Re: Undefined behavior or gcc is doing additional good job?

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 04:44:48PM +0800, Bin.Cheng wrote: extern uint32_t __bss_start[]; extern uint32_t __data_start[]; void Reset_Handler(void) { /* Clear .bss section (initialize with zeros) */ for

Re: Undefined behavior or gcc is doing additional good job?

On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 04:01:23PM +0800, Bin.Cheng wrote: Em, YES, it comes from ivopt rewriting, but, if it's not undefined behavior, won't it be annoying (or simply wrong) for compiler to do something not written by the code? If __bss_start of __data_start aren't 32-bit aligned, then it is

Re: Undefined behavior or gcc is doing additional good job?

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 04:01:23PM +0800, Bin.Cheng wrote: Em, YES, it comes from ivopt rewriting, but, if it's not undefined behavior, won't it be annoying (or simply wrong) for compiler to do something not written by the

Re: Draft C bindings for IEEE 754-2008 part 4 now available

On 01/04/2014 07:21 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: FYI: a draft set of C bindings for additional floating-point functions from IEEE 754-2008 are now available (draft TS 18661-4): Is there an accurate summary of IEEE 754-2008 available online? I'm asking because IEEE 754 is widely quoted, but

Re: Draft C bindings for IEEE 754-2008 part 4 now available

On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, Florian Weimer wrote: On 01/04/2014 07:21 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: FYI: a draft set of C bindings for additional floating-point functions from IEEE 754-2008 are now available (draft TS 18661-4): Is there an accurate summary of IEEE 754-2008 available online? No.

Re: Draft C bindings for IEEE 754-2008 part 4 now available

On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, Joseph S. Myers wrote: The IEEE 754 operations are corrected rounded. However, the C bindings (Except that the IEEE 754 reduction operations - subclause 9.4 - return an implementation-defined approximation. But 9.2 is Recommended correctly rounded functions, e.g. exp

Re: Draft C bindings for IEEE 754-2008 part 4 now available

On 01/07/2014 02:48 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, Joseph S. Myers wrote: The IEEE 754 operations are corrected rounded. However, the C bindings (Except that the IEEE 754 reduction operations - subclause 9.4 - return an implementation-defined approximation. But 9.2 is

RE: Infinite number of iterations in loop [v850, mep]

-Original Message- From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Paulo Matos Sent: 13 November 2013 16:14 To: Andrew Haley Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: RE: Infinite number of iterations in loop [v850, mep] -Original Message- From: Andrew Haley

Re: Draft C bindings for IEEE 754-2008 part 4 now available

On 2014-01-07 14:36:58 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: (As far as I know, the state of the art on exhaustive searches for worst cases for correct rounding - as needed to implement correctly rounded transcendental functions with bounded resource use - does not make such searches feasible for IEEE

Re: Draft C bindings for IEEE 754-2008 part 4 now available

On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, Vincent Lefevre wrote: For some of them, this is proved. Here's a summary of the current status: http://tamadiwiki.ens-lyon.fr/tamadiwiki/images/c/c1/Lefevre2013.pdf Thanks for the details. What's the current state of the art on the asymptotic cost of the exhaustive

Re: Draft C bindings for IEEE 754-2008 part 4 now available

On 2014-01-07 14:48:01 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: (Except that the IEEE 754 reduction operations - subclause 9.4 - return an implementation-defined approximation. But 9.2 is Recommended correctly rounded functions, e.g. exp and sin, for which the strictly corresponding C functions are

Re: Draft C bindings for IEEE 754-2008 part 4 now available

On 2014-01-07 16:18:48 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, Vincent Lefevre wrote: For some of them, this is proved. Here's a summary of the current status: http://tamadiwiki.ens-lyon.fr/tamadiwiki/images/c/c1/Lefevre2013.pdf Thanks for the details. What's the

Re: Draft C bindings for IEEE 754-2008 part 4 now available

On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2014-01-07 14:48:01 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: (Except that the IEEE 754 reduction operations - subclause 9.4 - return an implementation-defined approximation. But 9.2 is Recommended correctly rounded functions, e.g. exp and sin, for

[ANN] Registration for C++Now 2014 is Open

Hi, Registration is now open for the eighth annual C++Now conference (formerly BoostCon) which will be held in Aspen, Colorado, USA, May 12th to 17th, 2014. C++Now is a general C++ conference for C++ experts and enthusiasts. It is not specific to any library/framework or compiler vendor and has

Re: Remove spam in GCC mailing list

GMANE replaces @ with at , so that @#$* becomes at #$*. The wiki.documentfoundation.org site is taking too late to load.

Possible enhancement for RTL data flow?

Hi, I noticed function df_insn_rescan always deletes and re-computes insn_info if any one of defs/uses/eq_uses/mw is verified changed by df_insn_refs_verify, even in some passes (like fwprop), the defs are never changed. Could it be improved to only update the changed part (especially we have

[Bug fortran/50252] [OOP] Error message on call x%y (x not declared) can be more informative

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50252 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug fortran/48979] FRACTION und EXPONENT return invalid results for infinity/NaN

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48979 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING

[Bug fortran/58182] [4.9 Regression] ICE with global binding name used as a FUNCTION

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182 --- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Right. Like PR 59023, this regression is probably due to r199120. Unfortunately it is not fixed by r206355, but I think the patch in comment 2 does make sense after all.

[Bug fortran/57839] Reallocate on assignment does not work properly

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57839 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING

[Bug middle-end/58585] [4.9 Regression] ICE in ipa with virtual inheritance

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585 --- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 31762 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31762action=edit Proposed fix Hi, this patch makes us to look harder for correct virtual table. I walk

[Bug c/59039] Undocumented __builtin_longjmp/__builtin_setjmp

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039 --- Comment #26 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org --- I would not say that __builtin_setjmp is more efficient. It really saves just as many registers, except that it has help from the containing function's prologue/epilogue to do

[Bug tree-optimization/59643] Predictive commoning unnecessarily punts on scimark2 SOR

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59643 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/58252] [4.9 Regression] ice in gimple_get_virt_method_for_binfo with -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58252 --- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Should be fixed by proposed fix for http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585. Please help me to test it.

[Bug middle-end/58585] [4.9 Regression] ICE in ipa with virtual inheritance

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585 --- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 31763 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31763action=edit Proposed fix 2 It turns out that in the case of multiple inheritance we may miss vtables

[Bug ipa/59226] [4.9 Regression] ICE: in record_target_from_binfo, at ipa-devirt.c:661

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59226 --- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Should be fixed by proposed fix for http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585. Please help me to test it.

[Bug c++/59707] Crash when using std::map with template class

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59707 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|

[Bug c++/58140] -Wnon-virtual-dtor shouldn't fire for classes declared final

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58140 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- That's PR 58876, which I intend to fix

[Bug fortran/57965] Allocation of derived type containing an allocatable character component segfaults

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57965 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug fortran/58667] Add -Wfloat-conversion

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58667 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug fortran/56655] [F03] ASSOCIATE construct with OpenMP triggers ICE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56655 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING

[Bug fortran/47928] Gfortran intrinsics documentation paragraph ordering illogical

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47928 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P5

[Bug c++/13166] [DR136] not implemented

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13166 Oliver Freyermuth o.freyermuth at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug fortran/56520] Syntax error causes misleading message: Invalid character in name

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56520 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug target/56997] Incorrect write to packed field when strict-volatile-bitfields enabled on aarch32

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997 Joey Ye joey.ye at arm dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/59707] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Crash when using std::map with template class

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59707 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/56203] gfortran.dg/minlocval_3.f90 times out on Solaris/SPARC

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56203 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING

[Bug fortran/56342] MATMUL with PARAMETER: Simplification usually doesn't work

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56342 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug fortran/56174] Wrongly accepts INTEGER :: b = HUGE(b)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56174 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug middle-end/58585] [4.9 Regression] ICE in ipa with virtual inheritance

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585 Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||trippels

[Bug target/59710] New: Nios2: Missing gprel optimization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59710 Bug ID: 59710 Summary: Nios2: Missing gprel optimization Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug middle-end/58585] [4.9 Regression] ICE in ipa with virtual inheritance

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585 --- Comment #14 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org --- Hmm, markus@x4 gcc % cat test.ii class A { void m(); }; void A::m() {} markus@x4 gcc % /var/tmp/gcc_build_dir_/./prev-gcc/xg++ -B/var/tmp/gcc_build_dir_/./prev-gcc/ -r

[Bug fortran/54070] Wrong code with allocatable deferred-length (array) function results

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING

[Bug c/59708] clang-compatible checked arithmetic builtins

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59708 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug tree-optimization/23384] escaped set should be flow sensitive

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23384 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Clobber list should be flow |escaped set

[Bug middle-end/59670] ICE: expected gimple_call(error_mark), have gimple_assign(plus_expr) in gimple_call_internal_p, at gimple.h:2432

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59670 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug middle-end/59670] ICE: expected gimple_call(error_mark), have gimple_assign(plus_expr) in gimple_call_internal_p, at gimple.h:2432

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59670 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug libfortran/52879] Pathological reseeding of PRNG generator genernates poor sequence

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52879 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug c/59708] clang-compatible checked arithmetic builtins

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59708 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot

[Bug tree-optimization/59660] We fail to optimize common boolean checks pre-inlining

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug c++/59659] large zero-initialized std::array compile time excessive

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59659 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|

[Bug middle-end/59658] Document -f* flags enabled by -Og

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59658 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug c/59708] clang-compatible checked arithmetic builtins

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59708 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) Not sure I like their naming though, I'd say they should be type generic builtins handled in the FEs depending on the first argument's

[Bug lto/59626] [4.9 lto] /usr/include/bits/unistd.h:173:1: error: inlining failed in call to always_inline 'readlinkat': recursive inlining

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59626 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0

[Bug debug/59575] [4.9 regression] ICE in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2239

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0

[Bug fortran/59706] [4.9 Regression] ICE with do concurrent and internal subprogram

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59706 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0

[Bug libstdc++/58764] [4.9 Regression] [lwg/2193] error: converting to ‘const std::vectorstd::basic_stringchar ’ from initializer list would use explicit constructor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58764 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0

[Bug middle-end/59584] [4.9 Regression]: cannot handle define_split for insn emitted for __builtin_stack_restore

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59584 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0

[Bug target/59652] [4.8 Regression] ICE: in reload_cse_simplify_operands, at postreload.c:411

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59652 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.8.3

[Bug c++/59645] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE with covariant return and volatile

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59645 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4

[Bug tree-optimization/59586] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [graphite] Segmentation fault with -Ofast -floop-parallelize-all -ftree-parallelize-loops

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59586 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.8.3

[Bug fortran/59700] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Misleading/buggy runtime error message: Bad integer for item 0 in list input

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59700 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.8.3

[Bug c++/59614] [4.9 regression] Explostion in compile time of heavily templated code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59614 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0

[Bug c++/59633] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE with __attribute((vector_size(...))) for enum

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59633 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4

[Bug c++/59646] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE with volatile in initializer list

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59646 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4

[Bug rtl-optimization/57320] [4.9 Regression] Shrink-wrapping leaves unreachable blocks in the CFG

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57320 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0

[Bug c/59708] clang-compatible checked arithmetic builtins

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59708 --- Comment #4 from Josh Triplett josh at joshtriplett dot org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) Not sure I like their naming though, I'd say they should be type generic builtins handled in the FEs depending on the first argument's

[Bug fortran/56132] Lengths incorrect on assignment to an allocatable character scalar.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56132 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/59706] [4.9 Regression] ICE with do concurrent and internal subprogram

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59706 Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc

[Bug tree-optimization/59660] We fail to optimize common boolean checks pre-inlining

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660 --- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz --- I have noticed these, too (-Og is pessimzed by them). The pattern is generated by gimplifying. I wondered why we can't simply update gimplifier to not produce them? (this is what I

[Bug middle-end/58585] [4.9 Regression] ICE in ipa with virtual inheritance

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585 --- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz --- markus@x4 gcc % cat test.ii class A { void m(); }; void A::m() {} markus@x4 gcc % /var/tmp/gcc_build_dir_/./prev-gcc/xg++ -B/var/tmp/gcc_build_dir_/./prev-gcc/ -r -nostdlib

[Bug tree-optimization/59660] We fail to optimize common boolean checks pre-inlining

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660 --- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz --- I have

[Bug middle-end/56341] GCC produces unaligned data access

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341 Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/58334] preprocessor behavior diffs under line continuation

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58334 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug fortran/56201] Realloc on assignment: Wrong code when assigning a zero-sized array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56201 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING

[Bug fortran/56293] Segfault when trying to access pass-by-reference value of a not-word-aligned REAL(16) / -fno-align-commons

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56293 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING

[Bug libstdc++/59192] error: use of deleted function ‘A::A(const A)’

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59192 --- Comment #6 from Rajveer Aujla rajveer_aujla at hotmail dot com --- Thank you for the quick reply. Looking at release dates of previous releases, I'm guessing this will be earliest around next year? Looks like I'd better get coding a workaround

[Bug fortran/52884] double precision constants promoted to 16 byte by -fdefault-real-8

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52884 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING

[Bug fortran/52387] I/O output of write after nonadvancing read

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52387 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING

[Bug tree-optimization/59660] We fail to optimize common boolean checks pre-inlining

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660 --- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz --- Not all testcases can be handled at gimplification time IIRC. Which means testcases welcome first, so we can look at them individually. The GCC one I saw was equivalent of: #include

[Bug middle-end/59711] New: ICE in force_constant_size, at gimplify.c:619 (nested function and variably-modified type)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59711 Bug ID: 59711 Summary: ICE in force_constant_size, at gimplify.c:619 (nested function and variably-modified type) Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/59660] We fail to optimize common boolean checks pre-inlining

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660 --- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz --- Not all

[Bug middle-end/59711] ICE in force_constant_size, at gimplify.c:619 (nested function and variably-modified type)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59711 --- Comment #1 from Florian Weimer fweimer at redhat dot com --- Created attachment 31765 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31765action=edit funcpointer.c Test case without nested function.

[Bug middle-end/59711] ICE in force_constant_size, at gimplify.c:619 with variably-modified return type

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59711 Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug target/58115] testcase gcc.target/i386/intrinsics_4.c failure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58115 --- Comment #13 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: rsandifo Date: Tue Jan 7 15:26:41 2014 New Revision: 206394 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206394root=gccview=rev Log: gcc/ PR target/58115 *

[Bug other/59384] Cilk Plus array notation with for loop after segfaults

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59384 --- Comment #1 from Balaji V. Iyer bviyer at gmail dot com --- Hi Nick, I am sorry for taking a while to get back to you. As you can tell from gcc-patches mailing list, we are actively pursuing to try and push Cilk Plus into trunk. We have

[Bug sanitizer/56535] ICE: in build2_stat, at tree.c:3885 when compiling with -fsanitize=address

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56535 --- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- Markus, Are you still seeing the bootstrap failure with --with-build-config=bootstrap-asan and profiled bootstrap? If yes, could you open a new PR for it?

[Bug sanitizer/56535] ICE: in build2_stat, at tree.c:3885 when compiling with -fsanitize=address

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56535 Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||trippels

[Bug middle-end/58956] [4.7 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above (affecting gcc 4.6 to trunk)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58956 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Jan 7 16:49:22 2014 New Revision: 206396 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206396root=gccview=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2013-12-16 Jakub

[Bug middle-end/59470] [4.8 Regression] libstdc++ miscompilation after r205709

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470 --- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Jan 7 16:49:22 2014 New Revision: 206396 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206396root=gccview=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2013-12-16 Jakub

[Bug pch/59436] [4.9 Regression] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++200x/stdc++.cc (test for excess errors)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59436 --- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Jan 7 16:50:06 2014 New Revision: 206397 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206397root=gccview=rev Log: PR pch/59436 * tree.h (struct

[Bug rtl-optimization/58668] [4.8/4.9 regression] internal compiler error: in cond_exec_process_insns, at ifcvt.c:339

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58668 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Jan 7 16:51:16 2014 New Revision: 206398 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206398root=gccview=rev Log: PR rtl-optimization/58668 * cfgcleanup.c

[Bug middle-end/59470] [4.8 Regression] libstdc++ miscompilation after r205709

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59470 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug pch/59436] [4.9 Regression] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++200x/stdc++.cc (test for excess errors)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59436 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug rtl-optimization/58668] [4.8/4.9 regression] internal compiler error: in cond_exec_process_insns, at ifcvt.c:339

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58668 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/58182] [4.9 Regression] ICE with global binding name used as a FUNCTION

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182 --- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to janus from comment #2) This is slightly different from the error message in comment 0, but it still sounds reasonable to me. The error message depends on whether the code is in one

[Bug c/59708] clang-compatible checked arithmetic builtins

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59708 --- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot com --- See what I said in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-10/msg00280.html about the issues with something type-generic regarding detecting overflow on types smaller

[Bug middle-end/58585] [4.9 Regression] ICE in ipa with virtual inheritance

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585 --- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 31766 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31766action=edit Proposed fix 3 Hi, it is still lightly tested due lack of time, but fixes the previous

[Bug fortran/58182] [4.9 Regression] ICE with global binding name used as a FUNCTION

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/58182] [4.9 Regression] ICE with global binding name used as a FUNCTION

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58182 --- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- I think the patch in comment 2 is simple enough to be committed as obvious, which I will do shortly.

  1   2   3   >