http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54551
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 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)
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:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54553
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54553
--- Comment #2 from Evgeny stelek at gmail dot com 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=54554
Bug #: 54554
Summary: Undetected use of uninitialized variable
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
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=54550
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54553
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
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 rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54554
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54389
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54225
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 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=gccview=revrev=191213
Log:
2012-09-12 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53306
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 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=gccview=revrev=191213
Log:
2012-09-12 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54554
--- Comment #2 from Dimitris Papavasiliou dpapavas at gmail dot com
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
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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54556
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54389
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54553
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 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=gccview=revrev=191215
Log:
2012-09-12 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54553
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54553
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54553
--- Comment #7 from Evgeny Televitckiy stelek at gmail dot com 2012-09-12
10:37:33 UTC ---
Thanks.
Nice work guys!
-languages=c,c++,fortran
--disable-multilib --disable-bootstrap --enable-lto -disable-libitm
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120912 (experimental) [trunk revision 191215] (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54556
--- Comment #1 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54225
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 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=gccview=revrev=191216
Log:
2012-09-12 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53306
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 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=gccview=revrev=191216
Log:
2012-09-12 Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54231
--- Comment #14 from Thiago Macieira thiago at kde dot org 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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54493
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54493
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-12
14:37:51 UTC ---
Something like
Index: gcc/predict.c
===
--- gcc/predict.c (revision 191222)
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54489
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 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=gccview=revrev=191225
Log:
2012-09-12 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54489
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
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=54558
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52890
David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54497
David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54528
--- Comment #3 from Mark Kettenis kettenis at gnu dot org 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=54312
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 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=gccview=revrev=191228
Log:
PR lto/54312
*
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=54423
--- Comment #1 from Nenad Vukicevic nenad at intrepid dot com 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=54445
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 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=gccview=revrev=191230
Log:
Allow negative offset
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54445
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54445
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
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=52173
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-12
19:52:55 UTC ---
I'll take a look.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52173
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-12
19:52:55 UTC ---
I'll take a look.
--- Comment #7 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-12
19:53:30 UTC ---
I'll take a look.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54556
--- Comment #2 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
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=54556
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 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.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54556
--- Comment #4 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
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.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28896
--- Comment #27 from Larry Baker baker at usgs dot gov 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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54556
--- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
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=54556
--- Comment #6 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
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
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:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54557
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53833
--- Comment #2 from Larry Baker baker at usgs dot gov 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
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54398
--- Comment #8 from Carrot carrot at google dot com 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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54556
--- Comment #7 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
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'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54556
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 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:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54561
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54556
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48636
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 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=gccview=revrev=191232
Log:
PR fortran/48636
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54208
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 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=gccview=revrev=191233
Log:
fortran/
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54208
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54556
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44194
--- Comment #43 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52890
--- Comment #10 from Pat Haugen pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org 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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44194
--- Comment #44 from Chip Salzenberg chip at pobox dot com 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
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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44194
--- Comment #45 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54528
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 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
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=54562
--- Comment #1 from Zoltan Glozik zoltan at epochcapital dot com.au
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=54559
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
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=gccview=revrev=191238
Log:
This fixes PR gcov-profile/54487
73 matches
Mail list logo
