http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54995
--- Comment #1 from niXman 2012-10-20 07:15:28 UTC
---
> App crash:
> http://liveworkspace.org/code/3d5e51c9059ea4f37ce2d0d23739d374
More detailed output.
source:
#include
typedef void(*void_func)();
void foo(void_func f) {
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54996
Bug #: 54996
Summary: gcc with --target=avr fails to build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54996
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54986
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |tree-optimization
Sum
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54995
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-20
08:31:12 UTC ---
May be duplicate of other known issues about lambdas vs templates.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54997
Bug #: 54997
Summary: -Wunused-function gives false warnings for procedures
passed as actual argument
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54997
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-20 08:58:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Obviously s3 is not being called directly, but it is passed to s2, so it's
> certainly not unused.
Well, to be honest, 'dummy' is not real
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54997
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-20 09:03:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> subroutine s2(dummy)
> procedure() :: dummy
> end subroutine
Also an "Unused dummy argument" warning is missing here ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54963
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54983
--- Comment #4 from Bastian Hecht 2012-10-20 10:30:28
UTC ---
Ok I see. Thanks for taking a look at this! I'll check if this is some
regression in the tree and either write a patch or post the issue on the ARM
mailing list.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48636
--- Comment #27 from Jan Hubicka 2012-10-20
10:34:58 UTC ---
Thank you for testing. It seems that the patch works well for small benchmarks,
I will look into lapack/test_fpu slowdown.
There is problem that it really causes inacceptable gro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53145
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48636
--- Comment #28 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-10-20 11:22:16 UTC ---
If I understand correctly the patch, the default value for
max-inline-min-speedup is 20. This could be over-agressive: for fatigue.f90 the
threshold is between 94 (fast)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54989
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|steven at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #2 from Steven B
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48636
--- Comment #29 from Thomas Koenig 2012-10-20
12:10:49 UTC ---
Another approach (not for the benchmarks) would be to
make inlining tunable by the user, e.g. support
!GCC$ ATTRIBUTES always_inline :: procedure_name
See PR 41209.
System:
Darwin Kernel Version 12.2.0: Sat Aug 25 00:48:52 PDT 2012;
root:xnu-2050.18.24~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64
GCC build command: ./configure --enable-languages=c,c++
g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 4.8.0 20121020 (experimental)
Additional notes:
By either naming the union, or supplying a default
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40989
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-10-20
14:17:14 UTC ---
Author: manu
Date: Sat Oct 20 14:17:08 2012
New Revision: 192635
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192635
Log:
2012-10-20 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR c/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53063
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-10-20
14:17:14 UTC ---
Author: manu
Date: Sat Oct 20 14:17:08 2012
New Revision: 192635
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192635
Log:
2012-10-20 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR c/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54980
--- Comment #6 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko 2012-10-20
14:28:28 UTC ---
192529 OK
192538 FAIL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31119
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31119
--- Comment #8 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-10-20 14:59:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Hi,
> can someone fortran aware please double-check that the tests
>
> * gfortran.dg/bounds_check_9.f90: New test.
> * gfortran.dg/bo
posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20121020 (experimental) [trunk revision 192631] (GCC)
[vocms123] ~/public/ctest/bugs48 $ c++ -msse3 -std=c++11 -c -O2 ice_mcp.ii
In file included from
/afs/cern.ch/cms/sw/ReleaseCandidates/slc5_amd64_gcc472/thu/6.1.LTO-thu-02/CMSSW_6_1_LTO_X_2012-10-18-0200/src/DataFor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54844
vincenzo Innocente changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincenzo.innocente at cern
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54999
vincenzo Innocente changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31119
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-10-20
15:43:13 UTC ---
> can someone fortran aware please double-check that the tests
>
>* gfortran.dg/bounds_check_9.f90: New test.
>* gfortran.dg/bounds_check_fail_2.f90: New test.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54725
--- Comment #8 from Mike Frysinger 2012-10-20
16:55:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
that patch doesn't work as there is a typo in Make-lang.in. it needs to be:
CFLAGS-fortran/cpp.o += $(TARGET_SYSTEM_ROOT_DEFINE)
then it works OK
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47389
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54989
--- Comment #3 from Jack Howarth 2012-10-20
17:11:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> The failure is caused by higher register pressure in the THEN branch of the
> case, though I am not sure why the register pressure is higher than x86-l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54989
--- Comment #4 from Jack Howarth 2012-10-20
17:39:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
i can confirm that the proposed simplification of the test cases eliminates the
failures of hoist-register-pressure.c at -m32 on x86_64-apple-darwin12.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54855
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-20 17:43:44
UTC ---
Uros' reply at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01327.html copied
here for convenience:
"But, we _do_ have vec_merge pattern that describes the operation.
Adding anot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54989
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55001
Bug #: 55001
Summary: Handle VEC_COND_EXPR in tree-vect-generic.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54997
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-20 18:45:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Also an "Unused dummy argument" warning is missing here ...
This is fixed by the following patch:
Index: gcc/fortran/decl.c
===
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55002
Bug #: 55002
Summary: trailing return type is rejected in function signature
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55002
--- Comment #1 from Leonid Volnitsky 2012-10-20
19:20:00 UTC ---
I've probably overcomplicated my example. Simpler test case:
--
int f(auto (*ff) -> int (int) ) {
return ff(1);
}
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55002
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54315
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou 2012-10-20
21:00:26 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sat Oct 20 21:00:23 2012
New Revision: 192641
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192641
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/54315
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54315
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
AssignedTo|ebotcazou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224
--- Comment #15 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-20 21:17:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > * unused-warnings for module variables
Here is a draft patch which fixes the test case in comment 14:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54997
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-20 21:46:12 UTC ---
The following removes the warning for s3:
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/trans
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55003
Bug #: 55003
Summary: [C++11] Member function pointer not working as
constexpr initializer
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55002
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug #: 55004
Summary: [meta-bug] constexpr issues
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||meta-bug
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54998
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54922
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54922
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-20
23:21:42 UTC ---
Related to PR54768.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54922
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-20
23:31:41 UTC ---
Related to PR51675.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54991
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-10-21
02:47:32 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Sun Oct 21 02:47:28 2012
New Revision: 192645
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192645
Log:
2012-10-20 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55005
Bug #: 55005
Summary: [4.8 Regression] gcc.c-torture/execute/loop-3.c FAILs
with -fPIC
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCO
50 matches
Mail list logo
