https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61515
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61515
>
> Jeffrey A. Law changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52252
--- Comment #7 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Wed Jun 18 07:46:18 2014
New Revision: 211769
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211769&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_reassociation_width): Add alternativ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61403
--- Comment #1 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Wed Jun 18 07:46:18 2014
New Revision: 211769
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211769&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_reassociation_width): Add alternativ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61546
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61540
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61546
--- Comment #2 from Anton Baskanov ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Well,
>
> long long(123456789012345678);
>
> isn't valid C++. Either use cast syntax or provide a typedef.
Yes, you are right, but why libgcc uses #define
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61268
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61546
Ozkan Sezer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sezeroz at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61268
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
> ---
[...]
> The patch passed bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu but could you test it for
> sparc too?
Sure: sparc-sun-solaris2.11 bootst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61546
--- Comment #4 from Anton Baskanov ---
(In reply to Ozkan Sezer from comment #3)
> (In reply to Anton Baskanov from comment #2)
> >
> > why libgcc uses #define for __int64 instead of typedef?
>
> MinGW and MinGW-w64 use #define instead of a ty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61536
--- Comment #14 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Wed Jun 18 09:44:15 2014
New Revision: 211774
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211774&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix libstdc++/61536 - Export out of line typeinfo comparison oper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61536
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61106
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61547
Bug ID: 61547
Summary: Invalid sanitization of trailing byte in
__builtin_strlen
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61547
--- Comment #1 from Yury Gribov ---
Created attachment 32964
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32964&action=edit
Proposed patch
Adding draft patch. I only ran Asan regression tests though (leaving for long
vacation today). Per
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61544
--- Comment #1 from xuepeng guo ---
Author: xguo
Date: Wed Jun 18 10:11:08 2014
New Revision: 211775
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211775&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-18 Terry Guo
PR target/61544
* config/arm/arm.c (thumb1_r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61544
Terry Guo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61530
--- Comment #6 from Yury Gribov ---
Created attachment 32965
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32965&action=edit
Alternative patch
Draft patch to illustrate the last proposal. Bootstrap pending.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61548
Bug ID: 61548
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tls/alias-1.c (internal compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61549
Bug ID: 61549
Summary: Error when linking with shared libraries
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61547
--- Comment #2 from Kostya Serebryany ---
Note that in clang we chose not to instrument any builtins in compiler,
but instead fully rely on interceptors.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54555
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
Author: schwab
Date: Wed Jun 18 10:37:14 2014
New Revision: 211777
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211777&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Use strict_low_part for loading a constant only if it is cheaper
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54555
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61517
--- Comment #3 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Jun 18 10:43:50 2014
New Revision: 211778
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211778&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-18 Thomas Preud'homme
gcc/
PR tree-opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #40 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Alright, change commited (r211778). Can you try another bootstrap with trunk to
see if your Bus error was this bug or another one still?
Thanks a lot.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #41 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #40 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Alright, change commited (r211778). Can you try another bootstrap with trunk
> to
> see if your Bus error was this bug or anothe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61549
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61547
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #2)
> Note that in clang we chose not to instrument any builtins in compiler,
> but instead fully rely on interceptors.
So you never expand such builtins inline?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61550
Bug ID: 61550
Summary: [4.10 Regression] [SH] build failure with ICE in
gen_reg_rtx, at emit-rtl.c:943
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61550
--- Comment #1 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
sh.c:prepare_move_operands has the code for TLS addresses which
shouldn't be run when reload in progress in the first place.
I'm testing the patch below.
--- ORIG/trunk/gcc/config/sh/sh.c2014-06-17 21:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61547
--- Comment #4 from Kostya Serebryany ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> (In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #2)
> > Note that in clang we chose not to instrument any builtins in compiler,
> > but instead fully rely on in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61518
--- Comment #3 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Wed Jun 18 11:40:59 2014
New Revision: 211780
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211780&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/61518
gcc/
* tree-if-conv.c (is_con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61540
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jamb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61539
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56785
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
IIRC with libc++ tuple<> is not an empty type, so has more overhead than ours
in other edge cases. Maybe you should recommend users stay away from that too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
Bill Pringlemeir changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bpringlemeir at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61551
Bug ID: 61551
Summary: [NEON] alter costs to allow use of post-indexed
addressing modes for VLD{2..4}/VST{2..4}
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56785
--- Comment #8 from Eelis ---
With Clang 3.5, given
struct X: std::tuple<> { char c; };
I get sizeof(X)==1. Is that not what you mean?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61545
--- Comment #2 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Wed Jun 18 14:27:55 2014
New Revision: 211785
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211785&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/61545
* config/aarch64/aarch64.md (tlsdesc_small_): Clobber C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61545
--- Comment #3 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Wed Jun 18 14:37:04 2014
New Revision: 211786
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211786&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/61545
* config/aarch64/aarch64.md (tlsdesc_small): Clobber CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56785
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse ---
Try:
struct X: std::tuple { double d; };
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56785
--- Comment #10 from Eelis ---
I see what you mean! And while stuff with empty types and EBO is IMHO not
nearly as serious as random superfluous bytes that are inserted when you use
tuples of a bread and butter type like char, I agree it would be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61545
--- Comment #4 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Wed Jun 18 14:38:56 2014
New Revision: 211787
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211787&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/61545
* config/aarch64/aarch64.md (tlsdesc_small): Clobber CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58692
Tejas Belagod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||belagod at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58692
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #23 from Bill Pringlemeir ---
(In reply to Bill Pringlemeir from comment #22)
> The good ARM assembler uses the 'mla' instruction which is a 'multiply and
> accumulate'. Since this is not recognized, the multiply result needs a
> tem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61538
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Can you provide a stack trace to show which constructor/destructor it's hanging
in?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61537
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51840
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61552
Bug ID: 61552
Summary: Unneeded check for libart
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: java
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61553
Bug ID: 61553
Summary: __atomic_store with non-pointer arg ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Created attachment 32969
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32969&action=edit
gzipped C++ source code
The attached source code, when compiled by trunk dated today, 20140618,
does this when compiled w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29357
Gerald Pfeifer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37621
Gerald Pfeifer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43319
Gerald Pfeifer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerald at pfeifer dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61423
--- Comment #13 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Jun 18 20:01:37 2014
New Revision: 211803
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211803&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-06-06 Uros Bizjak
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61094
--- Comment #20 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Jun 18 20:01:37 2014
New Revision: 211803
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211803&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-06-06 Uros Bizjak
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61446
--- Comment #10 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Jun 18 20:01:37 2014
New Revision: 211803
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211803&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-06-06 Uros Bizjak
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61423
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61555
Bug ID: 61555
Summary: [4.9/4.10 Regression] LLVM build failure
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61554
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61555
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61555
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Are you sure this is not a LLVM source issue?
>
> llvm::cl::parser::getOption(unsigned int) const
> is called by llvm::cl::C::getExtraOptionNames(int&).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61554
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
markus@x4 tmp % cat bug.ii
struct A
{
A ();
};
const unsigned long &min (const unsigned long &, const unsigned long &) {}
template
void transform (_InputIterator1 p1, _InputIterator2, _OutputIterato
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59296
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61538
--- Comment #3 from Joshua Kinard ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> Can you provide a stack trace to show which constructor/destructor it's
> hanging in?
Hopefully you mean a backtrace from gdb. Not finding a lot of info on do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61550
--- Comment #2 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Wed Jun 18 22:11:55 2014
New Revision: 211807
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211807&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/61550
* config/sh/sh.c (prepare_move_operands): Don'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61507
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jun 18 22:13:40 2014
New Revision: 211808
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211808&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/61507
* pt.c (resolve_overloaded_unification): Preserve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59296
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jun 18 22:13:51 2014
New Revision: 211809
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211809&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/59296
* call.c (add_function_candidate): Set LOOKUP_NO_RVAL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61556
Bug ID: 61556
Summary: [c++11][regression] ‘*(const ValueType*)this’ is not a
constant expression with valid code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61538
--- Comment #4 from Joshua Kinard ---
It looks like the bug might be somewhere in __cxa_guard_acquire() in
libstdc++-v3/lubsupc++/guard.cc, as that references glibc and futexes. strace
indicates that the same syscall was invoked twice in a row -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61538
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839#c12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61538
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is the patch which I used for glibc to fix some libstdc++ issues:
>From 2788414e4e6a548766aa7e732fc096f9f572302e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andrew Pinski
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 23:07:22 -0700
Subject
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61538
--- Comment #7 from Joshua Kinard ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> This is the patch which I used for glibc to fix some libstdc++ issues:
Okay, so it's in glibc. Is your patch in glibc yet? It applies cleanly to
2.19, but carr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61557
Bug ID: 61557
Summary: [4.9 Regression] LTO ICE: verify_flow_info failed
(error: control flow in the middle of basic block)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60481
Dmitry Gorbachev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Known to work|4.8.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61538
--- Comment #8 from Joshua Kinard ---
(In reply to Joshua Kinard from comment #7)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> > This is the patch which I used for glibc to fix some libstdc++ issues:
>
> Okay, so it's in glibc. Is your patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48127
Dmitry Gorbachev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48128
--- Comment #4 from Dmitry Gorbachev ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> When marking baz as static an compiling with -mno-sse, the result is even
> more strange...
Still true for GCC 4.9.1 and 4.10.0.
79 matches
Mail list logo
