http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-03
09:07:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
1) I agree for push rbx seves reg. But sub rsp,8 is completely trash,
because stack frame do not used at all, not for save
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56180
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-03
09:22:05 UTC ---
When you were calling ungetc with uninitialized char, that is invoking
undefined behavior, anything can happen at that point.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56188
Bug #: 56188
Summary: [4.8 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-pta-10.c
scan-ipa-dump pta ESCAPED = { (ESCAPED )?(NONLOCAL
)?}
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56188
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org 2013-02-03 11:52:12
UTC ---
Created attachment 29341
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29341
ipa-pta-10.c.053i.pta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56189
Bug #: 56189
Summary: Infinite recursion with noexcept when instantiating
function template
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #11 from Alexander Kobets akobets at mail dot ru 2013-02-03
12:39:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
You're wrong. That is to maintain the ABI, which for x86_64 says that the
stack is 16-byte aligned. Consider e.g. the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-03
13:07:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
(In reply to comment #10)
You're wrong. That is to maintain the ABI, which for x86_64 says that the
stack is 16-byte
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50627
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-03
13:15:24 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Feb 3 13:15:18 2013
New Revision: 195695
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195695
Log:
2013-02-03
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56054
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-03
13:15:24 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Feb 3 13:15:18 2013
New Revision: 195695
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195695
Log:
2013-02-03
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50627
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #13 from Alexander Kobets akobets at mail dot ru 2013-02-03
13:48:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
That is completely irrelevant. The noreturn function is usually defined in
some other CU, so you don't know what compiler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56190
Bug #: 56190
Summary: GCC fails deducing a void(*)(int, float, double) to
a void(*)(T..., float, double) with T={int}
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56191
Bug #: 56191
Summary: Destructor affects noexcept detection
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-03
14:57:19 UTC ---
Not fake, but the default and smallest value, i.e. for x86_64 ABI we don't
allow lowering the value to smaller than ABI required alignments. Only for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55617
--- Comment #47 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2013-02-03
15:16:50 UTC ---
posted proposed patch and regression testresults at...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg00055.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56192
Bug #: 56192
Summary: global operator new() vs member operator new()
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56185
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Starke daniel.f.starke at freenet dot de
2013-02-03 16:24:56 UTC ---
This issue does not appear with isl backend as in the configuration below.
However, I still need ppl to build gcc.
Using built-in specs.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56193
Bug #: 56193
Summary: ios_base should replace operator void* with explicit
operator bool in C++11 onwards.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56194
Bug #: 56194
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/init/const9.C -std=c++98
scan-assembler-not rodata
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: antoine.balest...@gmail.com
Using GCC 4.8.0 as of 20130203 :
$ xgcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/home/merkil/gcc/dist
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56196
Bug #: 56196
Summary: Assertion failure on aspect clause
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56193
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56191
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56193
--- Comment #1 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net 2013-02-03
17:40:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 29343
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29343
Patch including testcase.
Here is a small patch. I'm not ure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56195
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56191
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-03
21:05:17 UTC ---
N.B. you don't need to CC yourself on bugs, the reporter always gets sent
changes to the bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #15 from Alexander Kobets akobets at mail dot ru 2013-02-03
21:56:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
Not fake, but the default and smallest value, i.e. for x86_64 ABI we don't
allow lowering the value to smaller than ABI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56197
Bug #: 56197
Summary: [SH] Use calculated jump address instead of using a
jump table
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56165
--- Comment #16 from Alexander Kobets akobets at mail dot ru 2013-02-03
22:02:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
But no error is printed when I use -mpreferred-stack-boundary=4 on 64-bit CPU.
Only when defined 0, then printed:
error:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52480
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-03 22:29:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
As of rev 195493 the test case for this PR is failing again.
In fact, now it doesn't work for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55269
peter at colberg dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55108
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2013-02-03
23:24:37 UTC ---
On armv5tel-linux-gnueabi this bug is reproducible with gcc-4.6 but not with
gcc-4.7 or 4.8.
The wrong-code was made latent for 4.7.0 by r179556 aka
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55108
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53352
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acn1 at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51483
cynt6007 at vandals dot uidaho.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cynt6007 at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz 2013-02-04 00:16:44
UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54932
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2013-02-01 13:59:11 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56148
Sérgio Basto sergio at serjux dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sergio at serjux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56148
--- Comment #2 from Sérgio Basto sergio at serjux dot com 2013-02-04 03:12:35
UTC ---
Hi again,
this is not a duplicated bug of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55512 ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56148
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-04
07:02:05 UTC ---
Of course not, the other PR was an ICE (and got fixed already months ago), this
one is rejection of (questionable) code, the compiler doesn't crash on it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51483
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-04
07:15:31 UTC ---
Can't build Ada/gnat-4.7 on Ubuntu 12.10 because of SPARK issue, although
there
are long and complicated directions for how to build
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56191
Antony Polukhin antoshkka at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5142
Antony Polukhin antoshkka at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56191
--- Comment #4 from Antony Polukhin antoshkka at gmail dot com 2013-02-04
07:28:04 UTC ---
Oh, thanks for clarification!
Initially I was confused by the fact that std::is_nothrow_constructible checks
for destructor, but I thought that it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56191
--- Comment #5 from Antony Polukhin antoshkka at gmail dot com 2013-02-04
07:29:16 UTC ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 51452 ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
--- Comment #16 from Antony Polukhin antoshkka at gmail dot com 2013-02-04
07:29:16 UTC ---
*** Bug 56191 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56178
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56198
Bug #: 56198
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Go profiledbootstrap error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56198
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
48 matches
Mail list logo
