[Bug c/50081] New: Wrong code (wrong order) generated with -O2 or -Os while function return a struct

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50081 Bug #: 50081 Summary: Wrong code (wrong order) generated with -O2 or -Os while function return a struct Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.4.2

[Bug c/50081] Wrong code (wrong order) generated with -O2 or -Os while function return a struct

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50081 --- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-08-15 07:16:36 UTC --- Is this Thumb-1 code? If so then I suspect this is a duplicate of PR38644.

[Bug c/50082] New: -Wstrict-overflow mishandles typedef

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50082 Bug #: 50082 Summary: -Wstrict-overflow mishandles typedef Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c/50081] Wrong code (wrong order) generated with -O2 or -Os while function return a struct

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50081 --- Comment #2 from LYZ lingyouz...@arimacomm-hz.cn 2011-08-15 08:01:26 UTC --- I am a new here, I try 4.4.1 still same issue. My compile is arm-none-eabi-gcc-4.4.1.exe. Yes Thumb-1 code, but I not sure whether same as PR38644. (In reply to

[Bug rtl-optimization/50063] [4.6/4.7 Regression] DSE: wrong code for gcc.dg/torture/pta-ptrarith-3.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063 --- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15 08:07:29 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) Sounds like some of the latent RTL alias issues we have with regarding to find_base_value and friends (see some i?86 bugreport I

[Bug rtl-optimization/38644] [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Optimization flag -O1 -fschedule-insns2 causes wrong code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644 --- Comment #42 from LYZ lingyouz...@arimacomm-hz.cn 2011-08-15 08:08:46 UTC --- *** Bug 50081 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c/50081] Wrong code (wrong order) generated with -O2 or -Os while function return a struct

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50081 LYZ lingyouz...@arimacomm-hz.cn changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c/50081] Wrong code (wrong order) generated with -O2 or -Os while function return a struct

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50081 --- Comment #4 from LYZ lingyouz...@arimacomm-hz.cn 2011-08-15 08:28:09 UTC --- Created attachment 25012 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25012 source code

[Bug c/50081] Wrong code (wrong order) generated with -O2 or -Os while function return a struct

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50081 --- Comment #5 from LYZ lingyouz...@arimacomm-hz.cn 2011-08-15 08:29:12 UTC --- Created attachment 25013 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25013 asm code

[Bug rtl-optimization/50065] -Os, -O2, -O3 optimization breaks LD/ST ordering on 32-bit SPARC

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50065 --- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15 08:47:08 UTC --- Regarding the spinlock_unlock in linux, the regular arch_spin_unlock is implemented with a single inline assembly. That will prevent the memory

[Bug c++/50080] [C++0x] error: 'template' (as a disambiguator) is only allowed within templates

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50080 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15 08:51:44 UTC --- You're right, but g++ doesn't claim to support everything in C++11 yet, especially not in the 4.5 release series which is nearly a year and half old, the

[Bug rtl-optimization/50037] Unroll factor exceeds max trip count

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50037 --- Comment #8 from Ilya Enkovich enkovich.gnu at gmail dot com 2011-08-15 09:06:18 UTC --- This patch did not work for me. Tried on following loop (-O2 -funroll-loops): for ( count = ((*(hdrptr)) 0x7); count 0; count--, addr++ ) sum +=

[Bug rtl-optimization/50078] [4.6/4.7 Regression] combine wrong code: volatile accesses optimized out

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50078 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug rtl-optimization/50078] [4.6/4.7 Regression] combine wrong code: volatile accesses optimized out

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50078 --- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15 09:13:40 UTC --- noop_move_p returns true for this - ignoding the side-effects.

[Bug fortran/50070] Segmentation fault at size_binop_loc in fold-const.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50070 --- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15 09:15:36 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) Based on chapter 7.1.11, I would say that g95's error message is wrong: z does not have to have constant length. Well, to be precise, it is not

[Bug tree-optimization/50058] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr41186.C

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50058 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug middle-end/50083] New: [4.7 regression] All 32-bit fortran tests fail on 32-bit Solaris

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50083 Bug #: 50083 Summary: [4.7 regression] All 32-bit fortran tests fail on 32-bit Solaris Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/50070] Segmentation fault at size_binop_loc in fold-const.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50070 --- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15 09:49:44 UTC --- Btw, for a related test case ... subroutine sub common n,z integer z(n) end ... gfortran spits out: integer z(n) 1 Error: Variable 'n' at (1) in this

[Bug fortran/49961] [OOP] type-bound function can not return a pointer of a array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49961 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug middle-end/50079] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/init/copy7.C execution test

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50079 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING

[Bug middle-end/50079] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/init/copy7.C execution test

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50079 --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-08-15 10:57:58 UTC --- As I said, please re-check after [revision 177691] See comment #2: I also see the failure on powerpc-apple-darwin9 at revision 177733. The test in

[Bug c/50082] -Wstrict-overflow mishandles typedef

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50082 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug rtl-optimization/50063] [4.6/4.7 Regression] DSE: wrong code for gcc.dg/torture/pta-ptrarith-3.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50063 --- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15 11:05:08 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) (In reply to comment #5) Sounds like some of the latent RTL alias issues we have with regarding to find_base_value and

[Bug middle-end/50083] [4.7 regression] All 32-bit fortran tests fail on 32-bit Solaris

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50083 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0

[Bug c++/50084] New: ICE: C++0x, decltype + remove_reference + new

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50084 Bug #: 50084 Summary: ICE: C++0x, decltype + remove_reference + new Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/50022] [4.7 regression] incorrect condition in IT block when building mozilla code base for ARM

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50022 --- Comment #5 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15 11:57:38 UTC --- Author: ramana Date: Mon Aug 15 11:57:33 2011 New Revision: 177759 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177759 Log: 2011-08-15

[Bug testsuite/50085] New: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/opt/life1.C scan-assembler GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE on x86_64-apple-darwin10

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50085 Bug #: 50085 Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/opt/life1.C scan-assembler GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE on x86_64-apple-darwin10 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc

[Bug c++/50084] [C++0x] ICE: decltype + remove_reference + new

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50084 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug fortran/50069] FORALL fails on a character array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50069 Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc

[Bug c++/50086] New: Error on lookup of template function address with variadic template arguments

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50086 Bug #: 50086 Summary: Error on lookup of template function address with variadic template arguments Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.1 Status:

[Bug tree-optimization/50058] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr41186.C

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50058 --- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15 12:17:39 UTC --- Author: rguenth Date: Mon Aug 15 12:17:33 2011 New Revision: 177760 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177760 Log: 2011-08-15 Richard

[Bug tree-optimization/50058] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr41186.C

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50058 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug c++/50086] [C++0x] Error on lookup of template function address with variadic template arguments

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50086 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug middle-end/50079] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/init/copy7.C execution test

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50079 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/50087] New: Weird optimization anomoly with constexpr

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50087 Bug #: 50087 Summary: Weird optimization anomoly with constexpr Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/50087] Weird optimization anomoly with constexpr

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50087 --- Comment #1 from eric-gcc at omnifarious dot org 2011-08-15 12:49:16 UTC --- Created attachment 25015 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25015 The function 'runs_too_long' takes basically forever

[Bug rtl-optimization/50088] New: movzbl is generated instead of movl

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50088 Bug #: 50088 Summary: movzbl is generated instead of movl Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug rtl-optimization/50088] movzbl is generated instead of movl

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50088 --- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15 13:07:50 UTC --- I don't think we know at this point that the data is already properly zero-extended.

[Bug c++/50089] New: [C++0x] ICE when calling a qualified base class member function within a lambda expr without this-

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50089 Bug #: 50089 Summary: [C++0x] ICE when calling a qualified base class member function within a lambda expr without this- Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.1

[Bug c++/50089] [C++0x] ICE when calling a qualified base class member function within a lambda expr without this-

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50089 --- Comment #1 from andwoe andwoe at hotmail dot com 2011-08-15 13:18:57 UTC --- Created attachment 25017 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25017 source

[Bug rtl-optimization/50088] movzbl is generated instead of movl

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50088 --- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich enkovich.gnu at gmail dot com 2011-08-15 13:24:05 UTC --- Actually we do not need any zero extensions here. Zero extended load appears only after IRA if we have to spill/fill register. Here is c code from

[Bug testsuite/50085] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/opt/life1.C scan-assembler GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE on x86_64-apple-darwin10

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50085 H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail

[Bug c++/50089] [C++0x] ICE when calling a qualified base class member function within a lambda expr without this-

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50089 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug c++/50087] [C++0x] Weird optimization anomaly with constexpr

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50087 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at

[Bug testsuite/50085] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/opt/life1.C scan-assembler GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE on x86_64-apple-darwin10

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50085 --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-08-15 13:38:15 UTC --- Can you try this ... With the change I get: ERROR: g++.dg/opt/life1-c.C: syntax error in target selector target i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* ia32 fpic

[Bug testsuite/50085] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/opt/life1.C scan-assembler GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE on x86_64-apple-darwin10

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50085 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-08-15 13:42:59 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) Can you try this ... With the change I get: ERROR: g++.dg/opt/life1-c.C: syntax error in target selector target i?86-*-*

[Bug testsuite/50074] [4.7 Regression] gcc.dg/sibcall-6.c execution test on x86_64-apple-darwin10

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50074 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-08-15 13:46:11 UTC --- It is triggered by http://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=cc0595c0a5a0ab03fba105bb1dbe856557b1a988

[Bug c++/50075] [C++0x] ICE related to parameter deduction and initializer_list

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50075 --- Comment #7 from Kerrek SB z0sh at sogetthis dot com 2011-08-15 13:57:51 UTC --- This is great, thank you!

[Bug target/50090] New: ARM EABI symbols in libgcc.a have default visibility

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50090 Bug #: 50090 Summary: ARM EABI symbols in libgcc.a have default visibility Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/50074] [4.7 Regression] gcc.dg/sibcall-6.c execution test on x86_64-apple-darwin10

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50074 H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug target/50090] ARM EABI symbols in libgcc.a have default visibility

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50090 rsand...@gcc.gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/49519] [4.7 Regression] Revision 175272 miscompiled 447.dealII in SPEC CPU 2006

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49519 --- Comment #32 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-08-15 14:12:04 UTC --- Can we check 2 cases: 1. Indirect function call via a register (PR 50074). 2. Non of function arguments are pointers (PR 49179).

[Bug c/50082] -Wstrict-overflow mishandles typedef

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50082 Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ian at airs dot com

[Bug rtl-optimization/50088] movzbl is generated instead of movl

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50088 H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail

[Bug testsuite/50085] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/opt/life1.C scan-assembler GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE on x86_64-apple-darwin10

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50085 --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-08-15 14:55:20 UTC --- Did this test work with -m32 before? It was unsupported.

[Bug testsuite/50085] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/opt/life1.C scan-assembler GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE on x86_64-apple-darwin10

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50085 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-08-15 15:01:51 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) Did this test work with -m32 before? It was unsupported. It required PIC and ILP32 before. Why wasn't supported?

[Bug c/50082] -Wstrict-overflow mishandles typedef

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50082 --- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15 15:01:38 UTC --- Author: rguenth Date: Mon Aug 15 15:01:33 2011 New Revision: 177762 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177762 Log: 2011-08-15 Richard

[Bug testsuite/50085] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/opt/life1.C scan-assembler GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE on x86_64-apple-darwin10

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50085 --- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-08-15 15:09:10 UTC --- It required PIC and ILP32 before. Why wasn't supported? Good question;-) but I don't know the answer!-(

[Bug target/50091] New: [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] -fstack-check gives bad assembly on powerpc-apple-darwin9

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50091 Bug #: 50091 Summary: [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] -fstack-check gives bad assembly on powerpc-apple-darwin9 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0

[Bug rtl-optimization/50088] movzbl is generated instead of movl

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50088 --- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15 15:26:19 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) It is done on purpose: /* X86_TUNE_MOVX: Enable to zero extend integer registers to avoid partial dependencies. */

[Bug c/50082] -Wstrict-overflow mishandles typedef

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50082 --- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15 15:31:37 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) Not sure I understand your question about tree-ssa-forwprop.c. Are you saying that overflow warnings are already deferred at

[Bug rtl-optimization/50088] movzbl is generated instead of movl

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50088 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-08-15 15:47:39 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #3) It is done on purpose: /* X86_TUNE_MOVX: Enable to zero extend integer registers to avoid

[Bug fortran/49962] [OOP] ICE when using type-bound function returning vector

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49962 --- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15 16:00:48 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) Ok, the patch is simple enough after all. If I get approval by another Fortran maintainer, I'll be happy to do the backport. The

[Bug c/50092] New: internal compiler error: in elimination_costs_in_insn, at reload1.c:3633

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50092 Bug #: 50092 Summary: internal compiler error: in elimination_costs_in_insn, at reload1.c:3633 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.1 Status:

[Bug rtl-optimization/50088] movzbl is generated instead of movl

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50088 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-08-15 17:19:22 UTC --- Created attachment 25019 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25019 A patch

[Bug rtl-optimization/50088] movzbl is generated instead of movl

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50088 H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug target/39250] unsigned char times 64U produces long slow loop

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39250 --- Comment #3 from Michael Hennebry hennebry at web dot cs.ndsu.nodak.edu 2011-08-15 17:34:46 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) This is solved in 4.7 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 49687 *** 49687 is still unassigned. Did

[Bug debug/50006] [4.7 Regression] ICE in in connect_traces, at dwarf2cfi.c:2677

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50006 --- Comment #11 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15 17:39:52 UTC --- Created attachment 25020 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25020 second patch Two similar, but not really identical, problems. S390x

[Bug target/39250] unsigned char times 64U produces long slow loop

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39250 --- Comment #4 from Michael Hennebry hennebry at web dot cs.ndsu.nodak.edu 2011-08-15 17:42:04 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) (In reply to comment #2) This is solved in 4.7 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 49687 ***

[Bug debug/50006] [4.7 Regression] ICE in in connect_traces, at dwarf2cfi.c:2677

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50006 --- Comment #12 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15 17:44:19 UTC --- Author: rth Date: Mon Aug 15 17:44:11 2011 New Revision: 177764 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177764 Log: PR middle-end/50006

[Bug debug/50006] [4.7 Regression] ICE in in connect_traces, at dwarf2cfi.c:2677

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50006 Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING ---

[Bug c/50082] -Wstrict-overflow mishandles typedef

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50082 --- Comment #5 from iant at google dot com iant at google dot com 2011-08-15 19:39:08 UTC --- rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org writes: I suppose the forwprop code wants to force a warning at -Wstrict-overflow=1 if the

[Bug c++/50093] New: [4.6 Regression] STL containers of non-default-constructible classes fail under -std=c++0x

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50093 Bug #: 50093 Summary: [4.6 Regression] STL containers of non-default-constructible classes fail under -std=c++0x Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc

[Bug c++/50093] [4.6 Regression] STL containers of non-default-constructible classes fail under -std=c++0x

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50093 Anders Kaseorg andersk at mit dot edu changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||4.5.3 Known

[Bug c++/50093] [4.6 Regression] STL containers of non-default-constructible classes fail under -std=c++0x

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50093 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/50093] [4.6 Regression] STL containers of non-default-constructible classes fail under -std=c++0x

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50093 --- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-08-15 20:17:41 UTC --- By the way, we even wrote down this explicitly in C.2.12 (of n3290).

[Bug testsuite/50085] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/opt/life1.C scan-assembler GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE on x86_64-apple-darwin10

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50085 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added CC||iains at

[Bug testsuite/50085] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/opt/life1.C scan-assembler GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE on x86_64-apple-darwin10

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50085 --- Comment #8 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-15 22:04:09 UTC --- Author: hjl Date: Mon Aug 15 22:04:04 2011 New Revision: 12 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=12 Log: Only run

[Bug testsuite/50085] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/opt/life1.C scan-assembler GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE on x86_64-apple-darwin10

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50085 H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/50094] New: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/coarray_6.f90

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50094 Bug #: 50094 Summary: [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/coarray_6.f90 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/50094] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/coarray_6.f90

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50094 --- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-08-15 22:27:25 UTC --- I have not reached this stage yet, but I see the following typo (shallolvnot): gcc/fortran/resolve.c: gfc_error (Function result '%s' at %L

[Bug fortran/50094] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/coarray_6.f90

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50094 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug lto/50095] New: -ffixed-REG and -ffixed-line-length-132 conflict

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50095 Bug #: 50095 Summary: -ffixed-REG and -ffixed-line-length-132 conflict Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/50068] Invalid memory access in incr_ticks_for_insn

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50068 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-16 00:01:57 UTC --- The SH target is the only target which does: if (optimize 0 flag_delayed_branch) dbr_schedule (insns); in its thunks.

[Bug target/49202] MMIX: Wrong debugging information generated (UNKNOWN: length 2)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49202 Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug target/49202] MMIX: Wrong debugging information generated (UNKNOWN: length 2)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49202 --- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-16 01:37:03 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) I'm also going to open a binutils bug and crossref this PR. http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13095

[Bug rtl-optimization/49936] [4.7 Regression] IRA handles CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS poorly, + spills to memory on 4.7

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49936 --- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at redhat dot com 2011-08-16 02:05:02 UTC --- After thorough investigation of the problem I came to a conclusion that fixing it in IRA requires to form regions on pseudo mode usage too (besides just

[Bug driver/50095] -ffixed-REG and -ffixed-line-length-132 conflict

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50095 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Component|lto |driver --- Comment #1 from

[Bug rtl-optimization/49936] [4.7 Regression] IRA handles CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS poorly, + spills to memory on 4.7

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49936 --- Comment #3 from Sandra Loosemore sandra at codesourcery dot com 2011-08-16 04:13:02 UTC --- Hmmm. Is it possible to make the INT/memory/whatever decision based on move costs? Or use a target hook to supply a hint about what to do?