[Bug target/52488] avr-*: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2123

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52488 --- Comment #2 from Ralf Corsepius ralf_corsepius at rtems dot org 2012-03-12 06:21:42 UTC --- Created attachment 26876 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26876 *.i of the file triggering the ICE This *.i was created from today's

[Bug ada/52110] s-osinte.ads:447:09: clockid_t conflicts with declaration at line 194

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52110 --- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 06:46:41 UTC --- Build is successful with pragma Volatile in lieu of the Atomic. However, test results appear similar:

[Bug tree-optimization/50346] Function call foils VRP/jump-threading of redundant predicate on struct member

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50346 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de 2012-03-12 08:56:40 UTC --- On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, scovich at gmail dot com wrote: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50346 --- Comment #8 from Ryan Johnson scovich

[Bug fortran/52542] Procedure with a Bind (C) named interface does not inherit the Bind (C)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52542 --- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 09:03:57 UTC --- Author: burnus Date: Mon Mar 12 09:03:49 2012 New Revision: 185215 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=185215 Log: 2012-03-12 Tobias Burnus

[Bug tree-optimization/52548] missed PRE optimization when function call follows to-be hoisted variable

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52548 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|alias

[Bug middle-end/52450] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr52402.c at -O1 and above

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52450 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de 2012-03-12 09:55:54 UTC --- On Sun, 11 Mar 2012, danglin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52450 John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot

[Bug middle-end/52450] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr52402.c at -O1 and above

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52450 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de 2012-03-12 09:58:02 UTC --- On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, rguenther at suse dot de wrote: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52450 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse

[Bug tree-optimization/52533] [4.8 Regression] ice in remove_range_assertions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52533 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 10:04:41 UTC --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Mar 12 10:04:34 2012 New Revision: 185219 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=185219 Log: PR

[Bug fortran/45586] [4.8 Regression] ICE non-trivial conversion at assignment

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586 --- Comment #67 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-03-12 10:15:39 UTC --- The patch in comment #64 fixes the failures reported in pr52516 but introduces many regressions: === gfortran Summary for unix/-m64 === # of

[Bug tree-optimization/52533] [4.8 Regression] ice in remove_range_assertions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52533 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug c++/52558] New: write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory model

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 Bug #: 52558 Summary: write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory model Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/52559] New: [4.8 Regression] Spurious \x00 in error messages

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52559 Bug #: 52559 Summary: [4.8 Regression] Spurious \x00 in error messages Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic

[Bug target/52488] avr-*: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2123

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52488 Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|

[Bug tree-optimization/51721] -Warray-bounds false positives and inconsistencies

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51721 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 11:12:55 UTC --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Mar 12 11:12:49 2012 New Revision: 185222 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=185222 Log: PR

[Bug c/52560] New: if (r == -1) causes 'assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52560 Bug #: 52560 Summary: if (r == -1) causes 'assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant' Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version:

[Bug fortran/52552] [OOP] ICE when trying to allocate non-allocatable object giving a dynamic type

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52552 --- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 11:24:23 UTC --- More details: For gfc_match_allocate (match.c), one has: 3538 if (!gfc_type_compatible (tail-expr-ts, ts)) and then in gfc_type_compatible:

[Bug fortran/52552] [OOP] ICE when trying to allocate non-allocatable object giving a dynamic type

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52552 --- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 11:29:25 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) Due to the lacking ALLOCATE, tail-expr-ts.u.derived-attr.is_class == 1 I wanted to say that is_class is not set (i.e. the

[Bug c++/52561] New: GCC is not throwing error if only one character '#' is written in a line.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52561 Bug #: 52561 Summary: GCC is not throwing error if only one character '#' is written in a line. Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.4.3 Status:

[Bug preprocessor/52561] GCC is not throwing error if only one character '#' is written in a line.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52561 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |preprocessor

[Bug libstdc++/52562] New: [C++11] Most type_info functions not noexcept

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562 Bug #: 52562 Summary: [C++11] Most type_info functions not noexcept Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/52562] [C++11] Most type_info functions not noexcept

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug c/52560] if (r == -1) causes 'assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52560 --- Comment #1 from jim at meyering dot net 2012-03-12 12:30:20 UTC --- Created attachment 26877 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26877 50-line reproducer

[Bug tree-optimization/46728] GCC does not generate fmadd for pow (x, 0.75)+y on powerpc

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46728 --- Comment #16 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 12:37:11 UTC --- (In reply to comment #15) I see this test failing on powerpc-apple-darwin8 (32b G4, ppc7400):

[Bug target/52488] avr-*: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2123

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52488 --- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 12:37:24 UTC --- Created attachment 26878 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26878 pr52488.diff Does this patch fix the ICE for you?

[Bug target/52555] [4.6/4.7 Regression] ICE unrecognizable insn with -ffast-math and __attribute__((optimize(xx)))

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52555 --- Comment #1 from Roman Kononov roman at binarylife dot net 2012-03-12 12:51:20 UTC --- It broke in r165823.

[Bug libstdc++/52562] [C++11] Most type_info functions not noexcept

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug target/52488] avr-*: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2123

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52488 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot

[Bug target/52499] avr MODE_CODE_BASE_REG_CLASS enum conversion problem

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52499 Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gjl at gcc dot

[Bug preprocessor/52561] GCC is not throwing error if only one character '#' is written in a line.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52561 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug libstdc++/52562] [C++11] Most type_info functions not noexcept

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.7.1

[Bug target/52499] avr MODE_CODE_BASE_REG_CLASS enum conversion problem

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52499 --- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 13:21:25 UTC --- Created attachment 26879 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26879 pr52499.diff: tentative patch Does this patch work for you?

[Bug tree-optimization/52560] if (r == -1) causes 'assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52560 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|

[Bug fortran/52559] [4.8 Regression] Spurious \x00 in error messages

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52559 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0

[Bug target/52555] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE unrecognizable insn with -ffast-math and __attribute__((optimize(xx)))

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52555 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.6.4

[Bug target/52499] avr MODE_CODE_BASE_REG_CLASS enum conversion problem

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52499 --- Comment #3 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 13:25:38 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) Why are there two incompatible representations of register classes in the first place, i.e. enum reg_class and

[Bug c/52554] Variable called $1 causes invalid asm to be generated

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52554 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|

[Bug libstdc++/52562] [C++11] Most type_info functions not noexcept

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562 --- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-03-12 13:43:35 UTC --- Do I understand correctly that in N3291 the destructor lost the explicit noexcept simply because of core/1123? In that case I think that in GCC we

[Bug libstdc++/52562] [C++11] Most type_info functions not noexcept

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562 --- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-03-12 13:50:05 UTC --- Uhm, too much has to be tweaked elsewhere if the destructor is marked noexcept. Let's leave it alone for now (c++/50043 will reconsider the issue).

[Bug c++/52553] [4.6 Regression] Internal compiler error on build Parma Polyhedra Library

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52553 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug testsuite/52563] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-[3,4].c scan-tree-dump-times optimized a 1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563 Bug #: 52563 Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-[3,4].c scan-tree-dump-times optimized a 1 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: tree-ssa Status:

[Bug testsuite/52563] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-[3,4].c scan-tree-dump-times optimized a 1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Target|x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

[Bug c/52549] [4.8 Regression] ice in pointer_diff

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52549 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug tree-optimization/52548] missed PRE optimization when function call follows to-be hoisted variable

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52548 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug libstdc++/52562] [C++11] Most type_info functions not noexcept

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562 --- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com 2012-03-12 14:06:51 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) Do I understand correctly that in N3291 the destructor lost the explicit noexcept simply because of core/1123? I

[Bug middle-end/52547] Internal compiler Error in create_tmp_var in gimplify.c:465

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52547 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug c++/52536] internal compiler error: Illegal instruction

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52536 --- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 14:08:42 UTC --- Please try with at least GC 4.4.6.

[Bug c/52534] gcc doesn't detect incorrect expression in call to va_start

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52534 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|

[Bug target/52530] [4.8 regression] Many 64-bit execution failures on Solaris 10/11 with Sun as

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52530 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug rtl-optimization/52528] combine bug (powerpc testcase)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52528 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/52527] When using '-g', get an ICE: seg fault in add_name_attribute (called by modified_type_die)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52527 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING

[Bug target/52488] avr-*: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2123

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52488 --- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 14:15:48 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) + size_max = (1 GET_MODE_BITSIZE (GET_MODE (my_fp))) - 1; + if (size = size_max) Do you have a guarantee that

[Bug middle-end/52525] compiler segmentation fault when building OpenMP code with -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52525 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug testsuite/52563] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/scev-[3,4].c scan-tree-dump-times optimized a 1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52563 --- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 14:19:58 UTC --- We now perform store motion for the address computation as expected. The question is what the testcase was for (I suppose final-value-replacement

[Bug c/52554] Variable called $1 causes invalid asm to be generated

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52554 --- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org 2012-03-12 14:22:00 UTC --- 6.4.2.1 says that an identifier may contain other implementation-defined characters.

[Bug gcov-profile/49484] gcov crash if two(or more) forks happen at the same time

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484 --- Comment #14 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 14:23:32 UTC --- Author: rguenth Date: Mon Mar 12 14:23:27 2012 New Revision: 185231 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=185231 Log: 2012-03-12 Richard

[Bug gcov-profile/49484] gcov crash if two(or more) forks happen at the same time

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/52564] New: Accepts invalid: Missing I/O list after comma

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52564 Bug #: 52564 Summary: Accepts invalid: Missing I/O list after comma Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/52564] Accepts invalid: Missing I/O list after comma

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52564 Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid,

[Bug c++/52558] write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory model

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug gcov-profile/49484] gcov crash if two(or more) forks happen at the same time

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484 --- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 15:00:46 UTC --- If a target defines _GTHREAD_USE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNC in lisbtdc++-v3/config/os/.../os_defines.h then following this patch line 80 in gthr-posix.h will redefine

[Bug c++/52558] write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory model

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 --- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 15:01:36 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) Richi, is this something that should also be fixed for 4.7 as well? There is a write to g_2 that is introduced on paths that

[Bug libstdc++/52562] [C++11] Most type_info functions not noexcept

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562 --- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-03-12 15:02:51 UTC --- To clarify, nothing ever changed in libstdc++ as far as the type_info destructor is concerned. That said, I'm not sure to fully understand why we have

[Bug c++/52565] New: __builtin_va_arg(va, double); may fall on cortex-m3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52565 Bug #: 52565 Summary: __builtin_va_arg(va, double); may fall on cortex-m3 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug gcov-profile/49484] gcov crash if two(or more) forks happen at the same time

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484 --- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 15:06:52 UTC --- (In reply to comment #16) If a target defines _GTHREAD_USE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNC in e.g. this will break Tru64 (until Rainer removes support for it)

[Bug gcov-profile/49484] gcov crash if two(or more) forks happen at the same time

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484 --- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 15:10:29 UTC --- Also, gthr.h says the signature should be: void __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION (__gthread_mutex_t *)

[Bug libstdc++/52562] [C++11] Most type_info functions not noexcept

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562 --- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 15:12:47 UTC --- Author: paolo Date: Mon Mar 12 15:12:40 2012 New Revision: 185235 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=185235 Log: 2012-03-12 Paolo

[Bug c++/52558] write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory model

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Macleod amacleod at redhat dot com 2012-03-12 15:24:35 UTC --- Created attachment 26881 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26881 Testcase for simulate-threads I've modified the testcase so that it runs

[Bug gcov-profile/49484] gcov crash if two(or more) forks happen at the same time

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484 --- Comment #19 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 15:27:46 UTC --- (In reply to comment #18) Also, gthr.h says the signature should be: void __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION (__gthread_mutex_t *) I don't understand

[Bug c++/52558] write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory model

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 --- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 15:29:06 UTC --- No, we don't want to fix this for 4.7 as this is not a regression. Yes, LIM only avoids introducing traps, not data-races. This was discussed in the

[Bug c++/52558] write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory model

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de 2012-03-12 15:32:48 UTC --- On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 --- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh

[Bug middle-end/52450] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr52402.c at -O1 and above

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52450 --- Comment #9 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 15:33:38 UTC --- Author: danglin Date: Mon Mar 12 15:33:32 2012 New Revision: 185239 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=185239 Log: PR target/52450

[Bug c++/52558] write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory model

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 --- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at redhat dot com 2012-03-12 15:42:45 UTC --- On 03/12/12 10:32, rguenther at suse dot de wrote: es, but still cared about introducing write data races. This test case has both. I don't understand why

[Bug c++/52558] write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory model

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de 2012-03-12 15:45:39 UTC --- On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, aldyh at redhat dot com wrote: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 --- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh

[Bug libstdc++/52562] [C++11] Most type_info functions not noexcept

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562 --- Comment #8 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com 2012-03-12 15:46:42 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) There exists a compiler problem with noexcept and non-trivial destructor declarations as described in bug 50043 and in

[Bug c++/52558] write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory model

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Macleod amacleod at redhat dot com 2012-03-12 15:50:13 UTC --- We can still perform store motion out of a loop, we just can't put the store on a path which is executed if the loop isn't executed. In this case, we

[Bug gcov-profile/49484] gcov crash if two(or more) forks happen at the same time

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484 --- Comment #20 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 15:52:34 UTC --- I suppose Index: libgcc/gthr-posix.h === --- libgcc/gthr-posix.h (revision 185232) +++

[Bug gcov-profile/49484] gcov crash if two(or more) forks happen at the same time

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484 --- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 15:54:46 UTC --- (In reply to comment #19) (In reply to comment #18) Also, gthr.h says the signature should be: void __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION (__gthread_mutex_t

[Bug c++/52558] write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory model

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 --- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at redhat dot com 2012-03-12 15:56:30 UTC --- On 03/12/12 10:45, rguenther at suse dot de wrote: Just to get this straight, am I to assume that the default code generation for GCC is a single threaded

[Bug c++/52558] write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory model

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de 2012-03-12 15:55:27 UTC --- On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Macleod

[Bug gcov-profile/49484] gcov crash if two(or more) forks happen at the same time

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484 --- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 15:56:07 UTC --- (In reply to comment #20) I suppose Index: libgcc/gthr-posix.h === ---

[Bug gcov-profile/49484] gcov crash if two(or more) forks happen at the same time

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484 --- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de 2012-03-12 16:02:34 UTC --- On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484 --- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely

[Bug libstdc++/52562] [C++11] Most type_info functions not noexcept

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52562 --- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-03-12 16:09:25 UTC --- Ok, ok, so everything boils down to 50043, as I thought.

[Bug preprocessor/52566] New: #include in c++ namespace scope doesn't work properly

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52566 Bug #: 52566 Summary: #include in c++ namespace scope doesn't work properly Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.4.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/52560] if (r == -1) causes 'assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52560 --- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones at redhat dot com 2012-03-12 16:30:45 UTC --- I see that this is actually a bug in our code. I pushed the following fix to libguestfs:

[Bug preprocessor/52566] #include in c++ namespace scope doesn't work properly

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52566 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 16:30:32 UTC --- this has nothing to do with namespace scope, it's #pragma once confusing two separate files as one

[Bug c++/50594] Option -fwhole-program discards replaced new operator for std::string

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50594 David Fang fang at csl dot cornell.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fang at csl dot

[Bug c++/52299] GCC warns on compile time division by zero erroneously

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52299 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug target/51871] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010122-1.c execution

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51871 --- Comment #8 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 17:00:18 UTC --- Author: danglin Date: Mon Mar 12 17:00:01 2012 New Revision: 185251 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=185251 Log: Backport for

[Bug middle-end/50232] [4.7 Regression] reorg.c:3971: undefined reference to `make_return_insns'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50232 --- Comment #9 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 17:08:28 UTC --- Author: danglin Date: Mon Mar 12 17:08:20 2012 New Revision: 185252 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=185252 Log: Backport from

[Bug preprocessor/52566] #include in c++ namespace scope doesn't work properly

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52566 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot

[Bug target/52555] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE unrecognizable insn with -ffast-math and __attribute__((optimize(xx)))

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52555 Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jsm28 at gcc dot

[Bug rtl-optimization/52148] [4.7 regression] ICE: in spill_failure, at reload1.c:2120

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52148 --- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 17:35:48 UTC --- Author: gjl Date: Mon Mar 12 17:35:43 2012 New Revision: 185253 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=185253 Log: PR target/52148 *

[Bug c++/52567] New: constant expression not recognized as being constant

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52567 Bug #: 52567 Summary: constant expression not recognized as being constant Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/49868] Implement named address space to place/access data in flash memory

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49868 --- Comment #17 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 17:55:36 UTC --- Author: gjl Date: Mon Mar 12 17:55:30 2012 New Revision: 185255 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=185255 Log: PR target/49868 *

[Bug target/52499] avr MODE_CODE_BASE_REG_CLASS enum conversion problem

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52499 --- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 18:05:15 UTC --- Author: gjl Date: Mon Mar 12 18:05:11 2012 New Revision: 185256 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=185256 Log: PR target/52499 *

[Bug c++/52567] constant expression not recognized as being constant

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52567 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2012-03-12 18:10:16 UTC --- 131 overflows and is thus not a constant. Try maybe 1LL31 ?

[Bug other/52545] output.h: SECTION_EXCLUDE flag clobbers SECTION_MACH_DEP

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52545 --- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 18:22:08 UTC --- Author: gjl Date: Mon Mar 12 18:22:01 2012 New Revision: 185259 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=185259 Log: PR other/52545 *

[Bug tree-optimization/46728] GCC does not generate fmadd for pow (x, 0.75)+y on powerpc

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46728 --- Comment #17 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-12 18:26:52 UTC --- Author: wschmidt Date: Mon Mar 12 18:26:48 2012 New Revision: 185260 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=185260 Log: 2012-03-12 Bill

[Bug c++/52567] constant expression not recognized as being constant

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52567 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug target/52568] New: suboptimal __builtin_shuffle on cycles with AVX

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52568 Bug #: 52568 Summary: suboptimal __builtin_shuffle on cycles with AVX Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

  1   2   >