[Bug tree-optimization/53986] missing vrp on bit-mask test, LSHIFT_EXPR not handled

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53986 --- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-23 06:29:51 UTC --- Btw, if the switch is not converted to a bit-test the path to link_error is also not removed by vrp, because it doesn't handle anti-ranges for switches submitted patch for

[Bug bootstrap/53238] Bootstrap failure: error: 'pthread_mutex_timedlock' was not declared in this scope

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53238 --- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-23 08:11:48 UTC --- The vtable should be defined in the same file as ctypechar::~ctype() i.e. in libstdc++-v3/src/c++98/ctype.cc You could try adding this to ctype.cc around

[Bug tree-optimization/43716] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] Revision 158105 miscompiles doduc.f90

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43716 --- Comment #40 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-23 08:12:55 UTC --- tree if-conversion happily executes both arms of the conditional unconditionally with -ffast-math, so for example if (x != 0) tem = y / x; else

[Bug c++/54053] [4.7 Regression] g++ accepts (invalid?) 0; expression.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54053 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.7.2

[Bug middle-end/54068] Compiler passes wrong argument to function when using optimize attribute with -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54068 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target||i?86-*-*

[Bug target/54063] [4.8 regression] on powerpc64 gcc 4.8 generates larger code for global variable accesses than gcc 4.7

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54063 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0

[Bug plugins/54069] New: linkage type of plugin API wrong

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54069 Bug #: 54069 Summary: linkage type of plugin API wrong Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major Priority: P3

[Bug plugins/54069] linkage type of plugin API wrong

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54069 --- Comment #1 from wein...@gns-mbh.com 2012-07-23 08:39:51 UTC --- oh... forgot to mention... system is: linux x86-64 (openSuSe 10.3)

[Bug plugins/54069] linkage type of plugin API wrong

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54069 Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug plugins/53258] Many symbols cannot lookup when loading plugin in configured with --enable-build-with-cxx.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53258 Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug plugins/48425] installed plugin headers fail to compile, include non-existent files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48425 Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|critical|normal

[Bug plugins/54069] linkage type of plugin API wrong

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54069 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-23 08:49:16 UTC --- (In reply to comment #0) Looking at the generated compiler (libgcc, gcc-executable, etc.) it seems that presumably all functions from tree.h, input.h, and

[Bug tree-optimization/53881] [4.8 regression] ICE in hoist_edge_and_branch_if_true

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53881 --- Comment #12 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-23 09:26:46 UTC --- Author: steven Date: Mon Jul 23 09:26:41 2012 New Revision: 189779 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189779 Log: gcc/ PR

[Bug fortran/54070] New: Wrong code with allocatable deferred-length (array) function results

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070 Bug #: 54070 Summary: Wrong code with allocatable deferred-length (array) function results Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status:

[Bug translation/54067] arm-none-eabi with -mapcs and attribute((interrupt)) generates wrong stack alignment

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54067 --- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-23 10:00:41 UTC --- The -mapcs option isn't expected to work on AAPCS based targets. We should fix the compiler to reject this combination.

[Bug tree-optimization/53881] [4.8 regression] ICE in hoist_edge_and_branch_if_true

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53881 Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug middle-end/54068] Compiler passes wrong argument to function when using optimize attribute with -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54068 Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||steven at gcc

[Bug fortran/54070] Wrong code with allocatable deferred-length (array) function results

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070 Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc

[Bug translation/54067] arm-none-eabi with -mapcs and attribute((interrupt)) generates wrong stack alignment

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54067 --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-23 10:26:06 UTC --- Hmm, I got myself confused with the undocumented option. -mapcs has the same behaviour as -mapcs-frame, which should work (generate code that will

[Bug c/54071] New: out data in object file is correct only for -s0 optimize flag

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54071 Bug #: 54071 Summary: out data in object file is correct only for -s0 optimize flag Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.3.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/54043] [C++11] cout nullptr does not work

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043 --- Comment #11 from Aryeh Gregor ayg at aryeh dot name 2012-07-23 11:00:01 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) You can submit an issue, see http://cplusplus.github.com/LWG/lwg-active.html#submit_issue I sent an e-mail to Alisdair Meredith per

[Bug fortran/54072] New: BOZ with -std=f2008: wrongly accepted to TRANSFER/ABS/...; two BOZ not rejected for IOR/IEOR/IAND

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54072 Bug #: 54072 Summary: BOZ with -std=f2008: wrongly accepted to TRANSFER/ABS/...; two BOZ not rejected for IOR/IEOR/IAND Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc

[Bug fortran/54072] BOZ with -std=f2008: wrongly accepted to TRANSFER/ABS/...; two BOZ not rejected for IOR/IEOR/IAND

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54072 Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc

[Bug middle-end/53616] [4.8 Regression] 416.gamess in SPEC CPU 2006 miscompiled

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53616 --- Comment #10 from Vladimir Yakovlev vbyakovl23 at gmail dot com 2012-07-23 12:48:59 UTC --- Created attachment 27858 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27858 Reduced test case

[Bug lto/53572] Some public symbols don't get to serialized LTO

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53572 Christopher Hite Christopher.Hite at partner dot commerzbank.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug middle-end/53616] [4.8 Regression] 416.gamess in SPEC CPU 2006 miscompiled

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53616 Vladimir Yakovlev vbyakovl23 at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vbyakovl23

[Bug fortran/54072] BOZ with -std=f2008: wrongly accepted to TRANSFER/ABS/...; two BOZ not rejected for IOR/IEOR/IAND

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54072 --- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-23 13:17:33 UTC --- Currently, gfortran prints the following error message if the BOZ exceeds (for integers) the positive value: Error: Arithmetic overflow converting INTEGER(8)

[Bug middle-end/53616] [4.8 Regression] 416.gamess in SPEC CPU 2006 miscompiled

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53616 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/54072] BOZ with -std=f2008: wrongly accepted to TRANSFER/ABS/...; two BOZ not rejected for IOR/IEOR/IAND

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54072 --- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-23 13:44:47 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) Misleading error message: Error: Extension: BOZ literal at (1) outside a DATA statement and outside

[Bug pch/53880] [4.8 Regression] compile time regression when generating precompiled headers for boost

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug middle-end/52544] compilation fails with -finstrument-functions and sse c code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52544 --- Comment #1 from sebastian oeste.sebastian at googlemail dot com 2012-07-23 14:47:00 UTC --- Created attachment 27859 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27859 preprocessed minimal reproduction of the bug

[Bug middle-end/52544] compilation fails with -finstrument-functions and sse c code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52544 sebastian oeste.sebastian at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/54073] New: SciMark Monte Carlo test performance has seriously decreased in recent GCC releases

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54073 Bug #: 54073 Summary: SciMark Monte Carlo test performance has seriously decreased in recent GCC releases Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.2

[Bug tree-optimization/54073] SciMark Monte Carlo test performance has seriously decreased in recent GCC releases

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54073 --- Comment #1 from Artem S. Tashkinov t.artem at mailcity dot com 2012-07-23 15:43:50 UTC --- The results are obtained from here: http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1207077-SU-GCCPERFOR59 Benchmarking of GCC 4.2 through GCC 4.8 when building

[Bug target/53961] internal compiler error: in memory_address_length, at config/i386/i386.c:23341

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53961 --- Comment #18 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-23 16:04:30 UTC --- Author: uros Date: Mon Jul 23 16:04:23 2012 New Revision: 189787 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189787 Log: PR target/53961 *

[Bug bootstrap/53238] Bootstrap failure: error: 'pthread_mutex_timedlock' was not declared in this scope

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53238 --- Comment #21 from Daniel Richard G. skunk at iskunk dot org 2012-07-23 18:52:06 UTC --- (In reply to comment #20) You could try adding this to ctype.cc around line 54 --- libstdc++-v3/src/c++98/ctype.cc.orig2012-01-23 18:12:01.2

[Bug web/51195] upgrade request for viewvc to version 1.1.13

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51195 Sean McGovern gseanmcg at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/51213] [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED

[Bug pch/53880] [4.8 Regression] compile time regression when generating precompiled headers for boost

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880 Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug c++/54074] New: [C++0x] initializer list accepts incorrect nested input

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54074 Bug #: 54074 Summary: [C++0x] initializer list accepts incorrect nested input Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug pch/53880] [4.8 Regression] compile time regression when generating precompiled headers for boost

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53880 --- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-23 22:46:19 UTC --- FWIW this shows up in GCC's own libstdc++ PCHs also.

[Bug target/53511] SH Target: Add support for fma patterns

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53511 --- Comment #14 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-23 22:54:13 UTC --- Author: olegendo Date: Mon Jul 23 22:54:06 2012 New Revision: 189796 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189796 Log: PR target/53511 *

[Bug target/51244] SH Target: Inefficient conditional branch

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244 --- Comment #42 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-23 22:57:42 UTC --- Author: olegendo Date: Mon Jul 23 22:57:36 2012 New Revision: 189797 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189797 Log: PR target/51244 *

[Bug target/53511] SH Target: Add support for fma patterns

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53511 Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug libstdc++/54075] New: [4.7.1] unordered_map 3x slower than 4.6.2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075 Bug #: 54075 Summary: [4.7.1] unordered_map 3x slower than 4.6.2 Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: critical

[Bug libstdc++/54075] [4.7.1] unordered_map 3x slower than 4.6.2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075 --- Comment #1 from likan_999.student at sina dot com 2012-07-23 23:08:07 UTC --- Created attachment 27861 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27861 Profiling using google-perftools

[Bug libstdc++/54075] [4.7.1] unordered_map 3x slower than 4.6.2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075 --- Comment #2 from likan_999.student at sina dot com 2012-07-23 23:09:43 UTC --- Created attachment 27862 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27862 Profiling of gcc-4.6.2 using google-perftools

[Bug libstdc++/54075] [4.7.1] unordered_map 3x slower than 4.6.2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug libstdc++/54075] [4.7.1] unordered_map 3x slower than 4.6.2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075 --- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-07-23 23:23:27 UTC --- I wonder, anyway, if the apparent slow down is just an artifact caused by a different handling of the load factor in the reworked unordered containers

[Bug target/51244] SH Target: Inefficient conditional branch

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244 --- Comment #43 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-23 23:29:02 UTC --- I have noticed that on SH the CANONICALIZE_COMPARISON macro is not defined, although it seems to be useful for the combine pass. Another thing that I'd like

[Bug c++/51213] [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213 --- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-07-23 23:35:42 UTC --- Weird indeed, thanks Daniel. Tomorrow I will have a look and either will send a patch or will post an analysis (if I will get stuck).

[Bug libstdc++/54075] [4.7.1] unordered_map 3x slower than 4.6.2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075 --- Comment #5 from likan_999.student at sina dot com 2012-07-24 00:17:10 UTC --- @Paolo Carlini: can you talk more about how to experiment with max_load_factor? As long as I use the same max_load_factor for 4.6 and 4.7, I can still see the

[Bug libstdc++/54075] [4.7.1] unordered_map 3x slower than 4.6.2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075 --- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-07-24 00:29:38 UTC --- In some cases 4.6.x was handling max_load_factor incorrectly. Thus, the idea isn't comparing 4.6.x to 4.7.x with the same max_load_factor (I don't think

[Bug libstdc++/54075] [4.7.1] unordered_map 3x slower than 4.6.2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075 --- Comment #7 from likan_999.student at sina dot com 2012-07-24 00:42:57 UTC --- @Paolo Carlini: the problem is, with different max_load_factor in range [0.2-5], the *best* result of 4.7.1 is still 2x slower than the *worst* of 4.6.2. I

[Bug target/53914] poor code generated for offset addressing on ppc32

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53914 --- Comment #2 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-24 05:55:56 UTC --- Author: amodra Date: Tue Jul 24 05:55:50 2012 New Revision: 189801 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189801 Log: PR target/53914 PR

[Bug target/54009] incorrect code generated for DFmode lo_sum mem

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54009 --- Comment #1 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-07-24 05:55:56 UTC --- Author: amodra Date: Tue Jul 24 05:55:50 2012 New Revision: 189801 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=189801 Log: PR target/53914 PR