http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52035
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code, lto
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51910
--- Comment #16 from Sandra Loosemore
2012-01-29 04:50:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 26498
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26498
new patch
The attached patch seems to DTRT; I tested it also with explicit -Wl,--demangle
and -W
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51749
--- Comment #14 from nospam.kotarou.dono at gmail dot com 2012-01-29 04:40:07
UTC ---
Just reporting another one~ (Yes, I can live with it not being fixed, but
bugzilla is for reporting bugs, right?)
Including eventually includes pthreads.h, dum
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52036
Bug #: 52036
Summary: C++11 allows template parameters to have internal
linkage
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48783
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, TREE
Tar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45152
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i686-pc-linux-gnu |
Last reconfirmed|2010-08-22 07:38:09
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44365
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52034
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-* i?86-*-*
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-29
00:47:05 UTC ---
also, stack trace please. it's not easy to debug problems on systems I don't
have access to when I have to guess what the program does.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52035
--- Comment #1 from Marcin Baczyński 2012-01-29
00:46:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 26497
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26497
Reduced test case.
compiler error: tree code ‘template_type_parm’ is not
supported in LTO streams
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
~ # g++ --version
g++ (svn 183666-20120128) 4.7.0 20120128 (experimental)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-29
00:42:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> I'm not having much luck getting the test case to compile on darwin11.
Did you use -std=c++0x? (or -std=c++11)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52034
Bug #: 52034
Summary: __builtin_copysign optimization suboptimal
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43412
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-28
23:47:42 UTC ---
With trunk at revision 183668, compiling the test in comment #0 gives the error
[macbook] f90/bug% gfc pr43412.f90
pr43412.f90:8.27:
class(t), pointer :: y(*) ! <<< invalid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51852
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||public at alisdairm dot net
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52030
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49855
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joseph.h.garvin at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52031
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52033
--- Comment #1 from Gary Barnes 2012-01-28
23:39:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 26496
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26496
the gpr file used in the example
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52033
Bug #: 52033
Summary: Compiler assertion, apparently due to incomplete type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52032
Bug #: 52032
Summary: Function and class attributes should optionally take a
bool parameter enabling them
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #15 from Jack Howarth 2012-01-28
23:14:09 UTC ---
Note that all three failing test cases on Lion pass if I append -D_XOPEN_SOURCE
to the compilation flags for those tests.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52010
--- Comment #6 from Fran Martinez Fadrique
2012-01-28 23:09:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 26494
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26494
Test sample to support comment 5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52010
--- Comment #5 from Fran Martinez Fadrique
2012-01-28 23:08:46 UTC ---
I have bumped into another problem that I think may be related to this same
topic.
I have an example that generates the following message:
m_pointer_test.f90:22.2:
b%pa =>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42418
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-28
23:07:49 UTC ---
With gfortran 4.4.6, 4.5.3, 4.6.2, and trunk, the test in comment #0 gives the
error while the test in comment #1 with the 'function fun(f,x)' block
uncommented compiles and run
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52031
Bug #: 52031
Summary: G++ crashes when std::size_t is initalized with a
float inside a template
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCON
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52030
--- Comment #2 from Alisdair Meredith 2012-01-28
23:06:53 UTC ---
IT could well be - I struggled to get a more minimal example when not using
'make_tuple', and it could well be doing something similar, especially if it
yields the same ICE. Does
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35476
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52030
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #14 from Jack Howarth 2012-01-28
22:14:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
I'm not having much luck getting the test case to compile on darwin11. If I
use...
#include
struct mutex {
pthread_mutex_t m;
} m ;
int main()
{
m.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52030
Bug #: 52030
Summary: ICE with decltype(make_tuple) is a late return type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35476
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-28
21:51:33 UTC ---
> Additionally, it needs to pass some more review (J3 and then WG5). Current
> STATUS: J3 consideration in progress
Any progress three years later?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50283
--- Comment #18 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-28 21:00:14 UTC ---
Submitted generic patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg01540.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27719
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||debian-gcc at lists dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42538
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26732
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2006-04-30 07:39:03 |2012-01-28
Summary|Accepts inv
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37865
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52024
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-28
20:41:28 UTC ---
With the patch in comment #4 I get
[macbook] f90/bug% gfc pr52024.f90
pr52024.f90:46.6:
use m_test
1
Error: 'i_equal_t' and 't_equal_i' for GENERIC '==' at (1) are am
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47399
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50384
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse 2012-01-28
20:17:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The issue with comment #1 is simple, f is not being marked as a tail call.
Marking it as a tail call would indeed work for that case. In this slight
variation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27775
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51450
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50384
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44476
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49448
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48254
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47869
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52021
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45996
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Component|other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-28
19:16:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> The contents of 3.ii.diff seems to suggest that the problem is the fact that
> Lion always defines _GTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INIT and this support is eith
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42792
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51871
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50196
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-28
19:08:47 UTC ---
I think I meant to say std::timed_mutex and std::recursive_timed_mutex
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47823
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50196
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51871
--- Comment #6 from John David Anglin 2012-01-28
18:48:16 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sat Jan 28 18:48:11 2012
New Revision: 183669
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183669
Log:
PR target/51871
* config/pa/pa.c (pa_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52010
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51972
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-28
17:40:23 UTC ---
Simplified test case: The problem is that there is a "CLASS" contained in the
derived type. This is currently not handled at all, but one needs: (a) an
allocation and (b) another _vtab
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51958
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig 2012-01-28
17:39:22 UTC ---
Created attachment 26493
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26493
Patch
Let's see if this survives regression-testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52029
Bug #: 52029
Summary: [OOP] _copy should be PURE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization, rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51972
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-28
16:57:33 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Jan 28 16:57:28 2012
New Revision: 183668
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183668
Log:
2012-01-28 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/51
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #12 from Jack Howarth 2012-01-28
16:52:24 UTC ---
The contents of 3.ii.diff seems to suggest that the problem is the fact that
Lion always defines _GTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INIT and this support is either
buggy on Lion or is exposing a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #11 from Jack Howarth 2012-01-28
16:49:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 26492
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26492
diff of preprocessed source for
libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/try_lock/3.cc generated with Xcode
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #10 from Jack Howarth 2012-01-28
16:48:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 26491
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26491
preprocessed source for libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/try_lock/3.cc
generated with Xcode 4.2.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906
--- Comment #9 from Jack Howarth 2012-01-28
16:47:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 26490
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26490
preprocessed source for libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/try_lock/3.cc
generated with Xcode 4.2 on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52028
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milesto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51972
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51990
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52028
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52028
Bug #: 52028
Summary: [4.7 Regression] wrong code with -O2
-ftree-loop-distribution
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41600
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32347
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52024
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51754
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-28
12:03:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Are the patches in comment #1 and #2 still supposed to fix it?
Those patches fix the ICE-on-invalid-code issue (segfault), i.e. the test case
in comment 0 w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50076
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-28
11:54:51 UTC ---
> Proposed fix:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg00708.html
A "stronger" fix has been proposed at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg00895.html and appr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50981
--- Comment #31 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-01-28 11:40:17 UTC ---
> The test in comment #23 gives an ICE with/without the patch:
>
> pr50981_4.f90: In function 'MAIN__':
> pr50981_4.f90:16:0: internal compiler error: in fold_convert_loc, at
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51754
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51754
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-01-28
11:32:40 UTC ---
> The message is valid: one has to add the TARGET attribute to "self" or make
> "componentB" a POINTER. Doing so, one gets again the ICE in
> gfc_conv_descriptor_offset.
Confir
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52022
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52022
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-28
10:59:22 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Jan 28 10:59:18 2012
New Revision: 183666
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183666
Log:
2012-01-28 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51795
--- Comment #27 from Paolo Carlini 2012-01-28
10:51:12 UTC ---
It seems to me that something still safe to do now for 4.7.0 is special casing
the case x == m - 1 to x' = m - a, because, if I understand correctly what I'm
reading around, in that c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44776
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50925
--- Comment #18 from denisc at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-28 10:05:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Assuming there is a connexion between these two issues.
>
> If that assumption turns out to be wrong, please cut the dependency.
Dependency cut
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52022
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-28
10:00:20 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sat Jan 28 10:00:13 2012
New Revision: 183665
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=183665
Log:
2012-01-28 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52024
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-28
09:51:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> While for GENERIC, one calls in resolve.c's check_generic_tbp_ambiguity:
> if (gfc_compare_interfaces (sym1, sym2, sym2->name, 1, 0, NULL, 0))
>
> The INT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52024
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51754
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2012-01-28
09:21:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Trunk r183622 now gives
>BGet => self%componentB(1)
> Error: Pointer assignment target is neither TARGET nor POINTER at (1)
The message is valid: on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52027
Bug #: 52027
Summary: [4.7 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in
set_cur_line_info_table (dwarf2out.c:20428) with -O
-freorder-blocks-and-partition -fno-reorder-functions
-fp
88 matches
Mail list logo
