http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60350
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
uninitialized in this function
[-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
(i ? pf : pv);
^
s.c:4:11: warning: ‘pv’ may be used uninitialized in this function
[-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
$: gcc-trunk --version
gcc-trunk (GCC) 4.9.0 20140226 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60071
--- Comment #7 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
A testresult with the patch in #6 on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-02/msg01866.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60351
Bug ID: 60351
Summary: Incorrect column number for warning on right shift
count is negative
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60247
bobf at mrp3 dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53902
Rich Lowe richlowe at richlowe dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richlowe at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60352
Bug ID: 60352
Summary: [C++11] Bogus error: conflicting declaration 'auto
i'
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57232
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #0)
class A {
public:
virtual ~A();
};
class B : A {
virtual int m_fn1();
};
void fn1() {
delete reinterpret_castB*(1);
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
--- Comment #37 from Roman roman.vasiliev at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 32220
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32220action=edit
initilal file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60353
Bug ID: 60353
Summary: [4.9 Regression] Firefox build failure #3 caused by
r208157
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
--- Comment #38 from Roman roman.vasiliev at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 32221
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32221action=edit
yeld without -std=c++11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
--- Comment #39 from Roman roman.vasiliev at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 3
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3action=edit
yeld with -std=c++11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52015
--- Comment #40 from Roman roman.vasiliev at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #36)
(In reply to Roman from comment #35)
Tried to apply proposed patch for MinGW 4.8.1 and received no positive
effect. Compiler tells
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48784
--- Comment #7 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jye2
Date: Thu Feb 27 07:28:06 2014
New Revision: 208195
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208195root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-27 Joey Ye joey...@arm.com
Backport mainline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56341
--- Comment #18 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jye2
Date: Thu Feb 27 07:28:06 2014
New Revision: 208195
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208195root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-27 Joey Ye joey...@arm.com
Backport mainline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59134
--- Comment #7 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jye2
Date: Thu Feb 27 07:28:06 2014
New Revision: 208195
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208195root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-27 Joey Ye joey...@arm.com
Backport mainline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #15 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jye2
Date: Thu Feb 27 07:28:06 2014
New Revision: 208195
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208195root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-27 Joey Ye joey...@arm.com
Backport mainline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23623
--- Comment #20 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jye2
Date: Thu Feb 27 07:28:06 2014
New Revision: 208195
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208195root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-02-27 Joey Ye joey...@arm.com
Backport mainline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60351
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60350
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014, Jan Hubicka wrote:
This fixes the ICE on our regular -flto-partition=none testers
which sees an edge w/o call-stmt after inlining (see the PR
for details). I'm not sure this is supposed to happen but the
following re-instantiates the guard to
On 02/26/14 01:54, Terry Guo wrote:
Hi There,
As the assembler directive .code 16 equals .thumb, this small patch is
going to redefine the ASM_APP_OFF in a cleaner way. Tested with GCC
regression test and no regressions. Is it OK to current trunk or shall we
wait until the release-branch mode
On 24 February 2014 09:10, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Another option would be just using boost/multiprecision/mpfr.hpp when
available. In general, I think it makes sense to have a minimum of
infrastructure enabling tests checking interoperability with boost. If only
we had a check_v3_target_header
On 02/26/2014 10:57 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 24 February 2014 09:10, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Another option would be just using boost/multiprecision/mpfr.hpp when
available. In general, I think it makes sense to have a minimum of
infrastructure enabling tests checking interoperability with
Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, committed.
Richard.
2014-02-26 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
PR bootstrap/60343
* lra-assigns.c (spill_for): Avoid mixed-sign comparison.
Index: gcc/lra-assigns.c
===
On 02/26/2014 03:30 PM, Mircea Namolaru wrote:
This patch fixes the libgomp problems:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58028
2014-02-26 Tobies Grosser tob...@grosser.es
Mircea Namolaru mnamo...@inria.fr
Hi Mircea,
the patch is correct.
Fix for bug 58028
*
Sorry, my yesterday mail was lost (because of my computer freeze on
unstable kernel). So I am sending the email again.
Here is the patch to fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60317
The patch speeds up the compiler in 5 times on this patalogical test and
making LRA faster reload
Hi all,
The generic rtx cost table was written with AArch32 cores in mind. It would be a
better idea to use the Cortex-A57 costs for the generic CPU in aarch64. That way
we schedule for the Cortex-A53 and do instruction selection for the Cortex-A57.
Since generic is the default CPU, this
Alan Modra wrote:
Some notes: Setting old to rl-in_reg when it is a subreg doesn't
change the cases where delete_output_reload is called, since that call
is protected by REG_P (old). The same thing goes for the following:
/* If we are reloading a pseudo-register that was set by the
Ping.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 02:38:50PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:06:14PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
This is invalid.
Thanks. In that case, this patch should error out on such invalid uses as
well, instead of ICEing.
Regtested/bootstrapped on
Hi Thomas!
This patch is pretty obvious. Currently ASYNC clause cannot have
integer-expression-list. Patch fixes this.
OK for gomp4 branch?
--
Ilmir.
From df76a29ebf869687209d7a606e243624cc136dbc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ilmir Usmanov i.usma...@samsung.com
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014
This patch change the usage for HONOR_REG_ALLOC_ORDER, currently it's
can define or not define only. it's determine how cost caculate in
register allocation during gcc build time, and can't change it during
compile time.
However in some target, define HONOR_REG_ALLOC_ORDER is good for
optimize
On 21 February 2014 12:44, Alex Velenko alex.vele...@arm.com wrote:
This patch adds vrnd*_f64 aarch64 intrinsics. A testcase for those
intrinsics is added. Run a complete LE and BE regression run with no
regressions.
Is patch OK for stage-1?
gcc/
2014-02-21 Alex Velenko
Hello Jonathan,
2014-02-20 20:19 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Schleifer j...@webkeks.org:
There is also definitely a use-after-free if you call _Unwind_DeleteException
in your personality before returning _URC_INSTALL_CONTEXT (which you should,
if you don't want to leak and your landing pad doesn't
On 02/25/2014 04:27 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
I'm a
little uncertain about applying this so late in the 4.9 cycle, but I
think it's a significant improvement to C++11 support.
But it broke firefox, so I've reverted it. I'll try again in stage 1.
Jason
A parameter pack of a member template that depends on a template
parameter pack from an enclosing class template is what I'm going to
call a fixed parameter pack: the length of the pack expansion is
determined by the template arguments of the enclosing class template,
not by any template or
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Tim Shen timshe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com
wrote:
.. I think it would be cleaner to have new, separate testcases, named after
2213. This is what we always did in the past when we implemented
This fixes an oversight where we didn't run execute_late_warn_uninitialized
when only -Wmaybe-uninitialize was specified -- gate_warn_uninitialized
should take warn_maybe_uninitialized into account.
Regtested/bootstrapped on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
2014-02-26 Marek Polacek
On February 26, 2014 8:58:11 PM GMT+01:00, Marek Polacek pola...@redhat.com
wrote:
This fixes an oversight where we didn't run
execute_late_warn_uninitialized
when only -Wmaybe-uninitialize was specified -- gate_warn_uninitialized
should take warn_maybe_uninitialized into account.
Hi Jakub,
Did you get a chance to look at this?
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From: Iyer, Balaji V
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 6:17 PM
To: 'Jakub Jelinek'
Cc: 'Jason Merrill'; 'Jeff Law'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org';
'r...@redhat.com'
On 02/26/2014 10:09 PM, Mircea Namolaru wrote:
This patch fixes the libgomp problems:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58028
2014-02-26 Tobias Grosser tob...@grosser.es
Mircea Namolaru mnamo...@inria.fr
Fix for bug 58028
* graphite-clast-to-gimple.c (set_cloog_options):
Don't remove
Ping (yeah boring to review!)
2014-02-23 20:36 GMT+01:00 Fabien Chêne fabien.ch...@gmail.com:
Ahem, patch resubmitted with the testsuite correctly adjusted this
time. Tested x86_64 linux, still OK to commit ?
2014-02-23 Fabien Chene fab...@gcc.gnu.org
PR c++/52369
*
As discussed in the PR, I think my earlier suggestion to use
c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings to suppress undesirable warnings from
template instantiations was wrong. That flag should only be used for
suppressing warnings that are irrelevant because the expression is never
evaluated, which may
Dear All,
The attached patch allows the original testcase to compile but
attempting to use it runs into segfaults at runtime. The initializer
for 'decay_t' has a bad FIELD_DECL for 'decay_gen_t' since it lacks
the DECL_SIZE(_UNIT) fields but the TYPE_SIZE(_UNIT) fields are OK.
The patch runs
On 02/25/2014 01:53 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
The primary bug under discussion in 53808 has been fixed separately, but
it also pointed out that once devirtualization resolves the delete to
use the bar destructor, we ought to be able to inline that destructor.
So if we're devirtualizing, always
Dear all,
as suggested by Richard, it now only prints the namelist name and no
longer the variables of the namelist.
Bootstrapped on x86-64-gnu-linux and currently regtesting.
OK for the trunk when it succeeds?
Tobias
On February 22, 2014 10:00, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Since GCC 4.9, gfortran
This patch fixes the bug of not calling compute_inline_parameters
before early_inliner, which would lead to ICE.
Testing on going, OK for google-4_8 if test passes?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/auto-profile.c
===
--- gcc/auto-profile.c
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Dehao Chen de...@google.com wrote:
This patch fixes the bug of not calling compute_inline_parameters
before early_inliner, which would lead to ICE.
Testing on going, OK for google-4_8 if test passes?
Thanks,
Dehao
Index: gcc/auto-profile.c
But this caused bug 60347: turns out that we shouldn't do this
unless the vtable (and thus the contents of the vtable) are used.
The ipa-devirt type inheritance builder will use any vtable it finds in
DECL_BINFO
of types that it knows about. It starts with types of virtual methods and
virtual
Yes, patch updated:
Index: gcc/auto-profile.c
===
--- gcc/auto-profile.c (revision 207970)
+++ gcc/auto-profile.c (working copy)
@@ -1371,8 +1371,7 @@ afdo_vpt_for_early_inline (stmt_set *promoted_stmt
calculate_dominance_info
ok.
David
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Dehao Chen de...@google.com wrote:
Yes, patch updated:
Index: gcc/auto-profile.c
===
--- gcc/auto-profile.c (revision 207970)
+++ gcc/auto-profile.c (working copy)
@@ -1371,8 +1371,7
Hi Mike S., Michael E.,
-Original Message-
From: Mike Stump [mailto:mikest...@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, 21 February 2014 6:17 am
To: David Holsgrove
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Michael Eager (ea...@eagerm.com); Vidhumouli
Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala; John Williams; Edgar Iglesias
Hi all:
Sorry for repeat patch content in last mail, here is the clean version
for this patch.
diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.h b/gcc/config/arm/arm.h
index 7ca47a7..1638332 100644
--- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.h
+++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.h
@@ -1152,7 +1152,7 @@ extern int arm_regs_in_sequence[];
I've been hacking gcc's contrib/update-copyright.py for binutils,
and have run it over binutils to update all the binutils copyright
notices.
Here's an example of the update:
--- a/bfd/elf32-sparc.c
+++ b/bfd/elf32-sparc.c
@@ -1,7 +1,5 @@
/* SPARC-specific support for 32-bit ELF
- Copyright
Some ports were failing an assertion check that was supposed to make
sure some RTX created a new VALUE, rather than reuse an existing one in
the cselib tables. The reason the value was already there was that we'd
recorded the register in the permanent table as the CFA, but the
register was
Ping ^ 5
-Original Message-
From: Joey Ye [mailto:joey...@arm.com]
Sent: 19 February 2014 17:22
To: 'ja...@redhat.com'; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH][4.8] Backport strict-volatile-bitfields fixes to 4.8
Ping ^ 4
-Original Message-
From: Joey Ye
We indirectly call remove_useless_values quite often during
vt_initialize; at least once per extended basic block. On functions
with thousands of small basic blocks, each adding permanent and
temporary entries to the table, that turns out to be quite expensive:
the permanent entries pile up and
[apologies if this is a dupe; I accidentally hit the send keystroke
before adding the last paragraph, and I'm not sure I was quick enough
to cancel it]
The first patch for PR debug/59992 cut down vt_initialize time in
insn-recog to less than 1/3, by avoiding quadratic behavior in
Committed to ARM/embedded-4_8-branch
Still pending to gcc-4_8-branch.
-Original Message-
From: Joey Ye [mailto:joey...@arm.com]
Sent: 27 February 2014 13:53
To: 'ja...@redhat.com'; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: RE: [PATCH][4.8] Backport strict-volatile-bitfields fixes to 4.8
101 - 160 of 160 matches
Mail list logo