http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53194
--- Comment #3 from Yukhin Kirill 2012-05-03
07:01:37 UTC ---
Created attachment 27299
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27299
Proposed solution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53194
--- Comment #4 from Yukhin Kirill 2012-05-03
07:02:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Created attachment 27299 [details]
> Proposed solution
Attached patch cures failing tests
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53194
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52864
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus 2012-05-03
07:19:08 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Thu May 3 07:18:56 2012
New Revision: 187076
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187076
Log:
2012-05-03 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/52
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53201
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52864
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53187
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53190
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-03
07:59:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > (clobber (reg:QI 18 fpsr))
> > (clobber (reg:QI 17 flags))
> >
> >
> > It might clobber those but t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53206
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-03
08:08:53 UTC ---
It depends what you consider a false positive. I imagine it's 100% accurate,
but it doesn't always indicate a bug, sometimes it warns about code that
behaves exactly as intended.
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53190
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2012-05-03 08:15:00
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> So you say that it's correct for CSE to CSE asm()s if they have the same
> asm string and the same asm operands in case the asm is not volatile? I was
> not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53190
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-05-03 08:19:17 UTC ---
On Thu, 3 May 2012, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53190
>
> --- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2012-05-03
> 08:15:00 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53202
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-03
08:22:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 27301
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27301
preprocessed source
This preprocessed source was created by G++ version 4.6.3 20120306 (Red Hat
4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53202
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-03
08:30:38 UTC ---
For that preprocessed source the difference is in the Bind_simple constructor,
for 4.6 it is:
Bind_simple::Bind_simple(const Callable&) [with Callable =
background_hello] (struct Bi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53168
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher 2012-05-03
08:31:54 UTC ---
I don't remember. Did you look at the paper/thesis to see if it says anything
about this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53144
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-03
08:37:24 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu May 3 08:37:18 2012
New Revision: 187078
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187078
Log:
2012-05-03 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53190
--- Comment #7 from Uros Bizjak 2012-05-03 08:39:19
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Well, the asm in glibc is simply
>
> extern __inline __attribute__ ((__always_inline__)) long int
> __attribute__ ((__nothrow__ )) lrintf (float __x)
> {
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53144
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-03
08:49:09 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu May 3 08:49:03 2012
New Revision: 187080
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187080
Log:
2012-05-03 Richard Guenther
PR tree-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53144
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53190
--- Comment #8 from Andreas Jaeger 2012-05-03 09:19:16
UTC ---
So, how should the inline rewritten?
Adding volatile is one option:
extern __inline __attribute__ ((__always_inline__)) long int
__attribute__ ((__nothrow__ )) lrintf (float __x)
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53206
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-05-03
09:38:13 UTC ---
So what is your opinion? Should it be enabled?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53190
--- Comment #9 from Uros Bizjak 2012-05-03 09:38:59
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> So, how should the inline rewritten?
>
> Adding volatile is one option:
> extern __inline __attribute__ ((__always_inline__)) long int
> __attribute__ ((__not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53194
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-05-03
10:12:39 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu May 3 10:12:33 2012
New Revision: 187084
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187084
Log:
PR target/53194
* config/i386/i386-c.c (ix8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53187
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-05-03
10:16:05 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu May 3 10:16:01 2012
New Revision: 187085
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187085
Log:
PR target/53187
* config/arm/arm.c (arm_sel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53187
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-05-03
10:17:06 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu May 3 10:17:02 2012
New Revision: 187086
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187086
Log:
PR target/53187
* config/arm/arm.c (arm_sel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53174
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-05-03
10:18:39 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu May 3 10:18:34 2012
New Revision: 187087
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187087
Log:
PR debug/53174
* tree-predcom.c (remove_stm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53174
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-05-03
10:19:32 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu May 3 10:19:29 2012
New Revision: 187088
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187088
Log:
PR debug/53174
* tree-predcom.c (remove_stm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53187
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53176
Greta Yorsh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Greta.Yorsh at arm dot com
--- Comment #12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53194
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53174
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression]|[4.6 Regression] ICE in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53203
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.7.0 |4.8.0
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53200
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53126
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-03
10:40:58 UTC ---
And eventually split out the code to avoid bogus duplicates?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53201
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53198
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53206
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-03
10:54:09 UTC ---
I don't have a strong opinion.
In the large codebase I'm working on currently we use -Wall -Wextra but don't
use -Woverloaded-virtual (and we are aware of it, it's in a Makefile but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53209
Bug #: 53209
Summary: tree check ICE: expected tree_vec, have error_mark in
comp_template_args_with_info, at cp/pt.c:7038
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53185
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-05-03 10:59:05 UTC ---
The testcase now (trunk@187082) segfaults in fold_binary_loc:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
[Switching to process 29611]
0x009cb27d in fold_binary
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53190
--- Comment #10 from Andreas Jaeger 2012-05-03 11:02:43
UTC ---
So, should somebody file a bug against GCC that to make the SSE cr available?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53126
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-05-03
11:09:12 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu May 3 11:09:07 2012
New Revision: 187090
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187090
Log:
PR plugins/53126
* gcc-ar.c (main): If GCC_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53128
--- Comment #4 from Igor Zamyatin 2012-05-03
11:09:15 UTC ---
Isn't it too aggressive from user perspective to perform such transformation
even without warning? Especially for the case when that "wrong" read is not
used later.
Sure it is dangerou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53126
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-05-03
11:09:51 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu May 3 11:09:46 2012
New Revision: 187091
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187091
Log:
PR plugins/53126
* gcc-ar.c (main): If GCC_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52841
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-03
11:23:33 UTC ---
Ping?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53190
--- Comment #11 from Uros Bizjak 2012-05-03 11:43:16
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> So, should somebody file a bug against GCC that to make the SSE cr available?
Er, gcc doesn't need it, all SSE conversion builtins are implemented without
t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53210
Bug #: 53210
Summary: warning for data member initialized with itself should
be in -Wall
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53210
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-03
12:29:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The code has a typo, the mem-initializer should have been l(i)
Oops, typo! I meant is should have been j(i)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53211
Bug #: 53211
Summary: range-based 'for' expression of type 'const int []'
has incomplete type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53212
Bug #: 53212
Summary: cpp consumes comment after pragma
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53210
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53176
--- Comment #13 from Kenneth Zadeck
2012-05-03 13:14:31 UTC ---
The arm is one of the architectures for which lower-subreg is harmful
for some of the implementations.
kenny
On 05/03/2012 06:29 AM, Greta.Yorsh at arm dot com wrote:
> http://gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53206
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-05-03
13:15:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> In the large codebase I'm working on currently we use -Wall -Wextra but don't
> use -Woverloaded-virtual (and we are aware of it, it's in a Makefile bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53211
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53176
Greta Yorsh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana.radhakrishnan at arm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53206
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-05-03
13:28:50 UTC ---
This is slightly contrived:
namespace library
{
struct Interface {
virtual void handle(int) = 0;
};
struct Implementation : Interface {
void handle(int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53213
Bug #: 53213
Summary: Internal compiler error in math.h
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53168
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-03
14:17:32 UTC ---
I think it is because of how we do VN lookup / insert during phi_translation.
SCCVN does not guarantee availability of its lookup result, thus when
such availability is not guarante
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53214
Bug #: 53214
Summary: [lto]: ICE: munmap_chunk(): invalid pointer
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53213
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53186
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-03 14:28:52 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu May 3 14:28:46 2012
New Revision: 187097
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187097
Log:
/cp
2012-05-03 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53186
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-03 14:32:20 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu May 3 14:32:15 2012
New Revision: 187098
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187098
Log:
/cp
2012-05-03 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53186
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53214
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50602
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50602
--- Comment #17 from Andi Kleen 2012-05-03
14:57:13 UTC ---
Hmm, my assumption was always that this option would be passed through and then
used by lto1 step. That's true for other -f* options at least.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51771
--- Comment #4 from Luke Dalessandro 2012-05-03
15:06:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 27303
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27303
RBTree microbenchmark test case
I believe that I'm seeing this in the RSTM suite's RBTree microbe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53106
--- Comment #8 from William J. Schmidt 2012-05-03
15:16:39 UTC ---
FWIW, I verified that Honza's proposed patch fixes the build problems for
483.xlancbmk and 32-bit 447.dealII on powerpc-linux. Any ETA for getting this
committed?
Thanks,
Bill
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53213
--- Comment #2 from lbl2007 at gmx dot net 2012-05-03 15:51:06 UTC ---
The command to reproduce the error is "g++ bug.c", not "gcc bug.c"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53209
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Target Milestone|-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53128
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53211
--- Comment #2 from niXman 2012-05-03 16:04:26 UTC
---
This code also works:
#include
template
void func(Args... args) {
const int arr[] = {args...};
for (int it: arr) { // !
std::cout << it << std::endl;
}
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53176
--- Comment #15 from Uros Bizjak 2012-05-03 16:19:04
UTC ---
32bit x86 regressed (-O2 -mmovbe) with following testcase:
void
foo (long long i)
{
x = __builtin_bswap64 (i);
}
from:
foo:
movbe 4(%esp), %eax
movbe 8(%esp), %
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53200
--- Comment #3 from Richard Henderson 2012-05-03
16:36:17 UTC ---
Hmm. I see nothing amiss in that generated config file.
But see if by chance it isn't the same problem as fixed by r187102.
Hey there,
I tried to write a template that finds the smallest signed integer type
that can represent a given number. To achieve that, I am computing boolean
constant expressions and use them to pick the right template
specializations. This produces multiple "comparison is always true/false
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52605
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor 2012-05-03
17:00:48 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu May 3 17:00:32 2012
New Revision: 187109
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187109
Log:
2012-05-03 Martin Jambor
PR lto/52605
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52605
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52543
--- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-03 17:04:49 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Thu May 3 17:04:41 2012
New Revision: 187110
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187110
Log:
Add PR rtl-optimization/52543 to c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53215
Bug #: 53215
Summary: Warn if orphaned memory is created by ignoring return
value of new
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52543
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-03 17:50:20 UTC ---
lower-subreg patched committed here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-05/msg00011.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2012-04-25 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53216
Bug #: 53216
Summary: fmaf() alters rounding mode of sse2 FPU
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53217
Bug #: 53217
Summary: [4.8 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_ssa
failed
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53217
--- Comment #1 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-05-03 18:38:27 UTC ---
The following testcase causes an ICE with current trunk (4.8)
MODULE xc_cs1
INTEGER, PARAMETER :: dp=KIND(0.0D0)
REAL(KIND=dp), PARAMETER :: a = 0.04918_dp, &
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53106
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka 2012-05-03
19:18:56 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu May 3 19:18:51 2012
New Revision: 187114
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187114
Log:
PR middle-end/53106
* ipa.c (cgraph_remove
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53101
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse 2012-05-03
19:19:00 UTC ---
(define_peephole2
[(set (mem:VI8F_256 (match_operand 2))
(match_operand:VI8F_256 1 "register_operand"))
(set (match_operand: 0 "register_operand")
(mem: (match_dup 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53093
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka 2012-05-03
19:22:07 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu May 3 19:22:03 2012
New Revision: 187115
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187115
Log:
PR middle-end/53093
* tree-emutls.c (new_e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53218
Bug #: 53218
Summary: cmake segfaults on sparcv9
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53219
Bug #: 53219
Summary: inline function erroneously clobbers %i0 register on
64 bit sparc comiple of perls regcomp.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53218
--- Comment #1 from Tom Callaway 2012-05-03
19:47:15 UTC ---
Also seeing a very similar segfault with source-highlight (same environment,
Linux/sparcv9/32bit userspace):
(gdb) bt
#0 0xf7ae0d98 in __frame_dummy_init_array_entry () from /lib/libs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53216
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: ppluzhni...@google.com
This appears to be a gcc-4.7 regression. Confirmed in:
g++ (GCC) 4.8.0 20120331 (experimental)
g++ (GCC) 4.8.0 20120503 (experimental)
#include
int main()
{
for (int *p = (int[]){ 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53220
--- Comment #1 from Paul Pluzhnikov 2012-05-03
19:53:07 UTC ---
gcc-compiled code for reference:
(gdb) disas main
Dump of assembler code for function main:
0x00400540 <+0>: push %rbp
0x00400541 <+1>: mov$0x1,%
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53221
Bug #: 53221
Summary: [C++11] basic_string lacks "copy/move constructors"
with allocator
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53221
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51564
Matt Hargett changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at use dot net
--- Comment #5 from Ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53200
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53219
--- Comment #1 from Martin Husemann 2012-05-03
21:34:13 UTC ---
It occured to me that gcc would (rightfully) behave this way, if the (previous)
value in %i0 should be considered dead at this point - which might be the case,
hard to tell due to lo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53199
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner 2012-05-03
21:47:49 UTC ---
Author: meissner
Date: Thu May 3 21:47:45 2012
New Revision: 187119
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187119
Log:
[gcc]
2012-05-03 Michael Meissner
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51494
Andy Lutomirski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luto at mit dot edu
--- Comment #2 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52684
--- Comment #11 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-03 22:19:42 UTC ---
Author: davem
Date: Thu May 3 22:19:35 2012
New Revision: 187120
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187120
Log:
Fix long double float miscompilations on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52684
--- Comment #12 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-03 22:34:41 UTC ---
Author: davem
Date: Thu May 3 22:34:34 2012
New Revision: 187124
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187124
Log:
Fix long double float miscompilations on
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
