http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48094
--- Comment #23 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Mon Apr 7 08:00:55 2014
New Revision: 209176
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209176&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-07 Dominique d'Humieres
Backport from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60750
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 7 08:38:23 2014
New Revision: 209179
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209179&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-07 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/60750
* tree-ssa-oper
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60750
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56963
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Václav Zeman from comment #7)
> Created attachment 32422 [details]
> preprocessed source
Works for me with GCC 4.9 on x86-64-gnu-linux with both -fuse-linker-plugin and
-fno-use-linker-plugin and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60640
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Apr 7 09:36:10 2014
New Revision: 209180
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209180&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-07 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/60640
* ipa-cp.c (propagate_c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60640
--- Comment #15 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Apr 7 09:54:55 2014
New Revision: 209181
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209181&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-07 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/60640
* ipa-cp.c (propagate_c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60640
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60773
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||congh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60773
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64-*-* |powerpc64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60770
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Yeah, you simply need to catch this earlier ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60727
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60769
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60768
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60766
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60763
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60761
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60775
Bug ID: 60775
Summary: Instantiates unused class template member function and
therefor reports error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60766
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 32556
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32556&action=edit
patch
The issue is that tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c:cand_value_at converts niter
((unsigned int) n_3 * 2863311531 + 4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60770
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
Catching it earlier may be hard, even for these trivial examples we only have
from einline (18) to esra (24) or from eh (10) to ccp1 (21) and in more
complicated examples I fear the interval will be empty, but w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60657
--- Comment #11 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Mon Apr 7 13:17:11 2014
New Revision: 209185
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209185&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix testcase for PR target/60657
Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60040
--- Comment #6 from Sebastian Huber ---
GCC 4.9.0 20140407 with the proposed patch fixes the problem for me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60731
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Apr 7 13:27:45 2014
New Revision: 209187
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209187&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60731
* lib/gcc-dg.exp (dg-build-dso): New.
(gcc-dg-test-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60731
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Apr 7 13:27:39 2014
New Revision: 209186
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209186&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60731
* common.opt (-fno-gnu-unique): Add.
* config/elfos
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60300
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||avr
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann L
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60410
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from R
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60759
--- Comment #3 from Giuliano Procida
---
I believe the clang warning is:
foo.c:1:18: warning: use of logical '||' with constant operand
[-Wconstant-logical-operand]
static int x = 2 || 3;
^ ~
foo.c:1:18: note: use '|' for a bit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60763
--- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn ---
I can see why the proposed patch will work, but it seems a little heavy-handed.
This case isn't something that simplify_gen_subreg() should handle?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60766
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 7 14:03:55 2014
New Revision: 209190
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209190&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-07 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/60766
* tree-s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60766
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60776
Bug ID: 60776
Summary: [4.9 Regression] FAIL gcc.dg/builtin-bswap-6.c and
gcc.dg/builtin-bswap-7.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60776
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Priority|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60776
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60777
Bug ID: 60777
Summary: Fortran 2003: RECURSIVE function rejected in
specification expression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60763
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #5)
> I can see why the proposed patch will work, but it seems a little
> heavy-handed. This case isn't something that simplify_gen_subreg() should
> han
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60763
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #32553|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60777
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Index: expr.c
===
--- expr.c (revision 208947)
+++ expr.c (working copy)
@@ -2733,12 +2733,10 @@ external_spec_function (gfc_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60609
--- Comment #6 from yroux at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: yroux
Date: Mon Apr 7 15:07:33 2014
New Revision: 209191
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209191&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-07 Charles Baylis
PR target/60609
* co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58937
--- Comment #17 from Yury Gribov ---
This should be fully resolved once
https://github.com/llvm-mirror/compiler-rt/commit/d6535ea4c4d49078a93735b315b8518fb692a592
is merged into gcc trunk.
BTW it no longer reproduces on trunk because newer versio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60778
Bug ID: 60778
Summary: shift not folded into shift on x86-64
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57926
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|amacleod at r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60779
Bug ID: 60779
Summary: -fcx-fortran-rules ignored when using -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60779
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you provide the extra command line you used?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60779
David Turnbull changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60780
Bug ID: 60780
Summary: Equivalence statements in nested modules results in
fast growing duplicate statements in module files
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60780
--- Comment #1 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
> Equivalence statements in equivalence statements
Should read "Equivalence statements in modules". Apologies.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60781
Bug ID: 60781
Summary: cannot match namelist object name
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56203
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sparc*-*-solaris2.* |sparc*-*-solaris2.*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60781
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60773
Cong Hou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||congh at google dot com
--- Comment #2 from Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60775
--- Comment #1 from Gunther Laure ---
Created attachment 32560
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32560&action=edit
Testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60782
Bug ID: 60782
Summary: DWARF does not represent _Atomic
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60775
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
See the last item of http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/porting_to.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60775
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60783
Bug ID: 60783
Summary: unexpected address variation when taking address of
reference, const reference, etc.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60763
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60783
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60783
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Parke from comment #0)
> I in the output, I expect "e" through "l" to be identical.
Your expectation is wrong.
The functions that produce a different values from what you expect are binding
a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60783
--- Comment #3 from Parke ---
Thanks, I thought it might be something like the creation of temporaries, but
could not find it discussed anywhere, and was surprised that I got different
behavior from 4.7.3 (many temporaries) and 4.8.2 (apparently o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60763
--- Comment #9 from Pat Haugen ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #7)
> Created attachment 32557 [details]
> Updated patch that also uses op0_di for the conversion
>
> Should be equivalent to the previous patch, but more correct m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60783
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Parke from comment #3)
> Thanks, I thought it might be something like the creation of temporaries,
> but could not find it discussed anywhere, and was surprised that I got
> different behavior fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60504
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Apr 7 21:31:29 2014
New Revision: 209201
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209201&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/60504
* config/arm/arm.h (ASM_PREFERRED_EH_DATA_FORMA
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60504
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60781
--- Comment #2 from Laura C ---
Created attachment 32561
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32561&action=edit
Input.f90 file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60781
--- Comment #3 from Laura C ---
Created attachment 32562
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32562&action=edit
shell script
The code is a series of f90 files compiled in a shell script - as attached.
I've also attached the INPUT.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60657
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
While the improved predicates make the first IN_RANGE tests unneeded, IMHO it
should still verify what the second IN_RANGE tests did, i.e. that operands[2]
is not 0 and at most 32 - third operand. I think th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60784
Bug ID: 60784
Summary: Spurious -Wmissing-field-initializers warning for
anonymous structure
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60657
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
The new predicates make the predicate test match the constraint test. It
looks like your patch exposes a relationship between the operands, and, yes,
the only way to handle that would be in the insn's cond
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59115
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60763
--- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn ---
I'm not questioning the analysis, I'm questioning the solution. Directly
generating a register and jamming in the REGNO in this pattern seems sort of
crude.
gen_rtx_REG (DImode, REGNO (op0));
I don't doubt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60781
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 10:09:11PM +, lauraelcomeau at yahoo dot co.uk
wrote:
>
> The code is a series of f90 files compiled in a shell script - as attached.
> I've also attached the INPUT.f90 file where t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59817
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55459
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60594
Mitsuru Kariya changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot
com
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60785
Bug ID: 60785
Summary: ICE in gsi_for_stmt w/ -O2 -ftree-loop-linear
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: othe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60718
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #32554|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60469
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60763
--- Comment #11 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #10)
> I'm not questioning the analysis, I'm questioning the solution. Directly
> generating a register and jamming in the REGNO in this pattern seems s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60784
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
78 matches
Mail list logo
