http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53510
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #53 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-05-29 07:45:36 UTC ---
For the original testcase I have for trunk (gcc version 4.8.0 20120516
(experimental) [trunk revision 187595] (GCC)) very reasonable times (1min) at
-O0, but pretty slow (20min)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53510
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-05-29
07:53:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Created attachment 27515 [details]
> gcc48-pr53510.patch
>
> Ugh, that leaks like crazy. Not only it forgets to free buffers, but also
> doubles the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25137
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53515
Bug #: 53515
Summary: InputIterator version std::advance needs positive
check
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16166
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-29
08:34:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> * Item 11: Define a copy constructor and an assignment operator for classes
> with dynamically allocated memory.
>
> -Wcopy-resource-class
IMHO this warn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25137
--- Comment #22 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-29
09:05:51 UTC ---
Oops, sorry, I think at some point I wondered if something was in order but
then forgot. If you can tell me the right syntax, I can add it, must be quite
simple, right?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53502
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25137
--- Comment #23 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-05-29
09:22:05 UTC ---
It is explained here
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Option-properties.html#Option-properties
A patch like the following should work (plus removing the special handling in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52892
Adrien Guinet changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||adrien at guinet dot me
--- Comment #2 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53515
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53229
--- Comment #2 from Dodji Seketeli 2012-05-29
09:36:34 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Tue May 29 09:36:29 2012
New Revision: 187945
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187945
Log:
PR preprocessor/53229 - Fix diagnostics location w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25137
--- Comment #24 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-29
09:41:01 UTC ---
Thanks. I'm going to test the patchlet momentarily, I think it qualifies as
obvious.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53459
--- Comment #6 from Dodji Seketeli 2012-05-29
09:42:44 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Tue May 29 09:42:39 2012
New Revision: 187947
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187947
Log:
PR bootstrap/53459 - unused local typedef when bui
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53459
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16166
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53229
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53469
--- Comment #1 from Dodji Seketeli 2012-05-29
10:20:52 UTC ---
I candidate fix was proposed to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg01899.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51389
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53500
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53496
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53494
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53492
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #2 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53491
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53486
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2012-05-25 00:0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52725
--- Comment #4 from Steffen Möller 2012-05-29
10:33:36 UTC ---
Hello, this took me a while.
It seems like the problem is in (or in the interaction with) nvcc, the NVidia
compiler. For that you program for the graphics card and the host processor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53470
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53496
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|gcc segfaults when |gcc segfaults when
|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53491
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-29 10:56:57 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue May 29 10:56:53 2012
New Revision: 187950
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187950
Log:
/cp
2012-05-29 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53491
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53491
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52725
--- Comment #5 from Steffen Möller 2012-05-29
11:31:04 UTC ---
$ nvcc --version
nvcc: NVIDIA (R) Cuda compiler driver
Copyright (c) 2005-2012 NVIDIA Corporation
Built on Thu_Apr__5_00:24:31_PDT_2012
Cuda compilation tools, release 4.2, V0.2.1221
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53510
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-05-29
11:34:42 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue May 29 11:34:38 2012
New Revision: 187952
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187952
Log:
PR middle-end/53510
* input.c (read_line):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45492
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21385
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||j...@red-bean.com
--- Comment #5 from Pao
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52725
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45606
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47398
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52725
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-29
11:59:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> N.B. 4.5 says
>
> t.cc: In function ‘void f()’:
> t.cc:7:19: warning: lambda expressions only available with -std=c++0x or
> -std=gnu++0x
>
> But that wa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46836
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-29
12:02:58 UTC ---
Jon, is this a duplicate? A couple of weeks ago I saw a patch related to this
issue but I don't see it mentioned here?!?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53476
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53475
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46836
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-29
12:08:24 UTC ---
For PR 52974 Manu made a huge improvement, so that we only get
/some/ugly/path/the/user/didn't/include instead of
/some/ugly/path/the/user/can't/even/parse/../../../didn't/include, b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46836
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-29
12:14:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> #pragma GCC canonical_header [header-name] [identifier]
I don't think we even need to do it per-identifier.
If each standard header started with:
#pragm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #54 from Michael Matz 2012-05-29 12:47:29
UTC ---
Yes, only the expand vars problem is attacked by my patch. The alias walking
seems to come from an IPA analysis via ipa_compute_jump_functions.
detect_type_change uses the walker fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
--- Comment #55 from Michael Matz 2012-05-29 13:08:52
UTC ---
FWIW the node->callees list in yukawa_gn_full has 25076 entries.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53516
Bug #: 53516
Summary: Vectorization and memset recognition miscompile
bitfield stores
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47333
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.6.0 |4.8.0
--- Comment #27 from Rainer Orth 201
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53516
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53476
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53517
Bug #: 53517
Summary: gnat.dg/lto14.adb FAILs
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53517
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46836
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53518
Bug #: 53518
Summary: [4.8 regression] testsuite_abi_check.cc doesn't
compile
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51912
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53518
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-29
14:02:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Between 20120518 and 20120525, many libstdc++ testcases started to fail.
>From the libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog for that period I'd say it's unlikely to be
cau
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53518
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-29
14:02:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Between 20120518 and 20120525, many libstdc++ testcases started to fail.
>From the libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog for that period I'd say it's unlikely to be
cau
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48493
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48493
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52674
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52911
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-29
14:14:54 UTC ---
The testcase needs reduction.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53137
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53471
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53494
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53500
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53516
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53517
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53484
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52725
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53198
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53204
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53218
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53356
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53379
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53516
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-29
14:40:23 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 29 14:40:16 2012
New Revision: 187961
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187961
Log:
2012-05-29 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53516
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-29
14:44:13 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 29 14:44:08 2012
New Revision: 187964
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187964
Log:
2012-05-29 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53516
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P3
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
--- Comment #56 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38474
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53501
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26155
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53519
Bug #: 53519
Summary: ice in do_SUBST, at combine.c:707
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53520
Bug #: 53520
Summary: ICE in timevar_start with -ftime-report and constexpr
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53520
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-05-29
17:25:36 UTC ---
This happens as of "4.8.0 20120518" [trunk revision 187657].
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53521
Bug #: 53521
Summary: Memory leak with zero sized array constructor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53519
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53519
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52941
--- Comment #11 from Oleg Endo 2012-05-29
20:26:46 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Tue May 29 20:26:41 2012
New Revision: 187987
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187987
Log:
PR target/52941
* config/sh/predicates.md (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52700
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51340
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo 2012-05-29 20:56:02
UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Tue May 29 20:55:58 2012
New Revision: 187988
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187988
Log:
PR target/51340
* config/sh/sh.c (sh_option_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16166
--- Comment #7 from David Stone 2012-05-29
20:57:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > * Item 11: Define a copy constructor and an assignment operator for classes
> > with dynamically allocated memory.
> >
> > -Wcopy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51340
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29366
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on|52941 |
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo 2012-05-29 21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53494
--- Comment #14 from Daniel Krügler
2012-05-29 21:16:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Am I interpreting correctly that double braces are /required/ for std::array
> init lists but only when the subtype has has a multivariable initializer to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53494
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
AssignedTo|paolo.carlini at o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53522
Bug #: 53522
Summary: [4.8 Summary] Bootstrap is broken for
x86_64-apple-darwin10 at r187977
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53522
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8 Summary] Bootstrap is |[4.8 Regression] Bootstrap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53494
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini 2012-05-29
23:00:34 UTC ---
Thanks Daniel. Let's see if Jon agrees with your analysis. To be honest, at
first, when I figured out the workaround, it seemed a brace-elision issue to me
too, but then I haven't bee
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53523
Bug #: 53523
Summary: i686 compiler with multilib ( x86_64 target ) included
fails on linker
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIR
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo