http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54317
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-22 06:19:17
UTC ---
Actually, I reviewed my patch and I just found a bug, which can be seen on
x86_64 with:
extern void g();
void f(unsigned __int128 x){
unsigned __int128 n2 =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54348
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-22
07:37:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
strct s struct_strct( items, myItems, name, myName ) ;
}
/code
This works!
Only because NULL can be converted to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54269
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54269
--- Comment #7 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2012-08-22 07:43:30 UTC ---
Fixed for current trunk, maybe a dup of PR54332
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52991
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2012-08-22
08:34:46 UTC ---
The following variation of the test case was compiled with both gcc-4.7.1 and
MS Visual Studio 2008:
#include stdio.h
#if defined(__GNUC__)
struct A1 {
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
--- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-22
08:46:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
I've been doing research into LLVM 3.1 and other GCC versions. LLVM 3.1
correctly eliminate the (near) empty loop, and their
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54269
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54332
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-22
09:17:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
(In reply to comment #13)
No, it's only the commit referenced in this PR. No optimization regressions
warrant a backport
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54343
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-22
09:32:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
HJ's fix for PR 54332 will probably fix this one, too. Could you re-test?
Thanks.
Doesn't fix it.
==18936== 3,984 bytes in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-22
09:36:10 UTC ---
Patch that was posted (no comments yet):
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg01754.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53671
Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53671
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53671
--- Comment #13 from Mark Wielaard mark at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-22
11:10:21 UTC ---
[PATCH] gdb: dwarf2read.c handle DW_AT_high_pc constant form for DWARF 4+.
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-04/msg00982.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53671
--- Comment #14 from Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com 2012-08-22
11:24:17 UTC ---
Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
--- Comment #27 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-22
11:39:56 UTC ---
The issue with loop header copying is that we use incremental SSA updating
with PHI insertion for each individual loop header copied. That computes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53852
--- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2012-08-22 11:58:00 UTC ---
simplified testcase and some analysis:
SUBROUTINE build_d_tensor_gks(d5f,v,d5)
INTEGER, PARAMETER :: dp=8
REAL(KIND=dp),
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54317
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-22 12:29:34
UTC ---
Author: glisse
Date: Wed Aug 22 12:29:23 2012
New Revision: 190591
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190591
Log:
2012-08-22 Marc Glisse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54317
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-22 12:38:36
UTC ---
Hello,
I have no idea if the last commit helped, feel free to reconfirm the bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54343
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at google dot com dnovillo at google dot com
2012-08-22 12:43:02 UTC ---
On 2012-08-22 05:32 , rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54343
--- Comment #4 from Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54343
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-08-22 13:01:53 UTC ---
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, dnovillo at google dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54343
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at google
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
--- Comment #28 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-22
13:17:42 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Aug 22 13:17:26 2012
New Revision: 190594
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190594
Log:
2012-08-22 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54347
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54349
Bug #: 54349
Summary: _mm_cvtsi128_si64 unnecessary stores value at stack
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54349
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47440
Vladimir Yakovlev vbyakovl23 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13111
Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54350
Bug #: 54350
Summary: [4.8 Regression] FAIL:
gfortran.dg/realloc_on_assign_*.f90 -O (internal
compiler error) at r190586
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51498
gee jojelino at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
--- Comment #29 from stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com stevenb.gcc at gmail dot
com 2012-08-22 17:33:00 UTC ---
I thought that loop header copying wouldn't need to insert new PHI nodes
and thus can do with TODO_update_ssa_no_phi if we are in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54351
Bug #: 54351
Summary: ~unique_ptr() should not set __p to null
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54351
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-22
18:43:47 UTC ---
Hmm, the behaviour was probalby correct prior to fixing PR 43183, as the old
implementation of reset() did exactly what is required of the destructor.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54351
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-22
18:47:07 UTC ---
That said, whether the testcase is valid or not, I don't see any harm in making
the change.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54351
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54351
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-22
18:58:22 UTC ---
I'll test this change:
@@ -169,7 +169,13 @@
#endif
// Destructor.
- ~unique_ptr() noexcept { reset(); }
+ ~unique_ptr() noexcept
+ {
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54351
--- Comment #5 from Geoff Romer gromer at google dot com 2012-08-22 19:11:17
UTC ---
Don't forget the array specialization.
Doesn't the first line of your new destructor shadow the __p member with a __p
local variable? Why is that line needed at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51823
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49204
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54351
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-22
19:28:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Don't forget the array specialization.
I won't :-)
Doesn't the first line of your new destructor shadow the __p member with a __p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54347
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-22
19:44:04 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Aug 22 19:43:58 2012
New Revision: 190598
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190598
Log:
Replace
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49561
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54351
--- Comment #7 from Geoff Romer gromer at google dot com 2012-08-22 19:49:28
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
Don't forget the array specialization.
I won't :-)
Doesn't the first line of your new destructor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54350
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46906
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #7 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-22
20:13:32 UTC ---
Before tracer we have this CFG:
ENTRY
|
V
|
2(0)
|
|
V
|(a)
| +--+
V /|
| / /
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #8 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-22
20:20:22 UTC ---
FWIW, GCC handles loops with one header and multiple latches just fine:
void do_something_1 (void);
void do_something_2 (void);
int some_cond (void);
void
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51653
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54352
Bug #: 54352
Summary: relaxed data race rules for ~condition_variable_any
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ABI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54353
Bug #: 54353
Summary: bootstrap-debug-ckovw bootstrap fails because of
-fcompare-debug-not-overridden
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54352
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-22
20:43:34 UTC ---
Created attachment 28066
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28066
patch against 4.8 trunk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28656
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54350
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32197
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32658
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54352
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-22
20:58:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Created attachment 28066 [details]
patch against 4.8 trunk
That patch needs some additional exports:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33255
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53291
--- Comment #11 from eraman at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-22 21:07:39 UTC ---
Author: eraman
Date: Wed Aug 22 21:07:30 2012
New Revision: 190601
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190601
Log:
2012-08-22 Easwaran Raman
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53315
--- Comment #19 from eraman at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-22 21:07:40 UTC ---
Author: eraman
Date: Wed Aug 22 21:07:30 2012
New Revision: 190601
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190601
Log:
2012-08-22 Easwaran Raman
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53695
--- Comment #9 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-22
21:33:18 UTC ---
I think the right fix for this bug is to use disambiguate_multiple_latches in
the loop updating code (fix_loop_structure), but I'm not sure where to put it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54342
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54342
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54342
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-22 22:10:51
UTC ---
This may be related to PR 54315.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54342
--- Comment #7 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-08-22 22:26:22
UTC ---
Please note that there is currently no way to generate OImode directly:
$ more oi.c
typedef int OItype __attribute__ ((mode (OI)));
OItype test (OItype a)
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #15 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-22
22:52:25 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Wed Aug 22 22:52:17 2012
New Revision: 190603
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190603
Log:
PR target/54089
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52939
Bryce Lelbach (wash) blelbach at cct dot lsu.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54354
Bug #: 54354
Summary: TODO extended iomanip manipulators std::get_time and
std::put_time (C++11, section 27.7.5)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54342
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2012-08-23 04:04:36
UTC ---
I don't think AVX supports true 256-bit integer. On the other hand, I was
also puzzled by compute_record_mode, which excludes UNION_TYPE and
QUAL_UNION_TYPE. Will
69 matches
Mail list logo
