http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56049
Bug #: 56049
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Simplification to constants not done
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56049
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Tar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56049
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2013-01-20
10:32:18 UTC ---
This occurred between revisions 193542 (2012-11-15) and 193573 (2012-11-16).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56050
Bug #: 56050
Summary: g++ compiler confused with virtual functions.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56047
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56047
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56044
--- Comment #5 from Dimitris Papavasiliou
2013-01-20 11:09:57 UTC ---
Actually trying out -Wno-shadow indicates that it doesn't make any difference
in this case. The compiler keeps complaining about the instance variable being
hidden by t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56047
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-20 11:30:08 UTC ---
Btw, while the ICE is obviously a 4.8 regression, 4.6 and 4.7 are not much more
helpful, either:
if (template%type_string () == name) return
1
Error: Oper
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56047
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres 2013-01-20
11:35:59 UTC ---
> Btw, while the ICE is obviously a 4.8 regression, 4.6 and 4.7 are not much
> more
> helpful, either:
>
> if (template%type_string () == name) return
> 1
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56047
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-20 11:36:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Btw, while the ICE is obviously a 4.8 regression, 4.6 and 4.7 are not much
> more
> helpful, either:
>
> if (template%type_string () == n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56050
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56047
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-20 11:45:22 UTC ---
Note that the patch from PR 55984 comment 4 fixes the ICE for both comment 0
and comment 3. This brings comment 3 to the same error message one gets with
4.6/4.7, while
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051
Bug #: 56051
Summary: Wrong expression evaluation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56047
--- Comment #9 from Jürgen Reuter 2013-01-20
11:55:31 UTC ---
Janus, long time no see! XD Greetings to my old home state!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56047
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-20 12:05:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Note that the patch from PR 55984 comment 4 fixes the ICE for both comment 0
> and comment 3. This brings comment 3 to the same error messag
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56039
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler
2013-01-20 12:27:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The code uses C++11 lambda expressions in a constant expression context for
> the SFINAE. As far as I can tell, SFINAE should apply since the lambda occurs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54033
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56047
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-20 12:53:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Janus, long time no see! XD
Right! It's been a while since you submitted a bugreport (after all the
procedure pointer bugs had been fixed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56008
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2013-01-20
13:34:52 UTC ---
> Created attachment 29221 [details]
> Fix for this PR and PR 47517
I confirm for this PR. However while the original code of PR 47517 executes
without error it has a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21182
--- Comment #11 from Denis Vlasenko
2013-01-20 14:39:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> 4.4.7 and 4.5.4 generate the same code (no stack use) for -D/-UNAIL_REGS.
> With 4.6.3, the -DNAIL_REGS code regresses very much (IRA ...), the
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55806
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29223|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56052
Bug #: 56052
Summary: [4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE in omp_add_variable, at
gimplify.c:5606
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56052
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2013-01-20
16:31:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 29226
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29226
Failing test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56039
--- Comment #7 from Hubert Tong 2013-01-20 16:45:13
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I wonder why you think this would belong to the "immediate context". Actually
> it seems to me as if the instantiation of the body of a lambda expressio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56053
Bug #: 56053
Summary: FAIL: c-c++-common/asan/(global|stack)-overflow-1.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56053
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56054
Bug #: 56054
Summary: f951: internal compiler error: in gfc_free_namespace,
at fortran/symbol.c:3337
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56052
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55679
--- Comment #20 from Dominique d'Humieres
2013-01-20 16:54:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> I am puzzled as to why this issue with global-overflow-1.c and
> stack-overflow-1.c can't be triggered on x86_64 linux. The obvious change of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56052
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56052
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Tar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56054
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56054
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|f951: internal compiler |[4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56054
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54107
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Morin 2013-01-20
17:31:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 29228
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29228
Not working patch
This patch implements comment #9.
It fails on proc_decl* and proc_ptr* a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56049
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54730
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin 2013-01-20
17:47:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Untested patch:
>
Probably better (still not fully correct):
diff --git a/array.c b/array.c
index 6787c05..1641629 100644
--- a/array.c
+++ b/a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56039
--- Comment #8 from Hubert Tong 2013-01-20 17:50:50
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> That is, whether the "body" of the lambda expression is valid or not valid
> is not affected by unknowns such as what types it would be instantiated wit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50627
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||56054
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56054
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse 2013-01-20 18:09:40
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Untested fix. As the testcase shows, also a widening conversion can be a
> problem, if it extends from signed integral type to wider unsigned one,
> b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50627
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Error recovery: ICE in |[4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55493
Ruben Van Boxem changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vanboxem.ruben at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-20
18:35:20 UTC ---
Yeah, I'm afraid assuming you never do 1 << 31 is going to break simply way too
much code in the wild.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55603
--- Comment #5 from Damian Rouson 2013-01-20
18:59:54 UTC ---
Hi Janus and Tobias,
We're moving toward an internal release of the open-source package that exposed
this bug. Any chance of this being fixed in the near future? The lead
d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55223
--- Comment #2 from ak at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-20 19:03:29 UTC ---
Author: ak
Date: Sun Jan 20 19:03:22 2013
New Revision: 195321
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195321
Log:
libstdc++: Add mem_order_hle_acquire/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55433
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov 2013-01-20
19:10:03 UTC ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Sun Jan 20 19:09:58 2013
New Revision: 195322
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195322
Log:
2013-01-20 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55223
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler
2013-01-20 19:56:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The underlying compiler supports additional __ATOMIC_HLE_ACQUIRE/RELEASE
> memmodel flags for TSX, but this was not exposed to the C++ wrapper.
> Handle it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55223
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-01-20
20:04:30 UTC ---
Typo in the commit, it should be PR 55233
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55233
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-01-20
20:05:03 UTC ---
N.B. The commit for this is attached to PR 55223
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse 2013-01-20 20:17:31
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Yeah, I'm afraid assuming you never do 1 << 31 is going to break simply way
> too
> much code in the wild.
I noticed that clang warns for 1 << 31, a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235
--- Comment #14 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-20
20:35:56 UTC ---
Author: mrs
Date: Sun Jan 20 20:35:48 2013
New Revision: 195326
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195326
Log:
2013-01-20 Jack Howarth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56047
--- Comment #12 from Jürgen Reuter 2013-01-20
22:11:30 UTC ---
Am 20/1/13 1:53 PM, schrieb janus at gcc dot gnu.org:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56047
>
> --- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-20 12:53:40 UTC --
;...Reading symbols for shared
libraries ... done
(gdb) b main
Breakpoint 1 at 0x1eed: file
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc48-4.8.0-1000/gcc-4.8-20130120/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr51447.c,
line 13.
Breakpoint 2 at 0x1ec8: file
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc48-4.8.0-1000/gcc-4.8-20130120/gcc/testsuite/g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56055
Bug #: 56055
Summary: Delete_File won't delete special files
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55233
--- Comment #2 from Andi Kleen 2013-01-21
01:22:14 UTC ---
Oops typo, I'll fix the ChangeLog
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56056
Bug #: 56056
Summary: internal compiler error: in
get_builtin_code_for_version, at
config/i386/i386.c:28686
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56057
Bug #: 56057
Summary: libbacktrace STILL doesn't honor --disable-werror
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55819
lailavrazda1979 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56058
Bug #: 56058
Summary: GCC arm-none-eabi build failure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56059
Bug #: 56059
Summary: SIGSEGV on invalid C++11 code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56060
Bug #: 56060
Summary: ICE on invalid code in type_dependent_expression_p, at
cp/pt.c:19742
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
8.0 20130120 (experimental).
lto1: internal compiler error: in inline_call, at ipa-inline-transform.c:267
0x8367899 inline_call(cgraph_edge*, bool, vec*,
int*, bool)
../../gcc-4.8/gcc/ipa-inline-transform.c:263
0x8357d10 inline_small_functions
../../gcc-4.8/gcc/ipa-inline.c:1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56059
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2013-01-21 06:31:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 29232
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29232
Testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56060
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2013-01-21 06:31:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 29233
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29233
Testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56059
Dmitry Gorbachev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56059
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56060
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56062
Bug #: 56062
Summary: Enhance -fuse-ld= option
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority:
73 matches
Mail list logo
