http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54546
--- Comment #1 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-13 06:40:54 UTC ---
shrink-wrapping exposes a few problems related to partitioning.
1) Tries to duplicate a Basic block that has only one predecessor coming from a
different partition. Since th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54557
vincenzo Innocente changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54487
--- Comment #28 from tejohnson at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-13 04:59:18 UTC ---
Author: tejohnson
Date: Thu Sep 13 04:59:14 2012
New Revision: 191238
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191238
Log:
This fixes PR gcov-profile/54487
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54559
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54562
--- Comment #1 from Zoltan Glozik
2012-09-13 02:24:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 28183
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28183
suggested patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54562
Bug #: 54562
Summary: mutex and condition variable timers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54528
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin 2012-09-13
00:44:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Created attachment 28177 [details]
> Patch that "fixes" the problem
Works for me. I believe the problem is the overflow detection
in the new code.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44194
--- Comment #45 from Eric Botcazou 2012-09-12
23:59:03 UTC ---
> Note that the x86 target has been changed in svn to use TImode for 128-bit
> structures, and structures bigger than 128 bits may not be passed in
> registers,
> so triggering this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54561
--- Comment #2 from eggert at gnu dot org 2012-09-12 23:39:16 UTC ---
> GCC ... warns if it is alive across on either branch on setjmp.
OK, thanks, that's the bug then. GCC should warn only about the
longjmp branch, not about the non-lonjmp branc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44194
--- Comment #44 from Chip Salzenberg 2012-09-12
23:21:21 UTC ---
Note that the x86 target has been changed in svn to use TImode for 128-bit
structures, and structures bigger than 128 bits may not be passed in registers,
so triggering this bug may
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52890
--- Comment #10 from Pat Haugen 2012-09-12
23:04:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 28181
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28181
Reduced testcase
Martin,
Have you done any more digging on this? I just discovered that cpu2006
benc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44194
--- Comment #43 from Eric Botcazou 2012-09-12
22:30:41 UTC ---
> Is bug #28831 a dup of this?
Not exactly, PR middle-end/28831 is a generic problem while this one is
specific to architectures that can return structures in registers.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54556
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54208
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54208
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin 2012-09-12
21:54:57 UTC ---
Author: mikael
Date: Wed Sep 12 21:54:50 2012
New Revision: 191233
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191233
Log:
fortran/
PR fortran/54208
* simplify.c (sim
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48636
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka 2012-09-12
21:51:21 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Sep 12 21:51:14 2012
New Revision: 191232
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191232
Log:
PR fortran/48636
* gcc.dg/ipa/inlinehint-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54556
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2012-09-12
21:11:54 UTC ---
Untested patch.
The first and second part allows VALUE for implicit_pure (in line with F2008
for PURE).
The third part is the crucial change: If there is a pointer, assume that the
p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54561
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-09-12
21:02:37 UTC ---
Both info_ptr and fp are alive across the setjmp. GCC does not do fancy
detection of alive on one of branches of the result of setjmp. It just warns
if it is alive across on either b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54556
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2012-09-12
21:00:32 UTC ---
Test case: Compile in two files with -O0/-O1/-O2/ give the expected i == 5 but
using -O3 hoists the "i = s(x)" out of the loop and thus gives i == 1.
Question: Why is IMPLICIT_PURE se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54556
--- Comment #7 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-09-12 20:58:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> So I guess rn32 is incorrectly marked as pure.
which indeed is also visible in the .mod file:
'rn32' 'parallel_rng_types' '' 1 ((PROCEDURE UNKNOWN-INT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54398
--- Comment #8 from Carrot 2012-09-12 20:57:33 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #7)
>
> This rings a bell.
>
> Maybe the patch mentioned below needs backporting given Carrot is
> reporting this against the 4.6 branch. What's not clear if this is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53833
--- Comment #2 from Larry Baker 2012-09-12 20:55:00 UTC
---
Same bug occurs fo GCC 4.8. Here's the patch I used to build a GCC 4.8
cross-compiler:
--- gcc-4.8-20120909/libgcc/config.host
+++ gcc-4.8-20120909-patched/libgcc/config.host
@@ -704,3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54557
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler
2012-09-12 20:54:26 UTC ---
The compiler behaviour looks correct to me. The difference of the lambda
expressions in bar and foo3 compared to the other two is that these are
capture-free lambdas and thus have a c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54561
Bug #: 54561
Summary: incorrect setjmp -Wclobber diagnostics
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54556
--- Comment #6 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-09-12 20:50:40 UTC ---
The testcase illustrates the issue, compiling as
gfortran -c -O1 test.f90 -fdump-tree-optimized
shows that rn32 is only called once from rn53, whereas the proper number would
be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54556
--- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-09-12 20:46:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 28179
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28179
testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28896
--- Comment #27 from Larry Baker 2012-09-12 20:42:22
UTC ---
Created attachment 28178
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28178
Patch for trunk version 2012-09-09 of libgcc/config.host
To fix the same bug reported for GCC 4.7 at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54556
--- Comment #4 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-09-12 20:26:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > some progress.. the object file that leads to wrong results is
> > parallel_rng_types.o. I'll see if I can get some further
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54556
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2012-09-12
20:22:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> some progress.. the object file that leads to wrong results is
> parallel_rng_types.o. I'll see if I can get some further insight.
It seems that - for some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54556
--- Comment #2 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-09-12 20:11:24 UTC ---
some progress.. the object file that leads to wrong results is
parallel_rng_types.o. I'll see if I can get some further insight.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52173
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-09-12
19:52:55 UTC ---
I'll take a look.
--- Comment #7 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-09-12
19:53:30 UTC ---
I'll take a look.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52173
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-09-12
19:52:55 UTC ---
I'll take a look.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54560
Bug #: 54560
Summary: g++ with --sysroot and -save-temps don't play nicely
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54445
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54445
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54445
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-12
18:09:08 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Sep 12 18:08:59 2012
New Revision: 191230
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191230
Log:
Allow negative offset for UNSPEC_DTPOFF/UNSP
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54423
--- Comment #1 from Nenad Vukicevic 2012-09-12
17:27:24 UTC ---
Has there been any attempt to confirm/resolve this bug? As it stands I am not
able to build gcc on the latest Mountain Lion OS.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54559
Bug #: 54559
Summary: [4.7 Regression], ICE in gimplify_expr, at
gimplify.c:7592
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54312
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka 2012-09-12
16:26:31 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Sep 12 16:26:19 2012
New Revision: 191228
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191228
Log:
PR lto/54312
* lto.c (uniquify_nodes): Rem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54528
--- Comment #3 from Mark Kettenis 2012-09-12 15:48:34
UTC ---
Created attachment 28177
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28177
Patch that "fixes" the problem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54497
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52890
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54558
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54558
Bug #: 54558
Summary: get wrong answer in {static int a; a = 4; a += (a++);}
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54489
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54489
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-12
14:46:35 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 12 14:46:22 2012
New Revision: 191225
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191225
Log:
2012-09-12 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54493
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-12
14:37:51 UTC ---
Something like
Index: gcc/predict.c
===
--- gcc/predict.c (revision 191222)
+++ gcc/predict.c (working c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54493
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54231
--- Comment #14 from Thiago Macieira 2012-09-12
13:02:23 UTC ---
>From GCC's own manual:
(Node "Function attributes"):
On the 386/x86_64 and PowerPC backends, the inliner will not
inline a function that has different target options th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53306
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus 2012-09-12
12:15:54 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Sep 12 12:15:44 2012
New Revision: 191216
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191216
Log:
2012-09-12 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/54
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54225
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2012-09-12
12:15:52 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Sep 12 12:15:44 2012
New Revision: 191216
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191216
Log:
2012-09-12 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/54
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54556
--- Comment #1 from Joost VandeVondele
2012-09-12 11:41:12 UTC ---
the two revisions lead to a lot of changes, all these files differ in their
disassembled form:
1admm_methods.o Files f1 and f2 differ
2atom_fit.o Files f1 and f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54557
Bug #: 54557
Summary: [c++ lambda] error in assigning lambda expr though
"operator?:" while catching
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54553
--- Comment #7 from Evgeny Televitckiy 2012-09-12
10:37:33 UTC ---
Thanks.
Nice work guys!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54553
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54553
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54553
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-12
10:33:53 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Sep 12 10:33:47 2012
New Revision: 191215
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191215
Log:
2012-09-12 Richard Guenther
PR middle-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54389
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2012-09-12
10:29:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Ian Harvey remarks there that Fortran 2008 removed a restriction regarding
> PURE.
Dick Hendrickson asked at j3's mailing list (on 2012-09-05) whether that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54556
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54556
Bug #: 54556
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Marking implicitly pure variables as
DECL_PURE_P leads to wrong code
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54554
--- Comment #2 from Dimitris Papavasiliou
2012-09-12 10:19:20 UTC ---
Specifying -O does indeed produce a warning if i is not assigned a constant
value (for instance i = rand(); ). Omitting -O and specifying
-Wmaybe-uninitialized does not produc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53306
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus 2012-09-12
10:05:28 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Sep 12 10:05:19 2012
New Revision: 191213
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191213
Log:
2012-09-12 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/54
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54225
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2012-09-12
10:05:28 UTC ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Sep 12 10:05:19 2012
New Revision: 191213
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191213
Log:
2012-09-12 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/54
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54389
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54554
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54553
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
move.l -4(%fp),%d2
unlk %fp
jra bar
.size f, .-f
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 4.8.0 20120912 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
This transformation was introduced in r68532 (gcc 3.4).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54553
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54550
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54387
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54554
Bug #: 54554
Summary: Undetected use of uninitialized variable
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54553
--- Comment #2 from Evgeny 2012-09-12 08:22:14 UTC ---
Well, maybe it's time to test it. :-)
(In reply to comment #1)
> This attribute is not very well tested
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54553
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54553
Bug #: 54553
Summary: atribute optimize on function affects optimization for
other functions
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54551
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-09-12
07:38:39 UTC ---
Inefficient way to handle at least the single setter case would be at the start
of the bb with non-empty debug uses bitmap (i.e. what is about to be reset)
walk the immediate dominator
76 matches
Mail list logo
