http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59719
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59741
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> I can't reproduce it with xg++ (GCC) 4.9.0 20140109 (experimental)
> configured with --enable-checking=yes,rtl.
I cannot reproduce it anymore either; I think I had some patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28865
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28865
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Runtime testcase that presumably fails on -fsection-anchors targets:
struct A { int a; char b[]; };
union B { struct A a; char b[sizeof (struct A) + 31]; };
union B b = { { 1, "123456789012345678901234567890"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59136
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59733
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> BTW, are you sure you don't have some ulimit imposed limits (say on virtual
> address space)?
[hjl@gnu-mic-2 gcc]$ ulimit -a
core file size (blocks, -c) 0
data
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28865
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
Rafael Avila de Espindola changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rafael.espindola at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59137
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression]|[4.7 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59742
Bug ID: 59742
Summary: compilation failed for package ‘RcppEigen’
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.6
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59226
--- Comment #18 from David Kredba ---
It linked!
(After appended "__attribute__((used))" to line "void* JIT_STUB
cti_vm_throw(STUB_ARGS_DECLARATION);" in
qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.8.5/src/3rdparty/webkit/Source/JavaScriptCore/jit/JITStubs.h.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59723
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I don't remember reviewing this LTO change nor approving it. Well ...
It was approved by Cary Coutant for the DWARF part at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg00397.html and Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59622
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55932
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #5)
> The following is sufficient to get rid of the ICE:
Unfortunately it produces several testsuite failures:
alloc_comp_class_1.f90
alloc_comp_class_2.f90
class_19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59371
--- Comment #10 from Maciej W. Rozycki ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
Jakub,
The fix has corrected the evaluation of `i++' however it has regressed
the evaluation of `i < c'. This is because in the loop `i' is only ever
assign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
--- Comment #26 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
> Yes, is see the weak symbol both in BasicBlock.o and Function.o.
> However it gets optimized away when I link them with "-flto -O3" into
> libLLVMCore.so (see comment 0).
That optimization seem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59743
Bug ID: 59743
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-opt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59700
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I've started to write a testcase, but the counting of items is
> still wrong. Look for the XXX comment in the following code.
> ...
Confirmed. Replacing the 'call abort' with 'print *, msg', 4.7.4 (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59723
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> > It could be due to r205679:
>
> Very likely. This obviously wasn't tested at all
... which implies that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59733
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 31788
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31788&action=edit
strace -o log -e mmap,munmap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59137
--- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Thu Jan 9 19:58:52 2014
New Revision: 206489
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206489&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR rtl-optimization/59137
* reorg.c (steal_de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59742
--- Comment #1 from patrikdinnetz ---
source file to large attach
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58996
Balaji V. Iyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bviyer at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
--- Comment #27 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 31789
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31789&action=edit
BasicBlock.ii reduced
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59469
--- Comment #28 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 31790
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31790&action=edit
Function.ii reduced
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59622
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 9 20:09:33 2014
New Revision: 206492
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206492&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/59622
* gimple-fold.c (gimple_fold_call): Fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59700
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Do you understand the '++' in
642 dtp->u.p.line_buffer[dtp->u.p.item_count++] = c;
?
program foo
implicit none
character(len=80) msg
integer, parameter :: fd = 10
integer i1, i2, i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47735
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 9 20:12:36 2014
New Revision: 206493
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206493&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/47735
* cfgexpand.c (expand_one_var): For SSA_NAMEs, i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59402
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Hasn't this been fixed by r205736 and r205737 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59743
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58996
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59742
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59700
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 08:45:19PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59700
>
> --- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Do you understand the '++' in
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59743
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59743
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
No worries Jakub. I'll take it as it's clearly mine.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59597
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at redhat dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59700
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > Do you understand the '++' in
> >
> > 642 dtp->u.p.line_buffer[dtp->u.p.item_count++] = c;
> >
> > ?
>
> It's C post-increment operator. ...
The question was not about the syntax, but about
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58996
--- Comment #4 from Balaji V. Iyer ---
Hi Jakub,
__cpu_set_t_defined is defined in /usr/include/bits/sched.h in my SUSE
machine and in Ubuntu machine.
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59631
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
Status|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59402
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Hasn't this been fixed by r205736 and r205737 ?
Yes, but I was told to leave it open until it is fixed in upstream:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg00641.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59700
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 09:27:03PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59700
>
> --- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > > Do you understand the '++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59402
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9 Regression] bootstrap |bootstrap failure on x32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55932
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #6)
> > The following is sufficient to get rid of the ICE:
>
> Unfortunately it produces several testsuite failures:
All of them are fixed by this version:
Index: g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59743
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I see what's going on.
Basically the code exhibits undefined behaviour (r.s.high is not defined before
its first use in the loop). Thus the first and only reaching def is appearing
after the first use.
Obv
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59743
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I think we can just check DF_INSN_LUIDs here to catch this case. My systems
are busy right now, but I should be able to nail this down as soon as one frees
up.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59743
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 31791
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31791&action=edit
original testcase
Here's the unreduced original.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50008
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58996
--- Comment #5 from Paul H. Hargrove ---
The patch in comment #2 allows the build to complete without the need to
--disable-libcilkrts. However, I agree with Jakub (comment #3) that use of a
glibc internal macros is a poor idea and a configure-ti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59700
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
With the second patch there is a regression for gfortran.dg/namelist_46.f90.
This seems to be fixed with the following change:
@@ -757,14 +757,16 @@ read_logical (st_parameter_dt *dtp, int
bad_log
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59723
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> ... which implies that the GCC testsuite needs to be improved with regards
> to LTO testing as there was no new failure with the patch.
Not GCC, but gfortran. I stumbled on this pr with
make -k che
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47889
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47889
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47888
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59670
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 9 23:39:06 2014
New Revision: 206503
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206503&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/59670
* tree-vect-data-refs.c (vect_analyze_data_refs)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59680
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Jan 9 23:39:31 2014
New Revision: 206504
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206504&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/59680
* src/c++11/thread.cc (__sleep_for): Fix call to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59670
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59680
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.8.3
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wake
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47889
--- Comment #11 from Dmitry Gorbachev ---
GCC 4.7 still crashes on the testcase from attachment 25620:
$ gcc -r -nostdlib -flto 1.c 2.c
In file included from 1.c:5:0,
from :0:
2.c:5:17: warning: type of 's' does not match origina
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50008
--- Comment #6 from Dmitry Gorbachev ---
Disappeared somewhere between r204654 and r205795.
(When configured with checking, both GCC 4.7 and 4.8 still fail.)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59743
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #5)
> I think we can just check DF_INSN_LUIDs here to catch this case. My systems
> are busy right now, but I should be able to nail this down as soon as one
> frees u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47889
--- Comment #12 from Aldy Hernandez ---
On 01/09/14 15:43, d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47889
>
> --- Comment #11 from Dmitry Gorbachev ---
> GCC 4.7 still crashes on the testcase from attach
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47889
--- Comment #13 from Dmitry Gorbachev ---
It was 4.7.4 20131207 (prerelease).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47889
--- Comment #14 from Aldy Hernandez ---
On 01/09/14 16:01, d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47889
>
> --- Comment #13 from Dmitry Gorbachev ---
> It was 4.7.4 20131207 (prerelease).
>
Can you tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59744
Bug ID: 59744
Summary: miscompilation of unsigned comparison on aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59745
Bug ID: 59745
Summary: [4.9 Regression] internal compiler error: tree check:
expected tree that contains 'typed' structure, have
'' in operand_equal_p, at
fold-const
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59744
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59745
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59746
Bug ID: 59746
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59700
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59743
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
/* The logical uid of the insn in the basic block. This is valid
after any call to df_analyze but may rot after insns are added,
deleted or moved. */
int luid;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59743
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59745
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
#0 internal_error (
gmsgid=0x14cea90 "tree check: expected tree that contains %qs structure,
have %qs in %s, at %s:%d") at /export/gnu/import/git/gcc/gcc/diagnostic.c:1127
#1 0x00e69ab1 in tree_contain
-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20140109 (experimental) [trunk revision 206472] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -m64 -O1 small.c; a.out
0
$ gcc-trunk -m32 -Os small.c; a.out
0
$ gcc-4.8 -m64 -Os small.c; a.out
0
$
$ gcc-trunk -m64 -Os small.c; a.out
1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59746
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Status|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59431
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
This should now be fixed by [1].
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg00565.html
101 - 178 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
