http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #5 from Adi adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-03 06:21:08 UTC
---
Please tell me if you received my email. I got some delivery failures because
of attachments.
- Forwarded Message -
From: adivilce...@yahoo.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #6 from Adi adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-03 06:24:03 UTC
---
This is the 5thmail I am sending(I got 4 delivery errors because of MIME
attachments).
After more investigation I saw that I managed to get the constructors
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55175
--- Comment #6 from Ralf Corsepius corsepiu at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-03
06:25:33 UTC ---
I can confirm i386-rtems4.11-gcc now builds.
@Uros: I am inclined to believe this patch probably should be backported to
4.7.x.
At least, RTEMS
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55187
Bug #: 55187
Summary: [4.8 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/autopar/pr49960.c
scan-tree-dump-times parloops SUCCESS: may be
parallelized 0
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55188
Bug #: 55188
Summary: [4.8 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr19105.c
scan-tree-dump-times reassoc1 Optimizing range tests
v_[0-9]*.D. -.2, 2. and -.3, 4.[\n\r]* into 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55189
Bug #: 55189
Summary: g++ compiler does not report missing return on
function with return type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55189
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-03 10:40:22
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
Compiled with MinGW port of g++, compiles without errors or warnings:
It does warn if you ask it to: -Wall
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55183
--- Comment #5 from Stephen steveire at gmail dot com 2012-11-03 10:48:02 UTC
---
Thanks for the information. The issue is indeed about use of reinterpret_cast
in a constexpr method.
The consensus, according to bug 55039, is that this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55189
--- Comment #2 from meanone meanarbez at gmail dot com 2012-11-03 11:11:15
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
(In reply to comment #0)
Compiled with MinGW port of g++, compiles without errors or warnings:
It does warn if you ask it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #57 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-03
12:01:05 UTC ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sat Nov 3 12:01:01 2012
New Revision: 193119
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193119
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55190
Bug #: 55190
Summary: [SH] ivopts causes loop setup bloat
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55162
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-03 12:19:28
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I've created a new PR 55190 for this.
Priority: P3
Component: translation
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: antoine.balest...@gmail.com
Hello !
The following testcase makes GCC 4.8.0 as of 20121103 ICE at -O2 and higher.
$ cat antic.c
int a, b;
void f(void)
{
b = a || b;
for(a = 0; a 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55189
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-03 13:48:46
UTC ---
The New York area has experienced a major natural disaster. I am located near
NYC. GCC support is provided by volunteers. Repeatedly resending your
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53708
--- Comment #15 from Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-03
14:02:20 UTC ---
Author: bergner
Date: Sat Nov 3 14:02:13 2012
New Revision: 193121
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193121
Log:
Backport
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53708
Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55187
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|m68k-*-*|
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
--- Comment #33 from François Dumont fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-03
15:28:30 UTC ---
I fear that this performance issue is a normal drawback of the major
enhancement for PR 41975. Before this evolution the hashtable data model was
like a
, the compiler generates assembly
language that cannot be assembled by the binutils cvs head or 2.22
xgcc (GCC) 4.8.0 20121103 (experimental) [trunk revision 193124]
Attached are the preprocessed C code and generated assembly.
This is sufficient to trip the issue:
/home/joel/v850/tools/b
--target=x86_64-linux-gnu --with-isl=/usr/local --with-cloog=/usr/local
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20121103 (experimental) (GCC)
I compile the attached test case with command line:
$ g++-4.8 -g -Og testcase2.i -c
which leads to the ICE below. The error only appears with both -Og and -g
) 4.8.0 20121103 (experimental) [trunk revision 193124]
This is enough to trip the bug:
/home/joel/v850/tools/b-gcc-svn/./gcc/xgcc
-B/home/joel/v850/tools/b-gcc-svn/./gcc/ -c -O2 -g h8300_bug.c
Dropping the -g is sufficient to let it compile.
Test case is very basic:
int main(int argc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55187
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2012-11-03 16:44:14 UTC
---
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org 2012-11-03
15:23:25 UTC ---
Also fails on powerpc, likely universal.
Yes, it fails for me too,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55191
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55193
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55195
Bug #: 55195
Summary: [4.8 Regression] shorten_branches generates incorrect
forward branch distances
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55194
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-03 17:07:01
UTC ---
Sorry... bad cut and paste. The assembly is OK. The cross compiler generates an
ICE.
at gcc dot gnu.org
Version|unknown |4.8.0
--- Comment #2 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-03 17:08:34
UTC ---
Still broken
xgcc (GCC) 4.8.0 20121103 (experimental) [trunk revision 193124]
Any chance I can get some advice on how to fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50928
--- Comment #2 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-03 17:22:30
UTC ---
xgcc (GCC) 4.8.0 20121103 (experimental) [trunk revision 193124]
Now fails just building libgcc with what appears to be the same error.
Short command
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50928
--- Comment #3 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-03 17:23:38
UTC ---
Created attachment 28604
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28604
libgcc preprocessed file which trips bug
Description on how to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54524
--- Comment #9 from Jan Smets jan.sm...@alcatel-lucent.com 2012-11-03
18:25:32 UTC ---
Verified. Thanks Andrew.
(Should I mark it as Resolved?)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55188
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|m68k-*-*|
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
--- Comment #8 from Adi adivilceanu at yahoo dot com 2012-11-03 19:14:41 UTC
---
Thank you for your response. (Sorry for the repeated emails. I did it because I
got delivery failures on the first 4 mails.)
So just to be 100% sure on this: If I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55196
Bug #: 55196
Summary: GCC 4.8 build error : link error on OS X 10.6
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55195
--- Comment #1 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-03 20:45:10 UTC ---
Could you attach preprocessed source and the exact options passsed to cc1
(from -v --save-temos compilation) so that I can look at this in a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54255
--- Comment #4 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-03
21:39:10 UTC ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Nov 3 21:39:06 2012
New Revision: 193127
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193127
Log:
Add
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54791
David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55197
Bug #: 55197
Summary: Use statement for omp_lib causes ICE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55197
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04 01:55:21
UTC ---
Still happening but on a different file. Preprocessed source attached.
xgcc (GCC) 4.8.0 20121103 (experimental) [trunk revision 193124]
Short command to go with preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54490
--- Comment #5 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04 01:56:28
UTC ---
Created attachment 28605
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28605
Preprocessed test case - from newlib
,c++,objc,java,ada,obj-c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20121103 (experimental) [trunk revision 193124] (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54838
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55199
Bug #: 55199
Summary: Equivalenced variable has wrong type when used with
generic member function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55198
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libquadmath
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55195
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-11-04 02:52:31 UTC ---
On 3-Nov-12, at 4:45 PM, amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55195
--- Comment #1 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55192
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-04 03:55:28
UTC ---
Output of git bisect
[joel@baltimore gcc]$ git bisect good
Bisecting: 3 revisions left to test after this (roughly 2 steps)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54747
Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joel at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54075
James Y Knight foom at fuhm dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||foom at fuhm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55200
Bug #: 55200
Summary: RubyLang complex.c Internal compiler error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55200
--- Comment #1 from Chris Lundquist clundquist at bluebox dot net 2012-11-04
05:00:51 UTC ---
Please let me know what further information I can provide. Unfortunately I was
unable to make a simple test case. I can't figure out why it is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55200
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55200
--- Comment #3 from Chris Lundquist clundquist at bluebox dot net 2012-11-04
05:30:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 28607
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28607
Rubylang complex.i under GCC 4.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55200
--- Comment #4 from Chris Lundquist clundquist at bluebox dot net 2012-11-04
05:32:44 UTC ---
Updated.
For quick reference, the line described in context can be found here.
https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/v1_9_3_286/complex.c#L1988
54 matches
Mail list logo
