http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60836
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59335
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, comparing the headers we have in gcc/{,c/,cp/,c-family/}*.h with what we
install shows:
for i in *.h {c,cp,c-family}/*.h; do [ -f
/tmp/foobar/usr/local/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.10.0/plugin/inclu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60644
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
Confirm fixing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.1
Summary|[4.9 regression
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60806
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59817
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 14 08:09:06 2014
New Revision: 209355
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209355&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-14 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/59817
PR tree-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60453
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 14 08:09:06 2014
New Revision: 209355
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209355&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-14 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/59817
PR tree-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55022
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 14 08:11:08 2014
New Revision: 209356
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209356&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-14 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/55022
* fold-const.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59817
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.10.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9/4.10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60453
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59859
Bug 59859 depends on bug 60453, which changed state.
Bug 60453 Summary: ICE when building chromium with -O2 and graphite
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60453
What|Removed |Added
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59817
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sergamena at inbox dot ru
--- Comment #8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59626
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9/4.10 R
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52372
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60720
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 14 08:35:22 2014
New Revision: 209359
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209359&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-14 Richard Biener
PR lto/60720
* lto-streamer-out.c (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60720
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60836
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60832
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60830
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60830
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, the usual suspicious one is gmp which in older versions used to abort ()
on "impossible" CPU kinds in its CPU detection code (at least trips on qemu
default configs for example)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60828
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Well, it's useful to point out the main offenders of malloc/free that might
better use a more suitable allocation strathegy like obstacks for example.
7.7 22.6% 22.6% 7.8 22.6% c_common_nodes_an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60834
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60813
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60830
--- Comment #5 from Denis Excoffier ---
Created attachment 32591
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32591&action=edit
top level config.log
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60830
--- Comment #6 from Denis Excoffier ---
Created attachment 32592
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32592&action=edit
i686-pc-cygwin/libgcc/config.log
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52372
--- Comment #10 from Arseny Solokha ---
It still fails, but indeed for different targets: PR60102, PR57933. I'm not
sure whether these are actually duplicates, though.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60830
--- Comment #7 from Denis Excoffier ---
Here are the config.log found at top level and the config.log at
i686-pc-cygwin/libgcc level (see attachments).
What do you need more specifically?
I have to say that i use gmp-6.0.0a, mpfr-3.1.2 (without
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59586
Mircea Namolaru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mircea.namolaru at inria dot fr
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60822
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson ---
Switching gcc 4.10 to use LRA instead does not fix this wrong-code.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59335
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced list of new headers that weren't in 4.8 (subset of the previous list):
attribs.h
calls.h
cfgexpand.h
cilk.h
diagnostic-color.h
gcc-symtab.h
gimple-builder.h
gimple-low.h
gimple-walk.h
gimplify-me.h
gr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52372
--- Comment #11 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #10)
> It still fails, but indeed for different targets: PR60102, PR57933. I'm not
> sure whether these are actually duplicates, though.
Yeah, despite
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60826
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, ra
Targ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59335
--- Comment #22 from PaX Team ---
some notes:
1. there're *.def files as well needed for certain headers
2. there're target specific headers and .def files installed/needed from
gcc/config/*/ as well
3. it's hard to tell a priori what one will ne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60823
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59335
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 32593
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32593&action=edit
gcc49-pr59335.patch
So, let's add the headers added in 4.9 and other stuff shouldn't be a
regression from 4.9 th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60793
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to John Marino from comment #4)
> For the matter of this particular PR, NetBSD is also a target so it's not a
> big stretch to imagine it's needed for all the BSD targets (and it is).
> Plus there
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60069
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60838
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60793
--- Comment #6 from John Marino ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> It's not that I don't believe you that it's needed, it's that we want to
> avoid that clutter for a target that doesn't even build. You're trying to do
> this back
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60793
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60821
--- Comment #6 from a.h.jaffe at gmail dot com ---
Thanks for the comprehensive info. It would certainly be nice to get the
driverdriver into the main code-base.
However, one thing still puzzles me:
> 5. We do accept -arch on x86: -arch i386 get
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60793
--- Comment #8 from John Marino ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #7)
> But this is something that everybody has to do! It is a trade-off, does it
> take more effort to keep the patches up-to-date or to get them approved?
The ans
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60819
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 14 11:49:42 2014
New Revision: 209365
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209365&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-14 Richard Biener
Marc Glisse
PR c/60819
c-fam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50459
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Created attachment 32594
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32594&action=edit
pr50459
Yeah. This is regtested patch that covers even other attributes. If this
approach is ok then I can take
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60819
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60793
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
>
> > And for sure you will need to ping the patches several times, there are very
> > few reviewers and they are doing also 99% of the work, so they miss patches
> > all the time.
>
> Well, while thi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50459
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
Creating a function definitely makes sense, I should have done it when I
touched the default_conversion calls. Do you think your function could also
handle the call to default_conversion (with the tests that pro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59301
Vincent Lefèvre changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60821
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to a.h.jaffe from comment #6)
> Thanks for the comprehensive info. It would certainly be nice to get the
> driverdriver into the main code-base.
indeed, patches always welcome :)
>
> However, one th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59301
Joerg Wunsch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59301
Joerg Wunsch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #3 from Joerg Wunsch -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60828
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
I've looked at more profiles during the weekend and bitmaps always
showed up on top.
As Honza said on IRC, bitmaps go into obstacks and obstacks weren't
optimized since the 80s. So it looks like tcmalloc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50459
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60034
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60793
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to John Marino from comment #6)
> I was too indirect. My apprehension is that I'm afraid I'll generate a
> bunch of patches that will just be ignored / not evaluated, and then bitrot.
> There's a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60042
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 14 13:57:00 2014
New Revision: 209374
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209374&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-04-14 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/60042
* tree-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60793
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #9)
> > Because I interpret a full bootstrap to mean every major platform that gcc
> > supports.
That would be impossible for the majority of contributors, who
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60830
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60830
--- Comment #9 from Denis Excoffier ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> I guess for start, it would be nice to see backtrace from the debugger about
> where the segfault and/or abort happened.
See attachment 3.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov ---
Nightstrike, is there a particular reason you want C++ warning behavior be
adjusted? Note that unlike C, in C++ you get zero-initialization by default,
so you don't need to write ' = {0};' to zero-initial
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60830
--- Comment #10 from Denis Excoffier ---
Created attachment 32595
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32595&action=edit
gdb session catching signal SIGABRT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60829
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60839
Bug ID: 60839
Summary: PowerPC: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at
recog.c:2154
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60497
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Apr 14 15:32:58 2014
New Revision: 209381
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209381&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/60497
* include/std/tuple (get): Qualify calls to prev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60840
Bug ID: 60840
Summary: avr-g++: Incorrect avr assembler code generation
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60826
--- Comment #2 from Dan Gohman ---
A little more detail: I think I have seen GCC use a spill + movsd reload as a
method of zeroing the non-zero-index vector elements of an xmm register,
however that's either not what's happening here, or it may be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60827
--- Comment #1 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Apr 14 16:49:24 2014
New Revision: 209383
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209383&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Check optimize_insn_for_speed_p in *fixuns_trunc_1
Since fixuns_trun
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60841
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60827
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Apr 14 17:01:03 2014
New Revision: 209385
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209385&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Revert the last change on *fixuns_trunc_1
PR target/60827
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60830
--- Comment #11 from Kai Tietz ---
(In reply to Denis Excoffier from comment #10)
> Created attachment 32595 [details]
> gdb session catching signal SIGABRT
Thanks for the debug-log. Could you please attach the backtrace starting from
the fancy_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60841
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||memory-hog
Status|UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60841
--- Comment #3 from Mike Vermeulen ---
dmesg does confirm it was killed by OOM.
Relevant entries:
[27546] 0 27546271161 4 0 0 bash
[27578] 0 27578260847 13 0 0 gcc
[27579]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60842
Bug ID: 60842
Summary: In-class initializer causes a strange error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60840
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60841
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60820
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Apr 14 17:53:34 2014
New Revision: 209389
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209389&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/60820
* varpool.c (varpool_remove_node): Do not alter decls
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60275
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 32597
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32597&action=edit
gcc410-pr60275.patch
Untested fix. Marek, sorry for hacking this up, but I'd like to backport it to
4.9-RH soon,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60830
--- Comment #12 from Kai Tietz ---
(In reply to Denis Excoffier from comment #10)
> Created attachment 32595 [details]
> gdb session catching signal SIGABRT
Some comments here:
- it might be helpful to install proper debug-information (cygwin1.db
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60842
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This looks very similar to PR51666
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60842
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. the simplest workaround is:
J j{};
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60841
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60827
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
As said in [1], the predicates for expanders and insns can be different. The
insn can be moved from hot BB to cold BB and vice versa, so the insn predicate
shouldn't depend on BB type. IOW, insn template should
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60827
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60834
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57926
lailavrazda1979 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750
--- Comment #8 from nightstrike ---
Are you sure C++ works like that? I thought that member variables in a struct
would get default initialized to indeterminate values, as seen here:
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/default_initializati
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60469
--- Comment #15 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Tue Apr 15 06:27:07 2014
New Revision: 209400
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209400&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/c/
PR middle-end/60469
* c-array-notation.c (fix_builtin_arra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60467
--- Comment #4 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Tue Apr 15 06:30:08 2014
New Revision: 209401
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=209401&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/c-family/
PR middle-end/60467
* c-c++-common/cilk-plus/CK/inva
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Monakov ---
My statement about zero-initialization was inaccurate (thanks), but the general
point still stands: in C you have to write ' = {0}' since empty-braces
initializer is not supported by the language (you get
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60839
Sebastian Huber changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-rtems4.11
CC|
91 matches
Mail list logo
