[Bug fortran/25708] [F95] Module loading is not good at all

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25708 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #23 from Dominique

Re: confirm unsubscribe from gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org

On 2013-06-24 09:11, gcc-bugs-h...@gcc.gnu.org wrote: Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list. To confirm that you would like joop.boo...@boonen.org removed from the gcc-bugs mailing list, please send an empty reply to this address: gcc-bugs-uc.13

[Bug c++/57693] New: The program logically failed in case of used "int b += b++"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57693 Bug ID: 57693 Summary: The program logically failed in case of used "int b += b++" Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major Pr

[Bug c++/57693] The program logically failed in case of used "int b += b++"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57693 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/57694] New: [c++11] constexpr constructor do not work with const address of own member

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57694 Bug ID: 57694 Summary: [c++11] constexpr constructor do not work with const address of own member Product: gcc Version: 4.8.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norma

[Bug c++/57694] [c++11] constexpr constructor do not work with const address of own member

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57694 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/57693] The program logically failed in case of used "int b += b++"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57693 --- Comment #2 from Vladimir --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > Both: > b += b++; > And > d += d++; > > are undefined what value b and d is going to be as there are no sequence > point intbetween the two assignments. > >

[Bug c/57653] filename information discarded when using -imacros

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57653 --- Comment #14 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Allan McRae from comment #13) > The file "/usr/include/stdc-predef.h" is from glibc (v2.17 on Arch) and is > specifically mentioned as being preincluded in > http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/port

[Bug c++/57695] New: [c++11] generalized attributes with avr __progmem__

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57695 Bug ID: 57695 Summary: [c++11] generalized attributes with avr __progmem__ Product: gcc Version: 4.8.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug c++/57693] The program logically failed in case of used "int b += b++"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57693 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 f

[Bug c++/57695] [c++11] generalized attributes with avr __progmem__

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57695 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 f

[Bug fortran/52413] Incorrect behavior of FRACTION when applied to a constant

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52413 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #14

[Bug fortran/52413] Incorrect behavior of FRACTION when applied to a constant

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52413 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/57695] [c++11] generalized attributes with avr __progmem__

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57695 Klaus Rudolph changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/57693] The program logically failed in case of used "int b += b++"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57693 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug fortran/57696] New: Defined assignment for components not used when those are ALLOCATABLE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57696 Bug ID: 57696 Summary: Defined assignment for components not used when those are ALLOCATABLE Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: wrong-code

[Bug rtl-optimization/57518] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Redundant insn generated in LRA

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57518 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.9.0 |4.8.2 Summary|[4.9 Regression

[Bug tree-optimization/57488] [4.9 regression] loop terminates early at -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57488 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/57696] Defined assignment for components not used when those are ALLOCATABLE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57696 --- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus --- >From Fortran 2008, "7.2.1.3 Interpretation of intrinsic assignments", paragraph 13 (excerpt): "For a noncoarray allocatable component the following sequence of operations is applied. (1) If the component of

[Bug c++/57208] Latest chromium compilation fails with enabled LTO

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57208 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug go/57689] [4.8 Regression] ICE (segfault) building libgo on ia64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57689 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.8.2

[Bug testsuite/57686] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr57584.c with -m32

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57686 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug tree-optimization/57685] [4.8/4.9 Regression] GCC stuck in an infinite loop

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57685 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/57676] [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE: Maximum number of LRA constraint passes is achieved (30)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57676 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-* Status|

[Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||oliverst at online dot de --- Comment #191

[Bug target/57669] Incorrect floating point values with 32-bit compile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57669 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/57696] Defined assignment for components not used when those are ALLOCATABLE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57696 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug other/57668] Regression in vectorizing memcpy pattern.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57668 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug debug/57664] [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE: in should_move_die_to_comdat, at dwarf2out.c:6750 with -fdebug-types-section and lambda

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57664 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.8.2

[Bug rtl-optimization/57662] [4.9 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in code_motion_process_successors with -fschedule-insns2 -fselective-scheduling2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57662 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0

[Bug middle-end/57661] [4.9 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in verify_ssa

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57661 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug testsuite/57686] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr57584.c with -m32

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57686 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/57697] New: Segfault with defined assignment for components during intrinsic assignment

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57697 Bug ID: 57697 Summary: Segfault with defined assignment for components during intrinsic assignment Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: wron

[Bug tree-optimization/57698] New: rev.200179 causes many errors (inlining failures) when building Firefox

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57698 Bug ID: 57698 Summary: rev.200179 causes many errors (inlining failures) when building Firefox Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/53263] priority_queue is very slow if -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG is used

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263 dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|NEW Ve

[Bug libstdc++/53263] priority_queue is very slow if -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG is used

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263 --- Comment #17 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com --- Created attachment 30350 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30350&action=edit New testcase

[Bug libstdc++/57691] freestanding libstdc++ has compile error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691 --- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini --- This doesn't make any sense to me.

[Bug libstdc++/53263] priority_queue is very slow if -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG is used

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263 dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #27332|0 |1 is obsol

[Bug fortran/57639] [OOP] ICE with polymorphism (and illegal code)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57639 --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres --- (In reply to janus from comment #4) > > The following patch fixes both variants: > > ... and regtests cleanly. Confirmed.

[Bug libstdc++/53263] priority_queue is very slow if -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG is used

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263 --- Comment #19 from Paolo Carlini --- I'm not going to work on this anyway, but really I'm not at all sure that debug-mode is by design made for "bigger configurations", thus makes sense to give high priority to this kind of issue. Unless of cour

[Bug tree-optimization/57656] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Wrong constant folding

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57656 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Created attachment 30352 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30352&action=edit patch Fails at -O0 -fstrict-overflow as we fold int t = 1 - (a - b) / c; into int t = (b - a) / c + 1; T

[Bug libstdc++/57691] freestanding libstdc++ has compile error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- I think this is due to a horrible hack in the front end which adds implicit extern "C" blocks around system headers, and a side-effect is that function prototypes of the form 'T f()' are treated as 'T f(...)

[Bug libstdc++/53263] priority_queue is very slow if -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG is used

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/57691] freestanding libstdc++ has compile error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691 --- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini --- Yes it is, a huge abomination, I had no idea we had something like that. Then, I don't know, I don't think it's going away any time soon, probably we should bite the bullet and add those with a big comment fo

[Bug libstdc++/57691] freestanding libstdc++ has compile error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691 --- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini --- ... by the way, I'm *very* surprised that nobody noticed this over the years: the freestanding atexit is declared like this in in 4.0.0!?!

[Bug libstdc++/57691] freestanding libstdc++ has compile error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 f

[Bug c++/57699] New: Disable empty parameter list misinterpretation in libstdc++ headers when !defined(NO_IMPLICIT_EXTERN_C)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57699 Bug ID: 57699 Summary: Disable empty parameter list misinterpretation in libstdc++ headers when !defined(NO_IMPLICIT_EXTERN_C) Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIR

[Bug libstdc++/53263] priority_queue is very slow if -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG is used

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263 --- Comment #21 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com --- How can I help ? My goal is to run our entire regression test suite with STL debugging switched on as this is great for quality assurance. Having fought several problems, this now seem

[Bug libstdc++/57691] freestanding libstdc++ has compile error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- I've opened PR 57699 -- it would be nice not to have to write (void) in our headers.

[Bug libstdc++/53263] priority_queue is very slow if -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG is used

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53263 --- Comment #22 from Paolo Carlini --- Get in touch with Francois and work on further improvements with him.

[Bug libstdc++/57691] freestanding libstdc++ has compile error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #4) > ... by the way, I'm *very* surprised that nobody noticed this over the > years: the freestanding atexit is declared like this in in 4.0.0!?! It only matters on

[Bug libstdc++/57691] freestanding libstdc++ has compile error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691 --- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini --- Of course. Since, AFAIK, we already had the sensible () with no void in like 2005, communities outside GCC must have workarounds in place, can wait a bit more. Let's mark the C++ front-end issue as blocking th

[Bug libstdc++/57691] freestanding libstdc++ has compile error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691 --- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7) > (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #4) > > ... by the way, I'm *very* surprised that nobody noticed this over the > > years: the freestanding atexit is dec

[Bug libstdc++/57691] freestanding libstdc++ has compile error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #10 f

[Bug tree-optimization/57539] [4.9 Regression] ice in ipa_edge_duplication_hook

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57539 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/57358] segmentation fault with attribute(optimize(O0))

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57358 --- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor --- Author: jamborm Date: Mon Jun 24 12:51:43 2013 New Revision: 200369 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=200369&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2013-06-24 Martin Jambor PR tree-optimization/57358 * ipa-prop

[Bug libstdc++/57691] freestanding libstdc++ has compile error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691 --- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely --- Yes, that will fix it right now. In the longer term it would be nice to get a FE change.

[Bug libstdc++/57691] freestanding libstdc++ has compile error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/57358] segmentation fault with attribute(optimize(O0))

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57358 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/57697] Segfault with defined assignment for components during intrinsic assignment

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57697 --- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus --- Created attachment 30353 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30353&action=edit Test case

[Bug fortran/57697] Segfault with defined assignment for components during intrinsic assignment

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57697 --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Created attachment 30353 [details] > Test case Should not this go to PR57696?

[Bug fortran/57697] Segfault with defined assignment for components during intrinsic assignment

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57697 --- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #2) > Should not this go to PR57696? No. The examples are similar, but they expose rather different bugs. PR57696 has already a test case and the problem there

[Bug libstdc++/57691] freestanding libstdc++ has compile error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57691 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/57521] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong code for expressions in loop at -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57521 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- It's if-conversion (we do not vectorize anything here). The predicates are inserted correctly but the wrong ones are being used for the predication. That is because the predecessor edge we chose in find_phi

[Bug other/57700] New: doc: improperly named node about Diagnostic Messages Formatting

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57700 Bug ID: 57700 Summary: doc: improperly named node about Diagnostic Messages Formatting Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug other/57700] doc: improperly named node about Diagnostic Messages Formatting

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57700 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||documentation Status|UNCONF

[Bug tree-optimization/57701] New: Incorrect optimisation of inlined function with inline assembly when cross-compiling

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57701 Bug ID: 57701 Summary: Incorrect optimisation of inlined function with inline assembly when cross-compiling Product: gcc Version: 4.8.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Sever

[Bug tree-optimization/57701] Incorrect optimisation of inlined function with inline assembly when cross-compiling

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57701 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libitm/57643] libitm.c/reentrant.c hangs on POWER8 with HTM

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57643 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/57208] Latest chromium compilation fails with enabled LTO

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57208 --- Comment #27 from Martin Jambor --- Created attachment 30355 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30355&action=edit Proposed patch I'd suggest this (yet untested) patch.

[Bug tree-optimization/57698] rev.200179 causes many errors (inlining failures) when building Firefox

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57698 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 f

[Bug tree-optimization/57702] New: Reassoc missed optimizations

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57702 Bug ID: 57702 Summary: Reassoc missed optimizations Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/46982] SIZE(TRANSFER()) as specification expression

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46982 --- Comment #5 from Harald Anlauf --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #4) > > ... So I think that the code in comment #0 is not legal. > > Then, should not this PR closed as INVALID? Yes, close as INVALID. --

[Bug fortran/46982] SIZE(TRANSFER()) as specification expression

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46982 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/34928] Extension: volatile common blocks

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34928 --- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Bud, What was the purpose of this construct? What is the valid way to replace it?

[Bug target/56997] Incorrect write to packed field when strict-volatile-bitfields enabled on aarch32

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997 --- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger --- 1. you should never touch memory that lies outside the struct. 2. if you have to generate multiple accesses you should generate code as if "volatile" was not used at all. 3. if -mno-unaligned-access is give

[Bug fortran/42607] add information about how to compile a module

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42607 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug lto/57703] New: Assembler function definition moved to a different ltrans then call

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57703 Bug ID: 57703 Summary: Assembler function definition moved to a different ltrans then call Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/51535] Optimization problem with -finit-real=snan at -O1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51535 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/50201] gfortran with -static causes seg fault at runtime for writing double prec array with precision increased to kind=16

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50201 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/52328] Wrong line in warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52328 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/57670] Member-pointer calls should not be redirected to builtin_unreachable

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57670 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p

[Bug libstdc++/57704] New: std::char_traits::lt is not standards-compliant

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57704 Bug ID: 57704 Summary: std::char_traits::lt is not standards-compliant Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: li

[Bug c++/57208] Latest chromium compilation fails with enabled LTO

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57208 --- Comment #28 from Martin Liška --- Patch solved the problem for chromium ;) I will test libreoffice tomorrow. (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #27) > Created attachment 30355 [details] > Proposed patch > > I'd suggest this (yet unteste

[Bug libstdc++/57704] std::char_traits::lt is not standards-compliant

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57704 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/57704] std::char_traits::lt is not standards-compliant

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57704 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug c/57692] FAIL: c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/gather_scatter.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57692 Steve Ellcey changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from

[Bug c/57692] FAIL: c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/gather_scatter.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57692 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/57701] Incorrect optimisation of inlined function with inline assembly when cross-compiling

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57701 --- Comment #2 from sqweek --- Sorry! The constraints were actually the first place I looked for a problem, apparently my inexperience with assembly made me blind to the mistake :( Thanks for your time.

[Bug c/57653] filename information discarded when using -imacros

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57653 --- Comment #15 from Allan McRae --- with -ffreestanding LC_ENTER "foo.c" LC_RENAME "" LC_ENTER "foo.h" LC_LEAVE 0x0 LC_RENAME "foo.c" <- correct output printed here LC_LEAVE 0x0 so std-predef.h is not included. I tried with -include foo.h and

[Bug c/57692] FAIL: c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/gather_scatter.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57692 --- Comment #3 from Balaji V. Iyer --- [sorry, I accidentally hit the send...let's try this again...] Hello Dominique & Steve, From what I can tell, this looks like a stack overflow issue. When I try this change below, it seem to work fine. T

[Bug fortran/42607] add information about how to compile a module

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42607 --- Comment #12 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #11) > What should we do with this PR? See my comment #1 and #10. I think that the PR should be closed with WONTFIX (because gcc does not have INDIFF

[Bug c/57692] FAIL: c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/gather_scatter.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57692 --- Comment #4 from Balaji V. Iyer --- Hello Dominique and Steve, On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:24 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr < gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57692 > > Dominique d'Humieres chang

[Bug c++/57699] Disable empty parameter list misinterpretation in libstdc++ headers when !defined(NO_IMPLICIT_EXTERN_C)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57699 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- eCos is open source so that should be fixed. The easy fix for the libstdc++ headers is to use void as the argument.

[Bug c/57692] FAIL: c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/gather_scatter.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57692 --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres --- This change fixed the failures for me: --- a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/gather_scatter.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/cilk-plus/AN/gather_scatter.c @@ -6,11 +6,11 @@ #include #endif