http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55718
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Krebbel 2013-01-10
08:15:23 UTC ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Thu Jan 10 08:15:07 2013
New Revision: 195078
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195078
Log:
2013-01-10 Andreas Krebbel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55718
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55905
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45076
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-10 08:43:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> With 4.7 I get instead of an ICE just the warning:
Same with curent 4.8 trunk:
dynamic_dispatch_6.f03:66:0: note: Skipping target new_pe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46952
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-10 08:50:51 UTC ---
Further reducing the test case:
module m
type, abstract :: t
contains
procedure(inter), pass, deferred :: foo
end type
contains
subroutine in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55921
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-10
09:25:27 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 10 09:25:12 2013
New Revision: 195080
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195080
Log:
PR tree-optimization/55921
* tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55921
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression]|[4.6/4.7 Regression] Crash
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55933
Bug #: 55933
Summary: Missing attachment download link
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55882
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-10
09:48:41 UTC ---
I have bootstrapped and tested the patch from comment #11 on
sparc64-linux (gcc63 on compile farm) and there were no issues
(actually g++.old-deja/g++.law/operators23.C failed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55934
Bug #: 55934
Summary: [4.8 Regression] LRA inline asm error recovery
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55934
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery, ra
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55932
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55933
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-01-10
10:47:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The best option would be to disable the useless patch viewer.
This gets my vote.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55923
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55929
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32306
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55561
--- Comment #34 from Joost VandeVondele
2013-01-10 11:26:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #33)
> Can you sent it to review? You can also mention that it fixes issue 40362.
I had a closer look at PR40362. Actually, I don't think this pat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55792
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55561
--- Comment #35 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-10
11:37:08 UTC ---
For config/posix it is not that easy, because you can't assume that atomics are
available. You'd need to guard it with #ifdef HAVE_SYNC_BUILTINS and do
something else (nothing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46952
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55792
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29139|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32927
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse 2013-01-10 13:08:43
UTC ---
This has caused quite a bit of confusion lately with people installing ISL
instead of PPL for gcc-4.7.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55792
--- Comment #26 from Richard Biener 2013-01-10
13:42:33 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 10 13:42:27 2013
New Revision: 195084
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195084
Log:
2013-01-10 Richard Biener
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52381
Timo Kreuzer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||timo.kreuzer at reactos dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55792
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29140|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46952
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-10 14:09:54 UTC ---
The following patch is equivalent in functionality to the one in comment 4, but
includes some minor cleanup (and regtests cleanly):
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55792
--- Comment #28 from Richard Biener 2013-01-10
14:11:43 UTC ---
Another possibility lies in DEBUG stmts which we do not consider at all ...
(in the checker, that is).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52381
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab 2013-01-10 14:12:54
UTC ---
Like __atomic_compare_exchange_n?
This will be usual difference of virtual call representation in ia64. The .cp
test is going fine?
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55927
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka 2013-01-10 14:33:48 UTC
---
This will be usual difference of virtual call representation in ia64. The .cp
test is going fine?
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55927
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab 2013-01-10 14:44:20
UTC ---
Yes, it does.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47203
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55833
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener 2013-01-10
15:02:37 UTC ---
By unswitching on an exit test that exits to the enclosing loop we create
an unswitched loop that is now reached by what looks like an exit test
of the outer loop which is part
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47136
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #170 from Jan Hubicka 2013-01-10
15:04:10 UTC ---
OK, here is updated memory use:
cgraph.c:863 (cgraph_allocate_init_indirect_info5905200: 0.1% 0:
0.0%6020160: 0.1% 0: 0.0% 298134
tree.c:1237 (bui
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55345
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55833
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek 2013-01-10
15:11:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> By unswitching on an exit test that exits to the enclosing loop we create
> an unswitched loop that is now reached by what looks like an exit test
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55833
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55833
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55792
--- Comment #29 from Richard Biener 2013-01-10
15:28:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #27)
> Created attachment 29141 [details]
> updated checker
>
> Also verify expressions. Bootstrapped ok, target libs building now, testing
> pending
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55792
--- Comment #30 from Richard Biener 2013-01-10
15:34:39 UTC ---
LTO profiled-bootstrap revals:
/space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/reginfo.c: In function 'reg_scan':
/space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/reginfo.c:1015:0: error: location ref
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44061
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener 2013-01-10
15:35:40 UTC ---
I'm updating and testing the patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55935
Bug #: 55935
Summary: [OOP] Fortran fronted has ADDR_EXPRs of FUNCTION_DECLs
with bogus BLOCK
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Statu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49213
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-10 15:46:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> I want to emphasize again that the error I wanted to report was that gfortran
> is rejecting valid structure constructor expressions (see com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55935
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49213
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-10 16:06:51 UTC ---
In fact one also gets an ICE when replacing "class(S)" with "type(S)" in
comment 8 (already with an unpatched gfortran):
type :: S
integer :: n
end type
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55935
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2013-01-10
16:25:05 UTC ---
For the test gfortran.dg/class_array_15.f03, the ICE is triggered by the
statement:
allocate(b%cBh(1),source=defaultBhC)
(note that the test compiles with -fno-whol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55935
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55927
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52448
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-10
16:49:26 UTC ---
Any progress with this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55936
Bug #: 55936
Summary: Missed VRP optimization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55683
--- Comment #15 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-10
16:58:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> The acutal ICE should be fixed. Martinj, I will leave the PR open
> just to make you to double check that ipa-cp is doing properly the
> translati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55792
--- Comment #31 from H.J. Lu 2013-01-10 17:03:13
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #30)
> LTO profiled-bootstrap revals:
>
> /space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/reginfo.c: In function 'reg_scan':
> /space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/reginfo.c:1015:0:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55899
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55929
--- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak 2013-01-10 17:30:36
UTC ---
Patch in testing:
Index: i386.md
===
--- i386.md (revision 195063)
+++ i386.md (working copy)
@@ -1801
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55935
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2013-01-10
17:35:13 UTC ---
> (note that the test compiles with -fno-whole-file;-).
To be honest, this is not true for the other failing tests. Reduced
typebound_operator_8.f03
! { dg-do compi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55565
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez 2013-01-10
17:46:39 UTC ---
I compared the code generated by trunk with the generated code in rev 190339
which broke the test. The trunk code is more optimal than when the test
"passed", so I suggest eit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55927
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55565
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2013-01-10
17:53:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Bottom line, on trunk we avoid a branch and memory load/stores.
I agree the code is much better now. Only moving between the fpr and gpr where
nee
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55488
--- Comment #1 from wmi at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-10 17:57:40 UTC ---
Author: wmi
Date: Thu Jan 10 17:57:34 2013
New Revision: 195092
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195092
Log:
2013-01-10 Wei Mi
libsanitize
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55264
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor 2013-01-10
18:02:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> > Let me look into those...
>
> Try the patch I attached to PR45375
>
I have updated to revision 195082 which I understand already has it
and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55264
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27338
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54139
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55792
--- Comment #32 from H.J. Lu 2013-01-10 19:36:08
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #30)
> LTO profiled-bootstrap revals:
>
> /space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/reginfo.c: In function 'reg_scan':
> /space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/reginfo.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55929
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-10 19:49:34 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Jan 10 19:49:17 2013
New Revision: 195094
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195094
Log:
PR target/55929
* config
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55929
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55672
--- Comment #10 from Uros Bizjak 2013-01-10 20:23:49
UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Jan 10 20:07:55 2013
New Revision: 195095
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195095
Log:
2013-01-10 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55565
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez 2013-01-10
20:28:33 UTC ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Thu Jan 10 20:28:26 2013
New Revision: 195097
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195097
Log:
PR target/55565
* gcc.target/p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55565
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49213
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-10 20:39:58 UTC ---
The following patch makes comment 8 and 9 compile, but I'm not sure if the
generated code is correct:
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55934
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55721
--- Comment #14 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-01-10 21:32:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Here is another testcase that looks different then the others, it is cutdown
> from newlib/libm/math/k_rem_pio2.c.
>
> % cat bug3.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55937
Bug #: 55937
Summary: lto hides possible link issues
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55937
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2013-01-10
21:47:29 UTC ---
I think this is really invalid and the check (autoconf) should be changed
instead. What is happening is f is known to be used outside of the program.
If f is marked as externa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
Sriraman Tallam changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard.guenther at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54300
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
Summary|[4.7/4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55935
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2013-01-10
22:35:06 UTC ---
Shorter test case for gfortran.dg/typebound_operator_*:
module i_field_module
implicit none
type :: i_field
integer :: i
end type
contains
function i_p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55935
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2013-01-10
23:10:39 UTC ---
> Note that if the 'class's are replaced with 'type's, the program compiles.
The assert also triggers if
class(i_field) ,intent(in) :: lhs
is replaced with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55938
Bug #: 55938
Summary: g++.dg/asan/deep-stack-uaf-1.C fails at r195092 on
darwin
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55938
Kostya Serebryany changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
81 matches
Mail list logo
