http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57073
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57071
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2013-04-26
07:07:22 UTC ---
As James Van Buskirk pointed out, the algorithm will fail if k < 0. Thus, he
suggests, which gives the expected result:
1 - ISHFT(IAND(K,1),1)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57073
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57071
--- Comment #4 from Joost VandeVondele
2013-04-26 07:12:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> As James Van Buskirk pointed out, the algorithm will fail if k < 0.
note that in the case of k being a loop index, there will be pretty good r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57071
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2013-04-26
07:26:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> 1 - ISHFT(IAND(K,1),1)
For the real version Jakub suspects that (k & 1) ? -1.0 : 1.0 is faster than
the mod/convert to float/subtraction or the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57079
Bug #: 57079
Summary: [Fortran-dev] version/type/attribute fields not set
with CLASS components
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: fortran-dev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57079
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57077
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43847
Joern Clausen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joern.clausen@uni-bielefeld
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57064
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-04-26
08:12:36 UTC ---
That will also work if you return an rvalue, not an rvalue reference, and will
be safe against accidental misuse.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57075
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56866
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-26
09:00:42 UTC ---
Created attachment 29944
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29944
gcc49-pr56866.patch
The fix for gcc.c-torture/execute/pr51581* and pr53645.c etc. is quite
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57071
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener 2013-04-26
09:16:41 UTC ---
Note that for the (-1.0)**k case __builtin_powif (-1.0e+0, k) should be
perfectly fine for the middle-end. _gfortran_pow_i4_i4 (-1, k) is of
course unfortunate and should be o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57038
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška 2013-04-26
09:23:58 UTC ---
So the symbol is really external :
c++filt:
std::_Tuple_impl<0ul, int const&>::_Tuple_impl()
dump_symbol_node:
_ZNSt11_Tuple_implILm0EIRKiEEC1Ev/279814 (__comp_ctor ) @0x7fd6b26766f0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56926
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57076
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab 2013-04-26 10:15:31
UTC ---
The rule to generate gcc-vers.texi needs to replace @ by @@ when writing out
the definition of srcdir.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57075
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57080
Bug #: 57080
Summary: Invalid optimization (-O2) when doing double -> int
conversion (on big endian archs(?))
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57080
--- Comment #1 from Ondřej Surý 2013-04-26 10:27:30
UTC ---
Created attachment 29945
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29945
Generated from gd.c, affected code is in clip_1d function
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55708
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler
2013-04-26 10:37:55 UTC ---
gcc 4.9.0 20130421 (experimental) accepts the code on my system (64-bit mingw).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57075
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek 2013-04-26
10:54:45 UTC ---
Ok, I think I reduced this issue to this:
/* PR tree-optimization/57075 */
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-O2" } */
extern int baz (void) __attribute__ ((returns
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57080
--- Comment #2 from Ondřej Surý 2013-04-26 11:04:19
UTC ---
Maybe I should have said "inconsistent" and this might be related to:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27394
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57075
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek 2013-04-26
11:23:13 UTC ---
b.c: In function ‘bar’:
b.c:17:1: error: control flow in the middle of basic block 2
:
_5 = __builtin_printf ("$");
D.1727 = _5;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57075
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener 2013-04-26
11:25:38 UTC ---
Ok, that's because printf is considered a possible caller of longjmp but
inlining doesn't split the block before handling the return.
We need to possibly split blocks depende
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57075
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener 2013-04-26
11:34:35 UTC ---
Generally fixup_cfg () is used for this kind of needed adjustments.
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: antoine.balest...@gmail.com
Using GCC 4.9.0 as of 20130426 :
$ cat seg.c
int a;
void f(void)
{
int b;
if(0)
lbl:
goto lbl;
if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57080
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson 2013-04-26
11:49:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 29946
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29946
test case
I can reproduce the issue on m68k: with the attached test case I get 4 on
m6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54648
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55708
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-26
11:52:30 UTC ---
Thanks Daniel. I'm going to add the testcase and close the PR as fixed for
4.9.0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43745
Côme David changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d.come at isae dot fr
--- Comment #7 from C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57081
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57081
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener 2013-04-26
12:00:08 UTC ---
Happens via max_loop_iterations called from finite_loop_p called from DCE.
It expects loop_optimizer_finalize to free them - which is probably a
good assumption. I'll fix it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57075
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek 2013-04-26
12:03:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Ok, that's because printf is considered a possible caller of longjmp but
> inlining doesn't split the block before handling the return.
IIUC, stmt_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56866
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29944|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57075
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de
2013-04-26 12:11:07 UTC ---
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57075
>
> --- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek 2013-04-26
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55708
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56732
gretay at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gretay at gcc dot gnu.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57080
--- Comment #4 from Ondřej Surý 2013-04-26 12:32:20
UTC ---
Yeah, I just came to same conclusion by reading further (PR9325), that it's not
related to PR27394, because we are not hitting the boundaries of the conversion
type.
I understand that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57003
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57051
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57045
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57064
--- Comment #16 from Thiago Macieira 2013-04-26
13:45:35 UTC ---
Thanks for the hint.
However, returning an rvalue, even if moved-onto, will generate code for the
destructor. It's not a matter of efficiency, just of code size.
Anyway,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56958
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57082
Bug #: 57082
Summary: brace initialization requires public destructor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57083
Bug #: 57083
Summary: Wrong constant folding
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56958
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-26
14:23:27 UTC ---
Well, you aren't using spurious, are you? Because t + spurious... expands to
nothing.
If mark_exp_read isn't called while processing_template_decl because the
expression is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56958
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-26
14:30:29 UTC ---
I agree, looks like warning is fine...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57083
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57084
Bug #: 57084
Summary: 483. xalancbmk run fails with -O2 -flto for i686
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56949
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56450
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gessos.paul at yahoo dot gr
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57080
Ondřej Surý changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
Ondřej Surý changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ondrej at sury dot org
--- Comment #190 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56450
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57080
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski 2013-04-26
16:11:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I swear I have read the (non) bugs section before reporting the bug. Anyway
> it's do damn confusing that the result can be different on different
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57083
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57080
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56535
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2013-04-26
17:25:27 UTC ---
The test gfortran.dg/class_array_3.f03 has started to give the same ICE when
compiled -fsanitize=address for a revision between 195931 (2013-02-10: OK) and
196108 (2013-0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57003
--- Comment #22 from Kirill Smirnov
2013-04-26 17:50:07 UTC ---
Confirming: the attached patch fixes the problem with wine.
Thank you!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57018
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.2, 4.9.0
Summary|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57046
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.2, 4.9.0
Summary|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56903
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56847
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regression]|[4.8 Regression] '-fpie'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56746
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56742
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57085
Bug #: 57085
Summary: Segmentation Fault when building a c file
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56953
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56955
davidxl at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davidxl at google dot c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56814
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56968
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-26 19:31:41 UTC ---
Fixed on the 4.8 branch with:
Author: janus
Date: Fri Apr 26 19:20:55 2013
New Revision: 198345
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198345&root=gcc&view=rev
L
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57022
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-26 19:35:31 UTC ---
Fixed on the 4.8 branch with:
Author: janus
Date: Fri Apr 26 19:20:55 2013
New Revision: 198345
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198345&root=gcc&view=rev
L
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57086
Bug #: 57086
Summary: Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines
re-entered.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57086
--- Comment #1 from madars+gccbug at gmail dot com 2013-04-26 20:48:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 29949
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29949
triggering code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57087
Bug #: 57087
Summary: make failed: libmpfr not found or uses a different
ABI
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57086
--- Comment #2 from madars+gccbug at gmail dot com 2013-04-26 21:20:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 29951
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29951
pre-processed source file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56968
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57022
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56953
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-26
22:37:20 UTC ---
Yes, and the released 4.8.0 and current 4_8-branch also works for me. I think
we can close the issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57086
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53685
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57088
Bug #: 57088
Summary: Post-reload instruction splitting clobbers live
register
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57088
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57088
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Status|UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54349
--- Comment #4 from Ondrej Bilka 2013-04-27 01:06:45
UTC ---
I found that AMD Bulldozer optimization guide states that moves from xmm to
GPR register should be done directly:"
10.4 Moving Data Between General-Purpose and XMM/YMM Registe
84 matches
Mail list logo
