[Bug fortran/54221] Explicit private access specifier signals unexpected defined but not used [-Wunused-function] warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54221 --- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-12 09:52:36 UTC --- Author: burnus Date: Sun Aug 12 09:52:33 2012 New Revision: 190325 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190325 Log: 2012-08-12 Tobias Burnus

[Bug fortran/34004] Accepts invalid: Ambigiuous interface with subroutine.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34004 Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/39290] Subroutine/function ambiguity in generics

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39290 Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot

[Bug tree-optimization/21485] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] missed load PRE, PRE makes i?86 suck

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21485 --- Comment #52 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-08-12 12:30:21 UTC --- This bug celebrated 7th anniversary this year. Congratulations!

[Bug fortran/34004] Accepts invalid: Ambigiuous interface with subroutine.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34004 Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc

[Bug fortran/39290] Subroutine/function ambiguity in generics

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39290 Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc

[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 #31 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-12 13:23:24 UTC --- Author: olegendo Date: Sun Aug 12 13:23:20 2012 New Revision: 190326 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190326 Log: PR target/39423 *

[Bug go/54233] New: FAIL: runtime/pprof

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54233 Bug #: 54233 Summary: FAIL: runtime/pprof Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/54234] New: -Wconversion or -Wconversion-extra should warn for CMPLX(dp,dp)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54234 Bug #: 54234 Summary: -Wconversion or -Wconversion-extra should warn for CMPLX(dp,dp) Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/53823] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/930921-1.c execution at -O0 and -O1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823 --- Comment #22 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-12 14:30:12 UTC --- Created attachment 27994 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27994 Patch /* synth_mult does an `unsigned int' multiply. As long

[Bug target/53967] GCC produces slow code for convolution algorithm with -mfpmath=sse (the AMD_64 default)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53967 --- Comment #18 from xunxun xunxun1982 at gmail dot com 2012-08-12 15:41:35 UTC --- Is the bug related with PR19780?

[Bug fortran/54234] -Wconversion or -Wconversion-extra should warn for CMPLX(dp,dp)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54234 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug middle-end/54193] dump_gimple_assign raw can't handle 4 operands

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54193 --- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-12 16:20:45 UTC --- Author: glisse Date: Sun Aug 12 16:20:41 2012 New Revision: 190328 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190328 Log: 2012-08-12 Marc Glisse

[Bug libstdc++/54185] condition_variable not properly destructed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-12 16:22:28 UTC --- I need a ChangeLog entry before I can commit the change, which needs your name, could you provide a ChangeLog entry? Thanks. Unless I'm mistaken the

[Bug fortran/54234] -Wconversion or -Wconversion-extra should warn for CMPLX(dp,dp)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54234 Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc

[Bug middle-end/54193] dump_gimple_assign raw can't handle 4 operands

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54193 Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #16 from Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com 2012-08-12 18:08:05 UTC --- Created attachment 27995 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27995 test case #1 - struct targeted to TImode

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #17 from Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com 2012-08-12 18:11:25 UTC --- Created attachment 27996 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27996 test case #2 - struct targeted to TImode

[Bug libstdc++/51452] [DR 2116] has_nothrow_.*constructor bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|SUSPENDED

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #18 from Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com 2012-08-12 18:17:19 UTC --- Created attachment 27997 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27997 test case #3 - struct targeted to TImode

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #19 from Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com 2012-08-12 18:30:25 UTC --- (In reply to comment #15) Do we have a run-time testcase? I attached three compile-time test cases that check if the generated RTL refers to TImode values.

[Bug debug/51358] incorrect/missing location for function arg, -O0, without VTA

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51358 --- Comment #4 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com 2012-08-12 18:37:26 UTC --- It would not be helpful, systemtap would then see no data (just not wrong data). Also at that time location list will need to be used and currently

[Bug c++/54235] New: Templates compile but don't link

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54235 Bug #: 54235 Summary: Templates compile but don't link Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug libstdc++/52681] [C++11] Using std::thread without -pthread crashes without warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52681 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-12 18:57:58 UTC --- Author: redi Date: Sun Aug 12 18:57:53 2012 New Revision: 190330 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190330 Log: PR libstdc++/52681 *

[Bug libstdc++/52681] [C++11] Using std::thread without -pthread crashes without warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52681 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #20 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-12 19:50:08 UTC --- (In reply to comment #19) (In reply to comment #15) Do we have a run-time testcase? I attached three compile-time test cases that check if the generated RTL

[Bug debug/51358] incorrect/missing location for function arg, -O0, without VTA

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51358 --- Comment #5 from Frank Ch. Eigler fche at redhat dot com 2012-08-12 20:21:24 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) It would not be helpful, systemtap would then see no data [...] Not quite; systemtap can search the PC ranges/line tables for a

[Bug debug/51358] incorrect/missing location for function arg, -O0, without VTA

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51358 --- Comment #6 from Mark Wielaard mark at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-12 20:30:36 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #4) It would not be helpful, systemtap would then see no data [...] Not quite; systemtap can search the PC

[Bug target/28896] -fstack-limit-symbol and m68k and non 68020

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28896 --- Comment #11 from Larry Baker baker at usgs dot gov 2012-08-12 21:24:31 UTC --- Andreas, I have patched the Code Sourcery gcc 4.6.1+ ColdFire cross-compiler to fix the bugs I found for -m68020 -fPIC -fstack-limit-symbol and to implement

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #21 from Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com 2012-08-12 21:24:40 UTC --- (In reply to comment #20) X86 doesn't support __int128 and requires SSE for TImode. We may need to limit those testcases for int128 target. OK, I'll add: /*

[Bug target/28896] -fstack-limit-symbol and m68k and non 68020

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28896 --- Comment #12 from Larry Baker baker at usgs dot gov 2012-08-12 21:28:39 UTC --- Created attachment 27998 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27998 Patch for trunk version 2012-08-12 of gcc/config/m68k.m68k.c

[Bug target/28896] -fstack-limit-symbol and m68k and non 68020

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28896 --- Comment #13 from Larry Baker baker at usgs dot gov 2012-08-12 21:29:58 UTC --- Created attachment 27999 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27999 Patch for trunk version 2012-08-12 of gcc/config/m68k/m68k.md

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #27995|0 |1 is

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #27996|0 |1 is

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #27997|0 |1 is

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #25 from Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com 2012-08-12 22:08:50 UTC --- (In reply to comment #20) X86 doesn't support __int128 and requires SSE for TImode. We may need to limit those testcases for int128 target. If targeting

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #26 from Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com 2012-08-12 22:14:56 UTC --- Typo fixed below: #define MAX_FIXED_MODE_SIZE targetm.scalar_mode_supported_p (TImode) ? TImode : DImode

[Bug target/54236] New: [SH] Improve addc and subc insn utilization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54236 Bug #: 54236 Summary: [SH] Improve addc and subc insn utilization Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ubizjak at gmail dot

[Bug target/54236] [SH] Improve addc and subc insn utilization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54236 Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #28 from Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com 2012-08-12 22:43:16 UTC --- (In reply to comment #27) Please try this patch: diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.h b/gcc/config/i386/i386.h index c4d85b7..6c4c2ce 100644 ---

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

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244 --- Comment #47 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-12 22:47:21 UTC --- Author: olegendo Date: Sun Aug 12 22:47:15 2012 New Revision: 190331 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190331 Log: PR target/51244 *

[Bug c++/54198] [4.8 Regression] error: invalid use of incomplete type when building Chromium

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54198 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug c++/54235] Templates compile but don't link

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54235 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug target/20020] x86_64 - 128 bit structs not targeted to TImode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020 --- Comment #29 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-13 02:17:28 UTC --- (In reply to comment #28) (In reply to comment #27) Please try this patch: diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.h b/gcc/config/i386/i386.h index

[Bug libstdc++/54237] New: [C++11] Make more tuple-related functions constexpr

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54237 Bug #: 54237 Summary: [C++11] Make more tuple-related functions constexpr Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal