http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54386
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sh*-*-* arm*|sh*-*-* arm*-*-* sparc*-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55146
Bug #: 55146
Summary: jumptables with byte entries produce wrong code with
-Os/-O2 for SH-1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu 2012-10-31 08:26:10
UTC ---
Patch doesn't work and elf_get_dynamic_info is miscompiled:
0xf7dddc88 <+5224>:neg%eax
0xf7dddc8a <+5226>:lea(%rcx,%rax,4),%eax
---Type to continue, or q to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55132
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21643
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-31
08:45:35 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Oct 31 08:45:27 2012
New Revision: 193028
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193028
Log:
PR tree-optimization/19105
PR t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19105
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-31
08:45:38 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Oct 31 08:45:27 2012
New Revision: 193028
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193028
Log:
PR tree-optimization/19105
PR t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46309
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-31
08:45:36 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Oct 31 08:45:27 2012
New Revision: 193028
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193028
Log:
PR tree-optimization/19105
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54989
--- Comment #7 from bin.cheng 2012-10-31
08:45:37 UTC ---
I think this is fixed and it's a bug in 4.8.0.
Hi Jack, could you verify that it is fixed? Thanks very much.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21643
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19105
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46309
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54955
--- Comment #6 from Dodji Seketeli 2012-10-31
08:55:51 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Wed Oct 31 08:55:43 2012
New Revision: 193029
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193029
Log:
PR c++/54955 - Fail to parse alignas ex
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54955
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu 2012-10-31 09:13:46
UTC ---
The code looks like:
while (dyn->d_tag != 0)
{
if ((d_tag_utype) dyn->d_tag < 34)
info[dyn->d_tag] = dyn;
else if (dyn->d_tag >= 0x7000 &&
dyn->
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54707
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Towner 2012-10-31
09:22:02 UTC ---
The picochip port was marked as obsolete in 4.7.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55145
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55141
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55141
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou 2012-10-31
10:59:15 UTC ---
> It is caused by revision 188118:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-06/msg00028.html
Are you really sure? This change is only a refinement of another one. You're
sa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160
albcl111 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||muhammadali.ca4 at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||*-*-mingw32
Target Milestone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55147
Bug #: 55147
Summary: x86: wrong code for 64-bit load
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu 2012-10-31 11:25:48
UTC ---
Breakpoint 7, fold_binary_loc (loc=2696, code=PLUS_EXPR, type=0x7199e000,
op0=0x71ab8398, op1=0x71aa6660)
at /export/gnu/import/git/gcc/gcc/fold-const.c:10058
10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55148
Bug #: 55148
Summary: wrong compilation of chars: overlapped memory areas
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55148
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
--- Comment #1 from Jo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2012-10-31 12:19:56
UTC ---
Does this make any senses?
diff --git a/gcc/fold-const.c b/gcc/fold-const.c
index 5ea5110..50879d6 100644
--- a/gcc/fold-const.c
+++ b/gcc/fold-const.c
@@ -7038,6 +7038,24 @@ fol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55148
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-10-31
12:22:54 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html#cxx notes "G++ now properly re-uses
stack space allocated for temporary objects when their lifetime ends, which can
significantly lower
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55148
icegood1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
--- Comment #3 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55148
icegood1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolut
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou 2012-10-31
12:49:45 UTC ---
> I am 100% sure that it is a 4.8 regression. You can verify it yourself.
Precisely I cannot, that's why I'm asking:
eric@polaris:~/build/gcc-4_7-branch/native> gcc/xgcc -B
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55149
Bug #: 55149
Summary: capturing VLA in lambda (error in 4.7.2 ICE in 4.8
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55142
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu 2012-10-31 13:10:02
UTC ---
-maddress-mode=long is new in 4.8. GCC 4.7 only implements
-maddress-mode=long equivalent.
I backported -maddress-mode=long to hjl/x32/gcc-4_7-branch branch:
http://gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49263
--- Comment #20 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-31
13:47:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Another thing I've noticed...
> Cases such as:
>
> mov.l r0,@r2! LS
> mov r13,r0! MT
> and #7,r0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50899
--- Comment #1 from Tom Tromey 2012-10-31 14:55:29
UTC ---
Author: tromey
Date: Wed Oct 31 14:55:20 2012
New Revision: 193036
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193036
Log:
PR other/50899
* doc/gcc.texi: Ad
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53708
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55147
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55147
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak 2012-10-31 15:47:46
UTC ---
> can fix the reg overlap problem between address of operands[1] and high part
> of
> operands[0]. That said, I wonder what is the advantage of having bswapdi2
> patter on i?86
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55147
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-10-31
16:07:11 UTC ---
For the testcase from this PR it creates better assembly actually (compared to
with the #c1 patch, without that it is both longer and wrong). That is because
when bswapdi is sp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
--- Comment #6 from benoit.barbot at gmail dot com 2012-10-31 16:31:37 UTC ---
I try the same file but on a different computer with a newer version of gcc(gcc
(Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5) 4.6.3) with the same problem:
>g++ buggcc.ii
g++: erreur
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55150
Bug #: 55150
Summary: Crash in copy_rtx
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20121031 (experimental) [trunk revision 193038] (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-10-31 16:45:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I try the same file but on a different computer with a newer version of
> gcc(gcc
> (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5) 4.6.3) with the same problem:
> >g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50899
Tom Tromey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55134
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2012-10-31
17:22:36 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Oct 31 17:22:26 2012
New Revision: 193041
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193041
Log:
2012-10-31 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55134
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55150
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov 2012-10-31
18:41:26 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Oct 31 18:41:18 2012
New Revision: 193042
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193042
Log:
2012-10-31 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46309
eidletni at mail dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54583
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-31 19:14:44 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Oct 31 19:14:39 2012
New Revision: 193043
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193043
Log:
/cp
2012-10-31 Paolo Carlin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54583
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
eidletni at mail dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #14
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54989
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.6.4, 4.7.3, 4.8.0
Known to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55117
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55151
Bug #: 55151
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE: in assign_by_spills, at
lra-assigns.c:1217 with -fPIC
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54942
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka 2012-10-31 20:02:56
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Does it still happen? I don't see oom now for my test
I can't reproduce it anymore.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55152
Bug #: 55152
Summary: MAX_EXPR(a,-a) is really ABS_EXPR(a)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55152
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-10-31
20:18:58 UTC ---
Only if you ignore signed zeros and maybe even NaNs.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55153
Bug #: 55153
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE: in begin_move_insn, at
sched-ebb.c:205 with -fsched2-use-superblocks and
__builtin_prefetch
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55154
Bug #: 55154
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE: in curr_insn_transform, at
lra-constraints.c:2702 with custom flags
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55104
--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka 2012-10-31 20:52:04
UTC ---
Created attachment 28585
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28585
preprocessed source (quite reduced)
Probably the same source
Compiler output:
$ gcc -O2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55152
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-31 21:14:12
UTC ---
Ignoring signed zeros, sure, that's also required to generate a MAX_EXPR in the
first place. NaNs, I don't know, it sounds to me like they have an effect on
generating a MAX_EXPR,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35310
--- Comment #2 from davidxl 2012-10-31 21:17:27
UTC ---
GCC is still not generating good code here, neither does ICC.
However LLVM does a good job here.
David
(In reply to comment #1)
> Confirmed. Looks like something for post
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55152
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-31 21:27:27
UTC ---
Actually, looking at the doc of MAX_EXPR in tree.def (nothing in generic.texi),
we don't even need to ignore signed zeros to turn MAX_EXPR into ABS_EXPR:
/* Minimum and maximum
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55155
Bug #: 55155
Summary: Autovectorization does not use unaligned loads/stores
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55018
--- Comment #10 from Steven Bosscher 2012-10-31
21:37:22 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Wed Oct 31 21:37:10 2012
New Revision: 193047
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193047
Log:
gcc/
PR tree-optimization/55018
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55156
Bug #: 55156
Summary: internal compiler error in lambda function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55155
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-10-31
21:44:20 UTC ---
:
_19 = num_prods_6(D) * 16;
if (_19 != 0)
goto ;
else
goto ;
:
return;
:
_16 = ASSERT_EXPR <_19, _19 != 0>;
...
if (_16 <= 4)
goto ;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55157
Bug #: 55157
Summary: Missing VRP
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55151
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55156
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54431
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||icegood1980 at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25466
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55158
Bug #: 55158
Summary: ICE: [4.8 Regreesion] [IA64] segv in schedule_region
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53718
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-31 21:56:00 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Oct 31 21:55:50 2012
New Revision: 193048
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193048
Log:
2012-10-31 Janus Weil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55149
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55153
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53718
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8 regression] [OOP] |[4.7 regression] [OOP]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55154
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53988
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo 2012-10-31 22:08:42
UTC ---
There was a typo in the PR number when committing the patch for this issue.
This is the original commit message that accidentally ended up in PR 54988:
Author: olegendo
Date: Tue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54988
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54431
--- Comment #4 from icegood1980 at gmail dot com
2012-10-31 22:26:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Gcc also doesn't crash if the lambda line is changed to
>
> [this]{this->bar();}();
>
> Although the resulting program does.
Of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46309
--- Comment #13 from rdsandiford at googlemail dot com 2012-10-31 22:36:48 UTC ---
"eidletni at mail dot ru" writes:
> Cool, thank you!
+1, thanks Jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55115
--- Comment #11 from Pierre Poissinger
2012-10-31 22:46:07 UTC ---
Created attachment 28588
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28588
Don't treat missing headers as fatal error if only preproc
Following patch allows prep
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54938
--- Comment #6 from eraman at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-31 23:28:52 UTC ---
Author: eraman
Date: Wed Oct 31 23:28:45 2012
New Revision: 193052
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193052
Log:
2012-10-31 Easwaran Raman
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54957
--- Comment #20 from eraman at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-31 23:28:52 UTC ---
Author: eraman
Date: Wed Oct 31 23:28:45 2012
New Revision: 193052
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193052
Log:
2012-10-31 Easwaran Raman
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54963
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo 2012-11-01 00:01:13
UTC ---
Kaz, can we close this PR?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54546
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo 2012-11-01 00:03:11
UTC ---
Even though simple_return is not supported on SHmedia, is it OK to close this
PR?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54963
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55158
--- Comment #1 from Gary Funck 2012-11-01 00:15:54
UTC ---
Some additional debugging information.
In sched_rgn_init(), the bb_state array is initialized.
3049{
3050 bb_state_array = (char *) xmalloc (last_basic_block
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55159
Bug #: 55159
Summary: pythy constexpr auto lambda pointer has no initializer
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55158
--- Comment #2 from Gary Funck 2012-11-01 00:35:41
UTC ---
I tried making the change suggested in the previous comment and ran into a
segfault here:
5876dump_new_block_header (0, *target_bb, head, tail);
5877
5878 if (init
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52718
Matthew Woehlke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mw_triad at users dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25466
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52718
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-01
01:28:26 UTC ---
I can't reproduce in mainline and 4_7-branch. This is what I tried:
a.h:
#pragma GCC system_header
void* fun(void* a = 0);
a.C:
#include "a.h"
int main()
{
fun(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55110
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55160
Bug #: 55160
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Counterproductive loop induction
variable optimization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53708
--- Comment #14 from Peter Bergner 2012-11-01
02:48:10 UTC ---
Author: bergner
Date: Thu Nov 1 02:48:07 2012
New Revision: 193058
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193058
Log:
2012-10-31 Jakub Jelinek
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55160
--- Comment #1 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
2012-11-01 06:28:14 UTC ---
Author: amylaar
Date: Thu Nov 1 06:28:06 2012
New Revision: 193060
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193060
Log:
PR target/55160
100 matches
Mail list logo
