266
Summary: Error: Unrecognized opcode: `mulhwu'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jason at redhat dot com |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milesto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235
--- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-05-07 14:32:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> The testcase is failing because of the change from "A*" to "struct A*"?
Yes.
> Is that an important distinction?
In other cases it even crashes GDB, orig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50981
--- Comment #42 from Tobias Burnus 2012-05-07
14:34:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #36)
> I lost a bit the overview, but I think the following still needs to be done:
>
> - 4.4/4.5/4.6: Backporting the fix for nonpresent actuals to elemental pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53245
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-07
14:40:43 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Mon May 7 14:40:33 2012
New Revision: 187248
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187248
Log:
PR middle-end/53245
* gimplify.c (prepro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53245
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30318
--- Comment #16 from Marc Glisse 2012-05-07
14:46:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Looking at your second patch it looks entirely reasonable, though not
> globbing MULT_EXPR together with PLUS/MINUS might be better for readability
I wonder
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2012-05-07
14:47:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Yes; I wanted to know first if this is an intended change.
It was.
> FYI it does not seem to be DWARF compliant:
> The typedef entry has a DW_AT_name att
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43147
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235
--- Comment #4 from Jan Kratochvil
2012-05-07 15:00:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Would
>
> DW_TAG_structure_type
> DW_AT_declaration
> DW_AT_signature
>
> be better?
I also think GDB read_structure_type should cope with it right.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53261
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-07
15:11:54 UTC ---
In general, build_range_check can return NULL_TREE. Just matter of doing:
if (tem && integer_zerop (tem))
return;
like a few lines below?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53267
Bug #: 53267
Summary: Constant fold BUILT_IN_FMOD
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46578
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53158
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
--- Comment #5 from davidxl 2012-05-07 16:18:13
UTC ---
So it is possible either
1) to keep the current G++ semantics of compound literals, but change its
behavior due to the implementation change (with clobber marker);
or
2) to change hte G++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53261
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-05-07
16:25:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> In general, build_range_check can return NULL_TREE. Just matter of doing:
>
> if (tem && integer_zerop (tem))
> return;
>
> like a few line
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
--- Comment #6 from Paul Pluzhnikov 2012-05-07
16:28:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> 1) to keep the current G++ semantics of compound literals, but change its
> behavior due to the implementation change (with clobber marker);
I would arg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
--- Comment #12 from Sriraman Tallam 2012-05-07
16:54:57 UTC ---
Will do, thanks.
-Sri.
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:05 AM, vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
>
> --- Comment #11 from vince
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49363
--- Comment #13 from Sriraman Tallam 2012-05-07
17:04:05 UTC ---
Here is the patch to do function multiversioning which is under review:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg00078.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
--- Comment #7 from davidxl 2012-05-07 17:03:51
UTC ---
Yes, the array case should be warned or disallowed if 1 is the way to go.
I won't call it a lousy choice -- the C++ semantics of the compound literals
allow more agressive optimization and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44141
--- Comment #16 from Ulrich Weigand 2012-05-07
17:17:06 UTC ---
Reload inheritance generally gives up on handling subregs of pseudos, mostly
because there is no mechanism to track invalidation of parts of pseudos.
Now, in this particular case wh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53266
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-07
17:27:53 UTC ---
mulhwu is a powerpc but not rs6000 instruction.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53266
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Richard G. 2012-05-07
17:42:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> mulhwu is a powerpc but not rs6000 instruction.
When a file failed to compile, I noticed that specifying -mcpu=powerpc got
things going again. I'm not c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill 2012-05-07
17:44:52 UTC ---
The thing is, C++11 introduces list-initialized temporaries; I could rewrite
the testcase in C++11 as
extern "C" int printf (const char *, ...);
int main()
{
typedef int AR[4];
f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53262
--- Comment #2 from ncahill_alt at yahoo dot com 2012-05-07 17:54:44 UTC ---
Unfortunately, this is no longer happening for me. I have made system changes
today but no changes to gcc at all. But now the test passes just fine. So
there is no long
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53158
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-07
18:38:34 UTC ---
void foo();
void bar(int a, int b)
{
if (foo() && a < b)
;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49700
--- Comment #8 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-05-07 19:04:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Has the situation improved?
current trunk LTO seems to fail on CP2K with:
/data/vjoost/clean/cp2k/cp2k/src/../src/rt_propagation_methods.F: In functio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53217
William J. Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53268
Bug #: 53268
Summary: [4.8 Regression] [SH] libstdc++-dg/conformance.exp
failures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53269
Bug #: 53269
Summary: [4.8 Regression] firefox crashes in
/media/libtheora/lib/decode.c when compiled with -O2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53269
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-05-07 20:02:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 27334
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27334
preprocessed testfile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53269
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-07
20:05:25 UTC ---
What are the array bounds for _dec->state.dequant_tables ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53269
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-05-07 20:08:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> What are the array bounds for _dec->state.dequant_tables ?
[64][3][2]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53269
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-07
20:12:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > What are the array bounds for _dec->state.dequant_tables ?
>
> [64][3][2]
_dec->state.dequant_tables[qti][pli][qi][12]
Is oppo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53269
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
Bug #: 53270
Summary: Error when bootstrapping gcc on
hppa2.0-unknown-linux-gcc
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
--- Comment #1 from jimis 2012-05-07 20:31:19 UTC ---
Created attachment 27335
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27335
hppa-gcc-bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
--- Comment #6 from François Dumont 2012-05-07
20:37:57 UTC ---
I see 2 possible modifications for this problem.
The first one would be to avoid the numerous calls to _M_can_advance. In
priority_queue each time an element is pushed there is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #37 from Oleg Endo 2012-05-07
20:50:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 27336
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27336
Supplementary patch
As of rev 187217, the pr51244-1.c target testcase fails at least for m4*.
The attac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53271
Bug #: 53271
Summary: powerpc-eabispe build fails with ice on unwind-dw2.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53238
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Richard G. 2012-05-07
21:09:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Created attachment 27320 [details]
> diff of regenerated configure
Jonathan, thank you for the patch, and the regen.
I'm starting a new build to test t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50342
--- Comment #9 from simon at pushface dot org 2012-05-07 21:13:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> $srcdir/configure CC="gcc -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=0”
Unfortunately doing this means that “gcc -v” with the built compiler contains
the ‘CC="gcc -D_FO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48724
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka 2012-05-07 23:20:50 UTC
---
> No response and unclear bug.
It is still there. In lto-wrapper.c we do
new_argv[0] = getenv ("MAKE");
and when MAKE is set to something like "make -j" we try to execute it..
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
--- Comment #3 from jimis 2012-05-07 23:22:50 UTC ---
I used the gcc-4.8-20120429 snapshot and the only configure option (besides
prefix and libraries) was --disable-libstdcxx-pch. The host I compiled on was
gcc61. I didn't know about the --enable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53272
Bug #: 53272
Summary: wrong condition-codes for strict-low-part destination
and small-integer source
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.7
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53272
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
--- Comment #9 from davidxl 2012-05-08 00:16:30
UTC ---
c++11 defines the lifetime of a temporary -- does it match C or g++'s semantics
of compound literals or neither?
Note that without your change, the original program may also be subject to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin 2012-05-08
00:33:35 UTC ---
It's not a problem with the thread model.
I can't duplicate the problem. I believe that this is because
I have a more recent version of libc6 installed (2.13-32) than
that on gcc6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50342
m...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill 2012-05-08
02:13:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> c++11 defines the lifetime of a temporary -- does it match C or g++'s
> semantics
> of compound literals or neither?
C++98 and C++11 define the lifetime o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53268
--- Comment #1 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-05-08
02:22:13 UTC ---
Looks like PR53209. BTW, now PR53209 blocks my sh4-unknown-linux-gnu
build with the failure during compiling libstdc++v3. Alex's patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/ms
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53273
Bug #: 53273
Summary: test-cases suffer from cross-function optimizations
with no way to mark limits
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53271
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
jimis changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27335|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
--- Comment #6 from jimis 2012-05-08 06:38:08 UTC ---
Created attachment 27339
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27339
preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53270
--- Comment #7 from jimis 2012-05-08 06:38:45 UTC ---
Parallel compilation confused me, the error is for guard.cc, see the attached
log plus the preprocessed source.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53271
--- Comment #1 from Alan Modra 2012-05-08 06:43:15
UTC ---
Created attachment 27340
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27340
proposed patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53226
--- Comment #5 from Mario Baumann 2012-05-08
06:48:38 UTC ---
I've finished the bi-section -> revision 187053 caused the problem.
I'm trying to produce a testcase ...
101 - 175 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
