http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57653
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Allan McRae from comment #6)
> I have also confirmed this issue on Fedora rawhide.
>
> gcc 4.8.1 20130603 (Red Hat 4.8.1-1)
What I would do to investigate this issue is to put a breakpoint
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57651
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53126
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57584
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
niter analysis computes
(((unsigned long) sp_35(ab) - (unsigned long) (sp_3(ab) + 8)) + 7) / 8))
which the vectorizer inserts, obviously breaking coalescing of sp_35 and sp_3.
It's expand_simple_operations
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57633
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
The problem seems to be
2012finish_list_read (st_parameter_dt *dtp)
...
2019 if (dtp->u.p.at_eol)
2020{
2021 dtp->u.p.at_eol = 0;
2022 return;
2023}
2024
2025 e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57518
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57656
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57655
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57633
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
Patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-06/msg00109.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57408
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55867
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56169
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Any progress?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54096
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57292
--- Comment #1 from Ellis N. Thomas
---
It also failed during installation with errors for libitm.la, equivalent
to the failures during build runtime libraries:
bash> make install &> ../logs/makeinst-1.log
Log file ended with:
ld: warnin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43899
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34928
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
No activity for over three years. I'll close it as WONTFIX in a few days if
nobody care anymore.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35707
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57584
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56982
Bug 56982 depends on bug 57584, which changed state.
Bug 57584 Summary: [4.9 Regression] ice: SSA corruption: Unable to coalesce
ssa_names
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57584
What|Removed |Added
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43899
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|WONTFIX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57639
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51790
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35707
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Depends on|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57639
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Btw, the following variant ...
implicit none
class(*) :: t1, t2
print *, SAME_TYPE_AS (t1, t2)
end
... gives a different backtrace:
f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
0x8a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49423
jules at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jules at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr/local --program-suffix=-4.9
--enable-languages=c,c++,lto
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130620 (experimental) (GCC)
$ g++-4.9 -std=c++11 src/parser.cpp.1.ii
../../src/parser.cpp: In instantiation of
'pomdp::parsed_POMDP<_POMD
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40756
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57658
--- Comment #1 from Takaki Makino ---
It seems that the attachment file size was 1000.3KB and rejected by bugzilla.
Anyway please download preprocessed source from the URL above.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57633
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Jun 20 10:55:03 2013
New Revision: 200238
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=200238&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-06-20 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/57633
* io/list_rea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57633
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57639
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57488
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
-fno-tree-partial-pre fixes this, partial PRE figures that v on entry to the
l loop is invariant in the outer loop. Thus it does
tem = v;
for (k = 1; k >= 0; k--)
{
int l;
bar (0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57659
Bug ID: 57659
Summary: Failure in installing documentation of gcc-4.7.2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57658
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57659
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ellis N. Thomas from comment #0)
> 4 Information about the build state
[...]
> 6 Summary of Bugs
What happened to chapter 5? :)
> 6.2 Extra Information
>
> If extra information about th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57602
--- Comment #2 from Igor Zamyatin ---
For both cases we have calls of static routines where address of some static
variable is being passed.
Since all this could be seen only for 32 bits, problem looks like some
attribute which allows the routine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57488
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
The fun thing is that this is a regular partial redundancy but requires
an earlier partial partial redundancy elimination to be performed.
So what happens is that
int v;
void foo (int n)
{
int i, j;
for
//gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30325&action=edit
forwprop-28.c.022t.forwprop1
Executing on host: /daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20130620/Build/gcc/xgcc
-B/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20130620/Build/gcc/
/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20130620/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-28.c
-fno-diagn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57661
Bug ID: 57661
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in verify_ssa
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57662
Bug ID: 57662
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in
code_motion_process_successors with -fschedule-insns2
-fselective-scheduling2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40756
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Let's reopen. I want to add a TREE_BLOCK for (module) global variables
> for namelists, cf. PR37132. Those would be used by the BE/LTO.
I don't this is related to this PR.
> Still, that's the oppor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35707
--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to Daniel Franke from comment #13)
> > Yes, I think that this text needs an update.
>
> I concur that we - still - need a better documentation on this.
> It's rel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43899
--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #15)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #12)
> > Remaining [...] is to warn on an unused namelist. I think this will involve
> > marking namelists as use
-linux/powerpc64-bgq-linux//bin
--with-sbin=/bgsys/drivers/ppcfloor//gnu-linux/powerpc64-bgq-linux//sbin
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130620 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57660
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Assignee
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57518
wmi at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57660
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
We've got two choices here.
First is to somehow make the number of replacements we look for be conditional
on the target. For targets with an appropriate branch cost (such as m68K)
we'll see 2X the number o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57663
Bug ID: 57663
Summary: Arithmetic error with -fPIC -O
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57663
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57660
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52351
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56674
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57307
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56806
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56818
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50536
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55765
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46783
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57208
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
I did a small workaround for ELF overflow: --param lto-partitions=64.
Following errors were met:
`_ZN10disk_cache15SimpleEntryImpl17WriteDataInternalEiiPN3net8IOBufferEiRKN4base8CallbackIFviEEEb'
referenced i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57208
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
Looks like ld.gold has a problem with large amount of files:
FAILED: flock linker.lock g++ -Wl,-z,now -Wl,-z,relro -pthread
-Wl,-z,noexecstack -fPIC -pie -L. -flto=9 -fno-fat-lto-objects -O2 --param
lto-parti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57208
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
I created a bug for gold linker in binutils bugzilla:
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15660
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57664
Bug ID: 57664
Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE: in
should_move_die_to_comdat, at dwarf2out.c:6750 with
-fdebug-types-section and lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46641
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46641
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> This is the case up to revision 197010 (2013-03-23), but the code is
> accepted after revision 197550 (2013-04-07). Can this PR be closed as FIXED?
Likely revision 197053.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50536
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|kargl at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50536
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #4 from Dominique
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45824
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57637
--- Comment #3 from zhenqiang.chen at linaro dot org ---
Created attachment 30330
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30330&action=edit
pr57637.patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57637
--- Comment #4 from zhenqiang.chen at linaro dot org ---
Root cause:
For ARM, gcc might generate cond_exec insns before shrink-wrapping. But
DF_LR_BB_INFO (bb)->def does not include def info from cond_exec insns. So the
check in function move_insn
69 matches
Mail list logo
