http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60146
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've tried:
--- pt.c.jj32014-02-12 17:46:47.0 +0100
+++ pt.c2014-02-17 19:22:36.617413387 +0100
@@ -13057,10 +13057,28 @@ tsubst_omp_for_iterator (tree t, int i,
init = TREE_OPERAND (init, 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka ---
I am also seeing this in libreoffice. We devirtualize into destructor of
ZCodec that is a base class of other codec used in the library, but the library
is not linking with its implementation.
I believe it is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60235
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Clang doesn't care about lots of things.
Anyway, why don't you make the specialization inline?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60235
--- Comment #7 from Mehdi Amini ---
Yeah I can declare it inline, indeed I already did, I was just considering it a
workaround for a "missing compiler optimization" ;-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60197
--- Comment #3 from Volker Reichelt ---
Well, the code also crashes, if I move it out of the return statement:
=
int foo()
{
int i = (_Cilk_spawn foo()) + 1;
return i;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60236
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
hmm...
I just looked at PR#52229.
At least on PowerPC many more loops are not vectorizable.
because of unaligned access.
Jakub's last comment there is that the xfail
should be based on the vect_hw_misaling
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60197
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Ah, right, similarly for:
int
foo (void)
{
int i;
i = (_Cilk_spawn foo ()) + 1;
return i;
}
I don't know whether these are valid.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60195
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60247
Bug ID: 60247
Summary: AVR ATxmega C++ constructor startup in libgcc.S causes
boot loop
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60248
Bug ID: 60248
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE specializing variadic
template
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60248
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.0, 4.6.0
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59448
--- Comment #12 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to algrant from comment #11)
> Where do you get that this is racy if the access to data is not atomic?
In threadB(), you do:
f = flag.load(std::memory_order_consume);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13029
Tom Tromey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60249
Bug ID: 60249
Summary: [c++11] Compiler goes into semi-infinite loop with
wrong usage of user defined string literals
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60250
Bug ID: 60250
Summary: [4.9 Regression] [c++1y] ICE using lambda for array
size
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60250
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60251
Bug ID: 60251
Summary: [4.9 Regression] [c++11] ICE capturing variable-length
array
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60251
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.0, 4.6.0, 4.7.0, 4.8.0
Target Mil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60252
Bug ID: 60252
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] [c++11] ICE with invalid
variable-length array in lambda parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60252
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.0
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60253
Bug ID: 60253
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE passing class object
through ellipsis (...)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: error-r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60253
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.0, 4.6.0
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60254
Bug ID: 60254
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] [c++11] ICE with non-const
expression in static_assert
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60254
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.3.0, 4.4.0, 4.5.0, 4.6.0
Target Mil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59448
--- Comment #13 from algrant at acm dot org ---
I see what you mean - there is a race if threadB reads the data when the
flag is not set, i.e. in the case when the read value is never used.
Moving the read of data after the test (as in the fragment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60255
Bug ID: 60255
Summary: Deferred character length variable at (1) cannot yet
be associated with unlimited polymorphic entities
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
alized s.c -c
s.c:4:10: warning: variable 's' is uninitialized when used here
[-Wuninitialized]
strcpy(s, s);
^
s.c:3:10: note: initialize the variable 's' to silence this warning
char* s;
^
= NULL
1 warning generated.
$: gcc-trunk --version
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60256
--- Comment #1 from Chengnian Sun ---
If the call is to a user-defined function, then gcc warns. I cannot see why
"strcpy" is special.
$: cat s.c
extern void p(const char*);
void f(void) {
char* s;
p(s);
}
$: gcc-trunk -Wuninitialized s.c -c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60256
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Well that is because strcpy(s,s) is optimized away as it is a nop.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60255
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60220
--- Comment #3 from harmeeksingh at gmail dot com ---
It still does not vectorise after adding the recomended flag. But rewriting the
code the following way does.
This is a bizare behavioir . My tests show that this is not an issue of gcc
rewriti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58960
--- Comment #9 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Tue Feb 18 05:41:29 2014
New Revision: 207832
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207832&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/58960
* haifa-sched.c (alloc_global_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58960
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60257
Bug ID: 60257
Summary: Incorrect column number and confusing message in
-Woverride-init
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60250
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58555
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, shall we just apply #c15 here?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60251
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60257
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60254
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60253
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59308
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60233
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 18 07:19:46 2014
New Revision: 207833
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207833&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR driver/60233
* config/i386/driver-i386.c (host_detect_local_cpu):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60233
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 18 07:23:51 2014
New Revision: 207834
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207834&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR driver/60233
* config/i386/driver-i386.c (host_detect_local_cpu):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60252
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60233
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60233
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 18 07:32:17 2014
New Revision: 207835
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207835&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR driver/60233
* config/i386/driver-i386.c (host_detect_local_cpu)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60190
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60231
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Feb 18 07:45:39 2014
New Revision: 207836
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207836&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-18 Janus Weil
PR fortran/60231
* resolve.c (ch
101 - 148 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
