http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49152
--- Comment #25 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-31
02:15:19 UTC ---
And, hey, I'm of course speaking only for myself, you are welcome to pursue a
compromise solution. For example, I don't know, if we could identify a
*restricted* class of expressions
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49152
--- Comment #24 from Paolo Carlini 2012-03-31
02:03:02 UTC ---
Personally, I don't believe Gaby is open to other solutions outside the
full-fledged "caret diagnostics" context, thus for the time being at least I'm
personally going to stand to his
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52799
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52799
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-03-31 01:57:00 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sat Mar 31 01:56:55 2012
New Revision: 186035
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186035
Log:
2012-03-30 Jeffrey Yasskin
Pa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52799
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-03-31 01:57:20 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sat Mar 31 01:57:14 2012
New Revision: 186036
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186036
Log:
2012-03-30 Jeffrey Yasskin
Pa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39858
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #3 from Manu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52799
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49152
--- Comment #23 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-03-31
00:34:58 UTC ---
BTW, I think this example was mentioned some where already, but I cannot find
it now. From http://clang.llvm.org/diagnostics.html
manuel@gcc12:~$ cat t.cc
struct a {
virtual
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52802
Bug #: 52802
Summary: Equality rewrites pessimizes code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49152
--- Comment #22 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-03-31
00:25:50 UTC ---
Is there a final verdict on this? Jonathan, Paolo, did you change your mind?
Or do you still think this should be fixed but you don't believe there is any
hope to get your pat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52801
Bug #: 52801
Summary: improve selective typedef unwrapping
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52800
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-03-30
23:34:41 UTC ---
Richi - probably yours -
svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@185913 broken
svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@185910 good
regards,
Ramana
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52800
Bug #: 52800
Summary: eglibc build broken with internal compiler error in
cfgloop .
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
.8pre (GCC) 4.8.0 20120330 (experimental)
$ g++-4.8pre -std=c++11 emplace.cc -c -o /dev/null
In file included from .../include/c++/4.8.0/deque:67:0,
from emplace.cc:1:
.../include/c++/4.8.0/bits/deque.tcc: In instantiation of ‘std::deque<_Tp,
_Alloc>::iterator std::deque&
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52798
--- Comment #1 from Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2012-03-30 21:54:33 UTC ---
Created attachment 27051
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27051
.i test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52798
Bug #: 52798
Summary: __builtin_object_size() based overflow check is a
false positive due to parameter optimisation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Yasskin 2012-03-30
21:22:30 UTC ---
And 4.8.0 20120330 matches 4.7's behavior for both test cases.
cc-4.7 calls the default constructor for
pack uses like new Type(args...), while gcc-4.6 didn't. So 4.7 doesn't have the
std::list bug. I tested this with valgrind-3.6.0:
$ g++-4.6.x --version
g++-4.6.x (GCC) 4.6.4 20120330 (prerelease)
$ g++-4.6.x -Wall -std=c++0x 46_vs_47.cc -g3 -o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52797
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-03-30
21:16:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 27049
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27049
Preprocessed file streambuf.ii
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52797
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64-linux |powerpc*-*-*
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52797
Bug #: 52797
Summary: Revision 185913 causes ICE in get_loop_body, at
cfgloop.c:831 on PowerPC
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONF
t;< (int)w->t << '\n';
w->~Wrapper();
memset(space, '\xab', sizeof(space));
w = new(space) Wrapper();
std::cout << (int)w->t << '\n';
w->~Wrapper();
memset(space, '\xab', sizeof(space));
w = new(space) Wrapper((int)'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52787
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52787
--- Comment #2 from niXman 2012-03-30 19:55:51 UTC
---
>Based to your e-mail on gcc-help, you left out a very important piece of
information.
Yes, Ian. I had to mention it.
And yes, I'm not saying that libitm is supported by MinGW. And yes, as li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52762
--- Comment #8 from Dâniel Fraga 2012-03-30 19:54:47
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Happens in java script, which does JITed code.
> My guess is that one of the transition points between JITed code and C code
> does not save AVX registers cor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52795
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth 2012-03-30
19:40:43 UTC ---
Created attachment 27048
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27048
testcase from radar://10960042 generated on x86_64-apple-darwin11 (
The FSF gcc testsuite failure...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52794
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27046|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52795
Bug #: 52795
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/pr34999.c compilation,
-fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE on
{x86_64,i386}-apple-darwin{10,11} at -m64
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52794
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth 2012-03-30
19:22:23 UTC ---
Created attachment 27046
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27046
testcase from radar://10960042 generated on x86_64-apple-darwin11
The FSF gcc testsuite failure...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52762
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52680
--- Comment #4 from Matt Kline 2012-03-30 19:19:03
UTC ---
Where should I specify that flag? _GLIBCXX_USE_NANOSLEEP is still undefined
when I build gcc with
configure CFLAGS='-O3' --disable-bootstrap --disable-multilib
--enable-ibstdccxx-time=rt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52794
Bug #: 52794
Summary: gcc.dg/tree-prof/pr52027.c fails on
x86_64/i386-apple-darwin*
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52727
--- Comment #14 from Richard Henderson 2012-03-30
18:23:10 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Fri Mar 30 18:23:06 2012
New Revision: 186019
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186019
Log:
PR debug/52727
* g++.dg/opt/pr52727.C: New t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52727
--- Comment #13 from Richard Henderson 2012-03-30
18:00:45 UTC ---
Author: rth
Date: Fri Mar 30 18:00:37 2012
New Revision: 186018
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186018
Log:
PR debug/52727
* combine-stack-adj.c (pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52793
Bug #: 52793
Summary: [4.8 Regression] 483.xalancbmk in SPEC CPU 2006 failed
to build
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-03-30
17:34:36 UTC ---
Agreed. Testing a patch. This will have the advantage over libcpp that long
double will also be tested for overflow.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52667
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52689
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52756
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #5 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52789
--- Comment #2 from Mat Cross 2012-03-30 16:22:34
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> So?
If I RTM I see:
"-Wunused-parameter
Contrary to gcc's meaning of -Wunused-parameter, gfortran's implementation
of this option does not warn about unuse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52784
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40942
Dodji Seketeli changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52784
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-apple-darwin10 |i386 --enable-targets=all
|i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52758
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52758
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-30 15:37:58 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Mar 30 15:37:51 2012
New Revision: 186014
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186014
Log:
PR libgfortran/52758
* intrinsics/ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52792
Bug #: 52792
Summary: this pointer and return pointer are passed in wrong
order when ms_abi is used (x86_64)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52791
Bug #: 52791
Summary: structure should always be returned by passing a
hidden argument with ms_abi, x86_64
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
St
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52789
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-03-30
15:12:38 UTC ---
So?
Note that you have also
[macbook] f90/bug% gfc -Wall pr52789.f90
pr52789.f90:1.14:
subroutine s(x)
1
Warning: Unused dummy argument 'x' at (1)
[macbook] f90
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52784
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-apple-darwin10 |i386-apple-darwin10
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52790
Bug #: 52790
Summary: Problems using x86_64-w64-mingw-w32-gfortran with
mcmodel=large and medium
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52787
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #1 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #2 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-03-30
14:30:20 UTC ---
I short-circuited the overflow check in libcpp in case the literal was resolved
in C++ FE as a raw literal. The raw literal should be able to take any nu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52789
Bug #: 52789
Summary: gfortran sets -Wunused-parameter in the C sense as
well as the Fortran sense
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52772
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52754
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52754
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-30
13:41:31 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 30 13:41:24 2012
New Revision: 186012
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186012
Log:
2012-03-30 Richard Guenther
PR tree-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52772
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-30
13:40:31 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 30 13:40:17 2012
New Revision: 186011
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186011
Log:
2012-03-30 Richard Guenther
PR middle-e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52756
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-30
13:26:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> DOM jump threading threads the loop latch edge:
>
> if (latch->aux)
> {
> /* First handle the case latch edge is redirected. */
> loop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52754
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-03-30 11:41:35 UTC ---
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52754
>
> --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-30
> 11:31:58 UTC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52754
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-30
11:31:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Created attachment 27042 [details]
> alternative patch
I'm not against it, but what if the source code and/or some other pass result
in similar ARRAY_REF?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52754
--- Comment #8 from Matthias Kretz 2012-03-30 11:13:59
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> alternative patch
Just tested it on the 4.7-20120324 snapshot and all bogus warnings are gone, as
are the crashes. No regressions in my testsuite.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52758
--- Comment #1 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-03-30 11:07:51 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Mar 30 11:07:46 2012
New Revision: 186008
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186008
Log:
PR libgfortran/52758
* intrinsics/ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51294
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52754
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-30
10:45:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 27042
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27042
alternative patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52754
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-30
10:22:45 UTC ---
We indeed should not create negative array indices (well, out-of-bound array
indices). The issue why this happens is that we transform
const unsigned int * ii = (const unsigned i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52765
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-30
09:59:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I have experimented with this configure option. I didn't know about it: what
> is
> the intended way of using the debug libraries?
I use debug/libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52780
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52772
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52786
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52786
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-30
09:21:00 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 30 09:20:54 2012
New Revision: 186000
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186000
Log:
2012-03-30 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52780
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52779
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52777
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52772
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52765
--- Comment #9 from christophe.lyon at st dot com 2012-03-30 08:39:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > I am not sure this is really a bug (is building libstdc++ at -O0
> > supported?),
>
> Yes, the --enable-libstdcx
bx lr
.size sqrlen4D_16u8, .-sqrlen4D_16u8
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 4.8.0 20120330 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",%progbits
This probably makes it a dup of PR48941 but it's starting to look more
promising now.
Eric,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51980
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan 2012-03-30
07:58:49 UTC ---
Your testcase is broken - it doesn't honour reinterpret_casts properly . This
is a better testcase.
#include
uint32x4_t sqrlen4D_16u8( const uint8x16_t A, const uint8x16_t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52782
Lobivia changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
--- Comment #1 from Lobivia 2012-03-30 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52788
--- Comment #1 from Edouard.Canot at irisa dot fr 2012-03-30 07:11:41 UTC ---
For a one dimensional allocatable array, gfortran leads to a correct behavior
when reading, i.e. it detects the bounds overflow.
80 matches
Mail list logo
