https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63378
Bug ID: 63378
Summary: decltype and access control issues
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63378
--- Comment #1 from Roger Ferrer Ibanez ---
Created attachment 33578
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33578&action=edit
Testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63300
Andreas Arnez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63300
Andreas Arnez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Arnez
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Well - ideally you'd want to do some CSE, not only VRP (constant propagation in
this case). So I'd move it even earlier, after pass_lower_vector_ssa? I
can't see what tracing would break (some odd cases c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63376
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63375
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63373
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60410
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
IMHO -fshort-double should be made a target specific option and generally not
supported.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63325
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63379
Bug ID: 63379
Summary: Incorrect vectorization when enabling SSE and O3,
initialises loop with wrong value
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63379
--- Comment #1 from Jason Wyatt ---
Created attachment 33580
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33580&action=edit
Test case
Compiling this code and running it gives the following output:
Point 0,1000
Point 1,1001
Point 2,1002
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63380
Bug ID: 63380
Summary: Wrong constant folding
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63381
Bug ID: 63381
Summary: Wrong constant folding
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63247
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63247
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 33581
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33581&action=edit
gcc5-pr63247.patch
Untested fix. I believe it is only this particular case
(OMP_CLAUSE_MAP_POINTER for array w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58893
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #5 from Avi Kivity ---
Richard, may I send you the test case privately?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63247
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Patch works fine in my testing, thanks! Cesar, any further comments, as you
have originally diagnosed this issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014, a...@cloudius-systems.com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
>
> --- Comment #5 from Avi Kivity ---
> Richard, may I send you the test case privatel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61283
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Does this still reproduce?
It does on i386-pc-solaris2.11 as of 20140924 (r215597).
Rainer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50800
Matthias Kretz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kretz at kde dot org
--- Comment #9 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50800
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50800
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.4
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63382
Bug ID: 63382
Summary: gcc 5 breaks linux early bootup in QEMU
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63382
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59759
--- Comment #6 from Gereon Kremer ---
Any news here?
The problem persists with version g++ (GCC) 4.9.1 20140903 (prerelease).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61848
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59759
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63382
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63375
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
SRA is indeed quite guilty, the following patch fixes it:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-sra.c b/gcc/tree-sra.c
index 8259dba..fb24114 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-sra.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-sra.c
@@ -1064,6 +1064,11 @@ build_acc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63253
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
--- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
This feels like the kind of situation where I've always wanted a pass to be
able to say something like "I've done some set of transformations", schedule
the appropriate cleanup passes to run".
It's heavywe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50021
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63383
Bug ID: 63383
Summary: internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1, at
expr.c:9389
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63383
--- Comment #1 from Brandon Rioja ---
version: gcc (GCC) 4.8.3
system type: cygwin running in windows 7
command line to build:
g++ -ggdb -O0 -std=c++11 BigOEasy.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63383
--- Comment #2 from Brandon Rioja ---
Created attachment 33583
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33583&action=edit
stack dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63383
--- Comment #3 from Brandon Rioja ---
Created attachment 33584
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33584&action=edit
preprocessed file (zipped)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44463
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45307
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44463
--- Comment #15 from Andi Kleen ---
I don't have any aliasing problems currently, but I haven't tried to take out
the workarounds. But it's ok for me to close.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55992
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
An alias declaration seems necessary to trigger the bug, eg doesn't affect:
template
struct my_array : A { };
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59948
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47413
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44463
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63384
Bug ID: 63384
Summary: ICE in moveup_expr_chached->sel_bb_head->bb_node with
special options
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46176
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25957
--- Comment #12 from Andi Kleen ---
Problem is still there in
gcc50 (GCC) 4.9.0 20130617 (experimental)
The stack protector edge should be cold and alignment disabled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60469
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45475
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50302
--- Comment #5 from Andi Kleen ---
Problem is still there on
gcc version 4.8.3 20140624 (Red Hat 4.8.3-1) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63347
Jonathan Larmour changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.8.3
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan La
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63385
Bug ID: 63385
Summary: internal compiler error: in pop_binding, at
cp/name-lookup.c for implicitly captured variable
called closure
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63385
Matthias Kretz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0, 4.9.1, 4.9.2
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63282
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 33586
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33586&action=edit
gcc5-pr63282.patch
Untested fix. Calling redirect_jump_1/indirect_jump_1 on something that isn't
a normal cond
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63282
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 33587
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33587&action=edit
gcc5-pr63282-2.patch
Or we can just give up in redirect_jump_1 for asm gotos with > 1 label.
Or both.
I guess
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63385
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Have you tried with the current 4.9.2 bits? I get the following with a 32bit
host cross to hppa64-unknown-linux-gnu:
depdi 0,52,20,%r26
depdi,z 1,32,4,%r28
add,l %r26,%r28,%r28
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63385
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> This got fixed with r197211. Whether it is safely backportable will leave
> to Jason.
Looks safe, testing now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63373
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson ---
Related to PR57180?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63386
Bug ID: 63386
Summary: Release version of CB wont compile Bullet (-o2)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63386
--- Comment #1 from TechoMan ---
Using latests MinGW & TDM.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63386
--- Comment #2 from TechoMan ---
-O2 causes that , -O1 doesnt.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63373
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I agree with the analysis in bug 28865 that .size should reflect the
presence of the initializer. That bug was marked FIXED, but I'm not clear
if the issue described in its summary - "Stru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61397
Maciej W. Rozycki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ma...@linux-mips.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49423
--- Comment #32 from gregory.0xf0 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to cbaylis from comment #31)
> I intend to backport to 4.8 and 4.9, once this change has had a week of
> testing on trunk.
Hi Charles, just a gentle reminder that you were planning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36757
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63386
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 26-Sep-14, at 3:46 PM, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
> Have you tried with the current 4.9.2 bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sat Sep 27 00:03:23 2014
New Revision: 215651
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215651&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/35545
* passes.def (pass_tracer): Move before last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32629
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
Yep, the problem with dealing arbitrarily long sequences is something we need
to solve. Also memcpy/memset ought to use vector moves by itself in these
cases..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62121
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sat Sep 27 00:19:06 2014
New Revision: 215655
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215655&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/62121
* ipa-polymorphic-call.c
(ipa_polymorphic_call_conte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60665
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60665
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sat Sep 27 00:21:33 2014
New Revision: 215656
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215656&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/60665
* ipa-devirt.c (possible_polymorphic_call_targets):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
--- Comment #17 from davidxl ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #16)
> I have moved tracer before the late cleanups that seems to be rather obbious
> thing to do. This lets us to optimize the testcase (with -O2):
> int main() ()
> {
> st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62164
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35545
--- Comment #18 from Jan Hubicka ---
> WE can try some internal benchmarks with this change too.
That would be very welcome. Tracer used to be quite useful pass in old days,
doing 1.6% on -O3+FDO SPECint (for 1.4% code size cost) that put it ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63387
Bug ID: 63387
Summary: Optimize pairs of isnan() calls into a single
isunordered()
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #6 from Andi Kleen ---
Seems to be fixed now in
gcc version 5.0.0 20140926 (experimental) (GCC)
The double conversion is only generated for -mtune=amdfam10, but not for
mtune=generic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63387
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Thanks.
The simplify pattern probably needs an extra test that the types of @0 and @1
are compatible, so we don't try to produce unord(float,double). In that case,
it isn't as obvious that converting the first
83 matches
Mail list logo
