http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57107
Bug #: 57107
Summary: tree check fail in unlink_stmt_vdef
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57106
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57105
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57107
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman 2013-04-29
08:08:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 29969
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29969
gzipped C++ source code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57103
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57102
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57100
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57089
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57083
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57073
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2013-04-29
08:40:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> patch that fails
The Fortran patch of the attachments looks fine, except for:
+ one = gfc_copy_expr (op1);
+ gfc_free_expr (op1);
+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54349
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org |ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57107
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57081
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57108
Bug #: 57108
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9] SH internal compiler error: in
int_mode_for_mode, at stor-layout.c:395
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57105
--- Comment #1 from Andrey Belevantsev 2013-04-29
09:18:26 UTC ---
Does the patch from http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56957#c9 fixes
your issue?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39290
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56981
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2013-04-29
09:34:58 UTC ---
Author: jb
Date: Mon Apr 29 08:42:00 2013
New Revision: 198390
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=198390&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 56981 Improve unbuffered performance on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56981
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2013-04-29
09:36:04 UTC ---
Follow-up idea regarding the flushing of when the buffer is full to avoid
unnecessary seeks: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-04/msg00258.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57105
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57109
Bug #: 57109
Summary: ice tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:12171
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57105
--- Comment #3 from Andrey Belevantsev 2013-04-29
09:40:11 UTC ---
Fine, I've tested it on ia64 and got an offline approval from Alexander, I'd
need to test on x86-64 and commit then.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57104
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57109
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57110
Bug #: 57110
Summary: is the use of "uint_fast32_t" in intentional?
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57109
--- Comment #2 from wd11 at leicester dot ac.uk 2013-04-29 10:28:13 UTC ---
Created attachment 29971
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29971
file generated via g++ -E and gzip
compressed because pre-processor output wa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57110
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39290
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin 2013-04-29
10:59:51 UTC ---
The following excerpt from gfc_compare_interfaces(interface.c) seems to be the
cause of 'qc' being called:
if (s1->attr.function && s2->attr.function)
{
/* If
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54349
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54349
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
--- Comment #8 from Uros Bi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54349
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57104
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek 2013-04-29
11:14:00 UTC ---
Happens since beginning of tsan; thus http://gcc.gnu.org/r193736
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57089
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57110
--- Comment #2 from vincenzo Innocente
2013-04-29 11:47:54 UTC ---
Understood.
The question should than be escalated to the c++ standard committee
In my opinion the use of a 32-bit unsigned int as storage and return type for a
mersenne_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57110
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-29
11:50:40 UTC ---
Send an email to your colleague Walter Brown @ FNAL, I'm sure he is interested.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57108
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57097
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57111
Bug #: 57111
Summary: Core dump - invalid pointer detected after
std::unique_ptr
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39290
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2013-04-29
12:40:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> There are a quite a few problems it seems:
> 1. we rely on s1->attr.function _and_ s2->attr.function being set, which is
> obviously not the case with impl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57112
Bug #: 57112
Summary: -march=x86-64 not documented
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
Sev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54295
Jonas Gorski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jogo at openwrt dot org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57111
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57075
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57112
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57103
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57098
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57113
Bug #: 57113
Summary: cannot resolve function in derived class
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56450
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2013-04-29
14:03:25 UTC ---
Let's put this into 4.8.1 as well; it's completely safe.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57111
--- Comment #2 from jb 2013-04-29 14:04:38 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> That's not how you use unique_ptr.
That's besides the point when you get a dump.
If the proper use of unique_ptr with array is:
unique_ptr up(new int[4]); //
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56450
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-29
14:08:28 UTC ---
Ok.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57111
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-04-29
14:09:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > That's not how you use unique_ptr.
>
> That's besides the point when you get a dump.
No, it's entirely the point,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57113
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57103
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56450
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.0 |4.8.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57114
Bug #: 57114
Summary: wrong information at
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/RANK.html
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Statu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39290
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-29 14:53:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> BTW: When updating this, one can also implement the new Fortran 2008 feature:
> "ALLOCATABLE and POINTER attributes are used in generic reso
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57075
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57098
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57027
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
The same error appears on NetBSD 6.99.19 because __always_inline
is already defined without the inline keyword in sys/cdefs.h.
Including the inline keyword in the macro wouldn't work if the macro
is used at the very end of a declaration like in:
inline void foo (const char) __always_inline;
To co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56866
--- Comment #17 from Winfried Magerl 2013-04-29
16:08:09 UTC ---
Hi Jakub,
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 09:00:42AM +, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56866
>
> --- Comment #14 from J
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57107
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57084
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44578
Teresa Johnson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tejohnson at google dot com
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #21 from dnovillo at google dot com
2013-04-29 16:46:27 UTC ---
On 2013-04-29 11:25 , jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Any progress with this? We'd like to do 4.8.1-rc1 in mid-May, would be nice
> to
> have this resolved til
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57067
--- Comment #4 from gretay at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-29 16:58:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 29974
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29974
testcase
The attached test case fails for arm-none-eabi on trunk, caused by r1980
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46250
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2013-04-29 17:09:22
UTC ---
TLS ABI only covers the small model. There is no demand to
extend TLS ABI to support medium/large models.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44578
--- Comment #8 from Uros Bizjak 2013-04-29 17:13:30
UTC ---
Please try following patch, it fixes the testcase for me (note "!" for ?*y
alternative):
--cut here--
Index: i386.md
==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44578
--- Comment #9 from Teresa Johnson 2013-04-29
17:24:42 UTC ---
It does fix the issue I had in this test case. But theoretically can't
this pattern still generate an MMX reference in some cases? And I see
other instances of the same constra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44578
--- Comment #10 from Uros Bizjak 2013-04-29 17:37:03
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> It does fix the issue I had in this test case. But theoretically can't
> this pattern still generate an MMX reference in some cases? And I see
> other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57114
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57114
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57104
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Version|4.9.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57085
--- Comment #11 from Mikael Pettersson 2013-04-29
19:30:35 UTC ---
I can't reproduce the ICE with a cross to arm-linux-androideabi either.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57077
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57115
Bug #: 57115
Summary: Cannot merge separate single counters for function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57116
Bug #: 57116
Summary: ICE for pointer assignment inside SELECT TYPE on UP
entity
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57117
Bug #: 57117
Summary: ICE for sourced allocation of a UP entity that uses
the transpose intrinsic
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57115
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2013-04-29
20:16:36 UTC ---
Profiling is still not thread safe.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57118
Bug #: 57118
Summary: g++.dg/debug/* tests fail on MIPS due to micromips
checkin, scan-assembler pattern needs update
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57085
--- Comment #12 from synergye at codefi dot re 2013-04-29 21:13:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I can't reproduce the ICE with a cross to arm-linux-androideabi either.
Strange. I've had others test and reproduce it as well. This see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57117
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57116
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56937
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53265
--- Comment #27 from Paul Pluzhnikov 2013-04-29
23:18:29 UTC ---
Here is a reduced test case in which g++ (GCC) 4.9.0 20130426 (experimental)
produces infinite loop with -O2 due to aggressive loop optimization, but
doesn't warn (making the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57119
Bug #: 57119
Summary: libstdc++-6.dll missed in default gcc 4.8 build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57120
Bug #: 57120
Summary: Plain C link with libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll which not needed
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57098
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57098
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44578
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44578
--- Comment #12 from Teresa Johnson 2013-04-30
05:43:06 UTC ---
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:37 AM, ubizjak at gmail dot com
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44578
>
> --- Comment #10 from Uros Bizjak 2013-04-29
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44578
--- Comment #13 from Uros Bizjak 2013-04-30 05:53:42
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> I found that due to the header file structure I cannot use -mno-mmx in
> certain cases - i.e. when including the STL header file
> and compiling w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44578
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53265
--- Comment #28 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-30
06:07:23 UTC ---
The warning is only printed if the loop has a single exit and known constant
iteration count without the undefined behavior analysis, and when the warning
is printed, we don't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53265
--- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-30
06:45:54 UTC ---
If you want another testcase which doesn't warn and is optimized based on the
assumption that undefined behavior doesn't occur, then say:
http://blog.regehr.org/archives/918#co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56999
Evangelos Foutras changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||evangelos at foutrelis dot
96 matches
Mail list logo
