[Bug c/53933] New: Register choosing error when inline assembly used at inline function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53933 Bug #: 53933 Summary: Register choosing error when inline assembly used at inline function Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.4 Status:

[Bug c/53933] Register choosing error when inline assembly used at inline function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53933 Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/53930] bug in linker

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53930 DmitryBespalov bespalovdn at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/53930] bug in linker

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53930 Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/53934] New: Better CPP macro diagnostics

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53934 Bug #: 53934 Summary: Better CPP macro diagnostics Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: normal

[Bug c++/53930] bug in linker

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53930 Dmitry Bespalov bespalovdn at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/53935] New: [avr][c++] missing warning for non-const data in progmem

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53935 Bug #: 53935 Summary: [avr][c++] missing warning for non-const data in progmem Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/53935] [avr][c++] missing warning for non-const data in progmem

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53935 Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P5

[Bug c/53933] Register choosing error when inline assembly used at inline function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53933 jaewon ha nicejaewon at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/53859] ICE when calculate insn latency for armv7e-m arch in O2 level

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53859 Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ramana at

[Bug c++/53930] bug in linker

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53930 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/53930] bug in linker

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53930 --- Comment #6 from Dmitry Bespalov bespalovdn at gmail dot com 2012-07-12 10:03:14 UTC --- It really works as expected if put A into some namespace, but it really as well that implementation differs in Microsoft's VC and GCC. Under VC you always

[Bug c++/53936] New: Adding a PRETTY_ARGUMENT and ARGUMENT_COUNT macro/variable

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53936 Bug #: 53936 Summary: Adding a PRETTY_ARGUMENT and ARGUMENT_COUNT macro/variable Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/53930] bug in linker

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53930 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-12 10:09:10 UTC --- ISO 14882:2011 3.2 There can be more than one definition of a class type (Clause 9), [...] in a program provided that each definition appears in a different

[Bug c/53937] New: Pack'ing struct causes gcc to not recognize that an field's address is aligned

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53937 Bug #: 53937 Summary: Pack'ing struct causes gcc to not recognize that an field's address is aligned Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status:

[Bug c/53937] Pack'ing struct causes gcc to not recognize that an field's address is aligned

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53937 --- Comment #1 from Krzysztof Gongolewski don.delfin at gmail dot com 2012-07-12 10:49:57 UTC --- Created attachment 27780 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27780 Compiled example code Assembler

[Bug c++/53930] bug in linker

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53930 --- Comment #8 from Dmitry Bespalov bespalovdn at gmail dot com 2012-07-12 10:51:51 UTC --- Jonathan, I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing. You've asked: If that was the case how would you ever use any type (e.g. std::string) in

[Bug c++/53930] bug in linker

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53930 --- Comment #9 from Dmitry Bespalov bespalovdn at gmail dot com 2012-07-12 10:54:31 UTC --- Correction of typo: ...So I actually do not redefine std::string again, I just USE the type defined in third file. Sorry

[Bug target/53938] New: ARM target generates sub-optimal code (extra instructions) on load from memory

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53938 Bug #: 53938 Summary: ARM target generates sub-optimal code (extra instructions) on load from memory Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.2 Status:

[Bug target/53659] ARM: Using -mcpu=cortex-a9 option results in bad performance for Cortex-A9 processor in C-Ray phoronix benchmark

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53659 Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING

[Bug c/53937] Pack'ing struct causes gcc to not recognize that an field's address is aligned

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53937 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug target/53938] ARM target generates sub-optimal code (extra instructions) on load from memory

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53938 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target||arm*-*-*

[Bug c++/53930] bug in linker

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53930 --- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-12 12:18:11 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) Correction of typo: ...So I actually do not redefine std::string again, I just USE the type defined in third file.

[Bug c/53937] Pack'ing struct causes gcc to not recognize that an field's address is aligned

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53937 --- Comment #3 from Krzysztof Gongolewski don.delfin at gmail dot com 2012-07-12 12:24:42 UTC --- But the compiler knows address of the struct at compilation time, it's hard-coded. So gcc knows that both struct and member are perfectly aligned.

[Bug fortran/53939] New: allows assignment to INTENT(IN) nested component

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53939 Bug #: 53939 Summary: allows assignment to INTENT(IN) nested component Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor

[Bug c/53937] Pack'ing struct causes gcc to not recognize that an field's address is aligned

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53937 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|

[Bug fortran/53940] New: warn about duplicate USE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53940 Bug #: 53940 Summary: warn about duplicate USE Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3

[Bug c/53937] Pack'ing struct causes gcc to not recognize that an field's address is aligned

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53937 Krzysztof Gongolewski don.delfin at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|missed-optimization |

[Bug libstdc++/53941] New: Range-based for feature is not implemented for std::pair.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53941 Bug #: 53941 Summary: Range-based for feature is not implemented for std::pair. Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/53937] Pack'ing struct causes gcc to not recognize that an field's address is aligned

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53937 Krzysztof Gongolewski don.delfin at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED

[Bug c/53937] Pack'ing struct causes gcc to not recognize that an field's address is aligned

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53937 Krzysztof Gongolewski don.delfin at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|

[Bug fortran/53940] warn about duplicate USE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53940 Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc

[Bug fortran/53939] allows assignment to INTENT(IN) nested component

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53939 Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/53940] warn about duplicate USE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53940 --- Comment #2 from Bil Kleb Bil.Kleb at NASA dot gov 2012-07-12 13:25:29 UTC --- I guess I see the USE ONLY as similar to a declaration, and to have two of the same declarations in a program is an error, e.g., $ cat duplicate_declaration.f90

[Bug fortran/53939] allows assignment to INTENT(IN) nested component

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53939 --- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-12 13:29:08 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) However, both elem and cl2g are pointers - thus the intent(in) doesn't apply. [Or more precisely, for cl2g the intent doesn't apply

[Bug fortran/53939] allows assignment to INTENT(IN) nested component

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53939 --- Comment #3 from Bil Kleb Bil.Kleb at NASA dot gov 2012-07-12 13:32:07 UTC --- OK, fair enough (and sincere thanks for taking the time to explain it). I see that if I change to the more modern ALLOCATABLE declarations, then I get a warning

[Bug fortran/53940] Optionally warn about multiple explicit USE-association of the same symbol

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53940 Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug libstdc++/53941] Range-based for feature is not implemented for std::pair.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53941 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug libstdc++/53941] Range-based for feature is not implemented for std::pair.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53941 --- Comment #2 from Maxim Yegorushkin maxim.yegorushkin at gmail dot com 2012-07-12 14:36:52 UTC --- Fair enough. I wasn't sure whether std::pair should work as a range, so I went to http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/cxx0x_status.html which refers to

[Bug web/53919] Version-specific install instructions not available

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53919 Erik Schnetter schnetter at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED

[Bug target/39423] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] [SH] performance regression: lost mov @(disp,Rn)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39423 --- Comment #20 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-12 15:36:59 UTC --- I'm having a look at your implementation to see how they compare and possibly combined together. Both approaches look interesting. I guess folding the mul-add

[Bug c/53933] Register choosing error when inline assembly used at inline function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53933 Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug target/53938] ARM target generates sub-optimal code (extra instructions) on load from memory

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53938 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-12 16:10:09 UTC --- I think this is the standard volatile vs combine issue.

[Bug web/53919] Version-specific install instructions not available

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53919 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-12 16:12:50 UTC --- I think the install instructions for released versions should never be on the website and only in the release itself.

[Bug rtl-optimization/53942] New: unable to find a register to spill in class 'CREG'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53942 Bug #: 53942 Summary: unable to find a register to spill in class 'CREG' Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug objc/53943] New: Compiler ICE with -fobjc-direct-dispatch flag on Linux

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53943 Bug #: 53943 Summary: Compiler ICE with -fobjc-direct-dispatch flag on Linux Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libobjc/53944] New: Can't catch C++ exception in Objective C

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53944 Bug #: 53944 Summary: Can't catch C++ exception in Objective C Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libobjc/53944] Can't catch C++ exception in Objective C

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53944 Konstantin Osipov kostja.osipov at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Host||Linux

[Bug libobjc/53944] Can't catch C++ exception in Objective C

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53944 --- Comment #1 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-12 18:23:33 UTC --- Try obj-c++

[Bug debug/37237] Debug information for virtual destructors omits DW_AT_vtable_elem_location

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37237 --- Comment #8 from Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-12 18:34:08 UTC --- I'd like to ping this again. I've been working on adding support for new and delete to gdb. The missing debuginfo here is a barrier to this. I think gdb would

[Bug target/53938] ARM target generates sub-optimal code (extra instructions) on load from memory

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53938 --- Comment #3 from Greg Smith gregpsmith at live dot co.uk 2012-07-12 19:09:41 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) Can you verify if the situation improves with GCC 4.7 or current development trunk? I am an end user of the Rowley CrossWorks

[Bug fortran/53945] New: Scalar element of assumed-shape dummy array not recognized as C interoperable

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53945 Bug #: 53945 Summary: Scalar element of assumed-shape dummy array not recognized as C interoperable Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.2 Status:

[Bug rtl-optimization/53176] [4.8 Regression] gcc.dg/lower-subreg-1.c FAILs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53176 --- Comment #25 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-12 21:14:19 UTC --- Author: hp Date: Thu Jul 12 21:14:14 2012 New Revision: 189441 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189441 Log: PR

[Bug c/53946] New: gcc emits warning when intmax_t is long long and format string %jd is used

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53946 Bug #: 53946 Summary: gcc emits warning when intmax_t is long long and format string %jd is used Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.5.3 Status:

[Bug c/53946] gcc emits warning when intmax_t is long long and format string %jd is used

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53946 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-12 23:43:17 UTC --- Looks like you are using the wrong definition for intmax_t .

[Bug c/53946] gcc emits warning when intmax_t is long long and format string %jd is used

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53946 --- Comment #2 from Roger Meyer lxllol at yopmail dot com 2012-07-12 23:44:40 UTC --- reproducable at least on: X86_64 using gcc 4.5.1 and 4.5.3

[Bug c/53946] gcc emits warning when intmax_t is long long and format string %jd is used

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53946 Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c/53946] gcc emits warning when intmax_t is long long and format string %jd is used

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53946 Roger Meyer lxllol at yopmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/53946] gcc emits warning when intmax_t is long long and format string %jd is used

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53946 Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c/53946] gcc emits warning when intmax_t is long long and format string %jd is used

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53946 Roger Meyer lxllol at yopmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/53946] gcc emits warning when intmax_t is long long and format string %jd is used

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53946 Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/53845] Another error reporting routines re-entered issue

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53845 davidxl xinliangli at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xinliangli at gmail

[Bug other/51678] 'make pdf' is broken in libiberty

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51678 --- Comment #3 from Gavin Lambert gcc at mirality dot co.nz 2012-07-13 01:36:52 UTC --- Created attachment 27782 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27782 Proposed fix Confirmed on mingw32 with MiKTeX. I've attached a patch which