http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60984
--- Comment #10 from Torbjörn Gard ---
I have started the build on a local filesystem with a shorter path
(/home/tga01/obj_stbldap01-4.9.0). The previous build was done on a nfs
partition.
The build in our environment is slow. Usually a week. The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61033
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56535
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56655
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60898
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> After providing all the missing 'USE' items:
Where did you get them?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61034
Bug ID: 61034
Summary: Optimizing takes too many passes
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55850
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61002
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60984
--- Comment #11 from Torbjörn Gard ---
No failure but restarted it in /home/tga01/obj_gcc with the thought of having a
shorter and simpler path.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61035
Bug ID: 61035
Summary: Crash in getcwd intrinsic due to stack overflow
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61035
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jb at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59476
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.1
Summary|gdb pretty-pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49423
--- Comment #27 from Charles Baylis ---
I suspect this still remains as a latent bug.
The zero/sign extend patterns still allow a memory operand, and there remains a
subset of memory operands which will trigger the ICE (ie those which refer to a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59948
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #3)
> The code in fold-const for nonzero check is really broken. I have somewerhe
> WIP symtab patch for doing this, but it is not completely trivial to hook it
> into fold
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59429
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #5 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59429
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Ignore my last comment. I hadn't completed my thoughts yet.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59476
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri May 2 16:00:57 2014
New Revision: 210007
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210007&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/59476
* python/libstdcxx/v6/printers.py (get_value_fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59476
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri May 2 16:01:30 2014
New Revision: 210008
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210008&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/59476
* python/libstdcxx/v6/printers.py (get_value_fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59429
--- Comment #7 from Kai Tietz ---
Yeah, that was my initial idea here too. But this transformation is just an
improvement for underlying unsigned one-bit values, as here the negate is
indeed an nop.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59476
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59429
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So I think we need to make a gross level determination of what a canonical form
for this stuff ought to be, then look at what it would take to transform into
that canonical form.
I think the key here is to r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59429
--- Comment #9 from Kai Tietz ---
The general solution here for patterns like
'(a cmp1 b ? x : (a cmp2 b ? y : z))' would be to split such statment up into
3 conditions like:
if (a cmp1 b)
r = x;
else if (a cmp2 b)
r = y;
else if (!(a cmp2 b &
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59429
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So if you go into a cascaded if-else form, don't we have to recover the
COND_EXPR form to get good code?
Remember, that to get good code here, we need to discover a non-branching form
of one (or more) COND/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59429
--- Comment #11 from Kai Tietz ---
sure, I just shown the transformation for doing the sorting. After
prioritizing the order we should transform back to initial condition and just
changing comparison code plus the edges.
To handle this we could
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
--- Comment #56 from Andreas Schwab ---
Created attachment 32724
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32724&action=edit
Ada support patch updated for gcc 4.9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61036
Bug ID: 61036
Summary: [4.9/4.10 Regression] shared_ptr(new int)
rejected
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Sever
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60830
--- Comment #48 from Fanael ---
Is revision 209946 an attempt to fix this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61036
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25801
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri May 2 18:13:43 2014
New Revision: 210013
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210013&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/25801
* c-typeck.c (c_size_in_bytes): Update comment. Don't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25801
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61036
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri May 2 18:29:20 2014
New Revision: 210014
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210014&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/61036
* include/bits/shared_ptr_base.h (__shared_ptr::
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61036
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri May 2 18:29:48 2014
New Revision: 210015
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210015&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/61036
* include/bits/shared_ptr_base.h (__shared_ptr::
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61036
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: s...@li-snyder.org
hi -
I'm using gcc from the 4.9 branch:
GNU C++ (GCC) version 4.9.1 20140502 (prerelease) (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
compiled by GNU C version 4.9.1 20140502 (prerelease), GMP version 5.1.2,
MPFR version 3.1.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61014
--- Comment #5 from Sven Buijssen
---
git bisect along with a suitable script identified this gcc commit as culprit:
commit 599471650d6f0fb42b1c1c7e6b24ca21e65132fa
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sat Nov 27 15:53:23 2010 +
config/
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60965
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61014
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus ---
For crossref, that was the patch r167201:
"[patch] Enable Ada bootstrap with LTO"
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg02644.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60992
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 2 19:47:40 2014
New Revision: 210017
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210017&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60992
* lambda.c (lambda_capture_field_type): Wrap anything d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60992
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 2 19:47:56 2014
New Revision: 210018
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210018&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60992
* lambda.c (lambda_capture_field_type): Wrap anything d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60830
--- Comment #49 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Fanael from comment #48)
> Is revision 209946 an attempt to fix this?
Yes. It is supposed to fix the cygwin-32 build with
--disable-sjlj-exceptions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60992
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61038
Bug ID: 61038
Summary: g++ -E is unusable with UDL strings
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61039
Bug ID: 61039
Summary: Using a constexpr's address as a template variable
produces an unnecessary warning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60930
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri May 2 21:49:26 2014
New Revision: 210020
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210020&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2014-05-02 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/60930
* g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60930
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri May 2 21:51:09 2014
New Revision: 210021
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210021&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2014-05-02 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/60930
* g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60930
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61040
Bug ID: 61040
Summary: internal compiler error: in
gimplify_init_ctor_preeval, at gimplify.c:3320
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61041
Bug ID: 61041
Summary: Cannot create std::tr1::variate_generator from
variate_generator::engine(); engine_value_type error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.10.0 20140502 (experimental) [trunk revision 21] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 -c small.c
$ gcc-4.9 -O3 -c small.c
$
$ gcc-trunk -O3 -c small.c
small.c: In function ‘foo’:
small.c:4:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
foo ()
^
0x95c21f crash_signal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52539
--- Comment #20 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 32725
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32725&action=edit
New preliminary patch - please test
This patch takes a different approach. I have split up next_char and push_ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61040
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
51 matches
Mail list logo
