http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57017
Alan Aversa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aaversa at optics dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57017
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-24
06:15:46 UTC ---
Can't reproduce, perhaps misconfigured compiler?
HAVE_AS_IX86_REP_LOCK_PREFIX test in particular. You haven't said what target
it is and how you've configured the compiler...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57017
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-slackware-linux
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57017
--- Comment #4 from Alan Aversa 2013-04-24
05:58:29 UTC ---
Created attachment 29925
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29925
the REAL preprocessed source file
sorry, I uploaded the wrong file; this is the preprocessed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57052
Bug #: 57052
Summary: missed optimization with rotate and mask
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56915
--- Comment #4 from Shixiong 2013-04-23
23:09:58 UTC ---
Please see the attached Patch for this ICE.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56915
--- Comment #3 from Shixiong 2013-04-23
23:09:17 UTC ---
Created attachment 29924
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29924
Patch for PR56915
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57003
--- Comment #12 from Kirill Smirnov
2013-04-23 22:01:18 UTC ---
I' sorry, forgot to mention compiler flags: -O2 -g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56196
--- Comment #1 from simon at pushface dot org 2013-04-23 21:57:57 UTC ---
The bug appears to be fixed in the released GCC 4.8.0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57016
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Targe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57003
--- Comment #11 from Kirill Smirnov
2013-04-23 21:33:10 UTC ---
I'm sorry I cannot reproduce invalid behaviour within a refined test case.
Instead I can provide commented asm dump from wine.
This block of code works: the returned value
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56605
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57016
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57034
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-23
17:42:25 UTC ---
GCC bugzilla is a bug reporting mechanism, not a C++ discussion forum, so
better follow-up elsewhere. That said, yes, if qFuture isn't negative and is
smaller than INT_MAX conv
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57044
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Known to work
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57034
--- Comment #6 from Christopher Hite
2013-04-23 17:26:26 UTC ---
Good, I was a big worried I couldn't convert ints to floats unless the int was
safely mappable. It rounds which is what I'd expect.
I now think z5 is safe, since int32_t(f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57044
--- Comment #7 from Piergiorgio Beruto 2013-04-23
17:08:17 UTC ---
Sorry for posting an archive, but the size of the .ii file was too big for
being submitted to bugzilla.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57044
--- Comment #6 from Piergiorgio Beruto 2013-04-23
17:06:46 UTC ---
Ok, my fault for missing the instructions.
However, I hope to have included everything you need now.
SYSTEM:
Linux sabayon 3.5.0-sabayon #1 SMP Tue Sep 11 08:32:37 UTC 2012 i686
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57044
--- Comment #5 from Piergiorgio Beruto 2013-04-23
17:04:01 UTC ---
Created attachment 29923
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29923
preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57051
Bug #: 57051
Summary: Optimization regression in 4.8.0 from 4.7.2
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56739
--- Comment #1 from Anton Shterenlikht 2013-04-23
16:11:33 UTC ---
building gcc-4.9-20130414 gives different error:
libtool: compile: /usr/ports/lang/gcc49/work/build/./gcc/xgcc
-B/usr/ports/lang/gcc49/work/build/./gcc/
-B/usr/local/ia
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57003
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-23
16:00:52 UTC ---
But __builtin_memcpy isn't necessarily the inline memcpy code, it can very well
be a library call too.
Anyway, this bugreport doesn't have a preprocessed source attached to it,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57003
--- Comment #9 from Kirill Smirnov
2013-04-23 15:56:59 UTC ---
>... whatever memcpy implementation you are calling and see whether it
>correctly returns the first argument it has been passed to it in all cases.
Fails (gcc version of me
isable-lto --disable-plugin --disable-tls --enable-checking=yes
--disable-libssp --disable-libgomp --disable-libmudflap --with-cpu=cortex-a15
--with-fpu=neon-vfpv4 --with-float=softfp
Thread model: single
gcc version 4.9.0 20130423 (experimental) (GCC)
Thanks,
Greta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57049
--- Comment #1 from Tudor Bosman 2013-04-23 15:54:18 UTC
---
Actually, I'll take this back. I don't believe this is a bug.
17.6.4.9 constraints arguments passed to STL functions. So if there is a
library function that takes a rvalue ar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57049
Bug #: 57049
Summary: std::swap does self move assignment, which is illegal
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57046
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57047
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Targe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57036
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56909
--- Comment #18 from Arthur Zhang 2013-04-23
14:31:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> What is the driving factor that is causing you to want to make the gcc build
> so
> complicated?
I am building release packages for MinGW proje
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55308
--- Comment #11 from Anton Shterenlikht 2013-04-23
14:20:11 UTC ---
The same error on the same sparc64/FreeBSD -current system
building 4.9:
gmake[5]: Leaving directory
`/usr/ports/lang/gcc49/work/build/sparc64-portbld-freebsd10.0/libgo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57047
--- Comment #9 from Matt Clarkson 2013-04-23
14:17:10 UTC ---
This is a problem with both 4.7.2 and 4.8.0. Checked on
http://coliru.stacked-crooked.com/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57047
--- Comment #8 from Matt Clarkson 2013-04-23
14:07:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 29921
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29921
A very short reproducible test case (85 loc)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57047
--- Comment #7 from Matt Clarkson 2013-04-23
13:53:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 29920
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29920
A simplified reproducible test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57047
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-04-23
13:47:52 UTC ---
We have lots of ICEs, they can't all block a release :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57047
--- Comment #5 from Matt Clarkson 2013-04-23
13:42:50 UTC ---
Jonathan, apologies for putting it under libstdc++ and also for putting it as a
blocker. I didn't do that because I thought it was blocking my work but more
because I thought a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57047
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-04-23
13:26:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The error happens on line 15 of task.cpp, so you could at least remove
> everything after that, and anything else not necessary to reproduce the
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57047
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57047
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56909
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57048
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Targ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57048
Bug #: 57048
Summary: [4.9 Regression] Handling of C_PTR and C_FUNPTR leads
to reject valid
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57047
--- Comment #1 from Matt Clarkson 2013-04-23
12:53:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 29919
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29919
The preprocessed output before the ICE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57047
Bug #: 57047
Summary: [C++11] stl_pair.h:137:64: internal compiler error:
Segmentation fault in constexpr constructor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57046
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-23
12:26:35 UTC ---
We have after the get_value call:
(insn 73 30 32 6 (set (reg:SI 76 [ D.1441 ])
(reg:SI 0 ax)) pr57046.c:42 85 {*movsi_internal}
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:SI 0 ax)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57046
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57046
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Status|UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57034
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-23
11:59:35 UTC ---
Guess you should read something about floating point.
0x7fff of course can't be represented exactly in IEEE 754 single precision
format, so when you convert 2147483647 to fl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57036
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener 2013-04-23
11:56:47 UTC ---
One idea was to mark calls with whether they may induce abnormal control flow
and when inlining, do not make abnormal edges off any calls in the function.
We still have to copy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57034
--- Comment #4 from Christopher Hite
2013-04-23 11:35:25 UTC ---
64-bit.
Thanks for pointing out I was converting to float and back. Both of the
following work:
int32_t z3=(qFuture >= double(MAX) ? MAX : double(qFuture) ); //works
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57036
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener 2013-04-23
11:32:08 UTC ---
Either don't inline into functions receiving non-local gotos or remove
the ECF_LEAF handling from the call-may-do-longjmp predicate.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57046
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson 2013-04-23
11:31:06 UTC ---
Created attachment 29918
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29918
Single-file test case.
I can reproduce the wrong-code on x86_64-linux with gcc 4.9-2013
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57036
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57045
--- Comment #2 from Uros Bizjak 2013-04-23 11:20:09
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Reported on the ml as well, caused by extra abnormal edges into getcontext.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg01186.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57043
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57036
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener 2013-04-23
11:06:50 UTC ---
Reduced testcase:
extern void g (void);
extern __inline __attribute__ ((__always_inline__,__leaf__))
f ()
{
g ();
}
struct __jmp_buf_tag *b;
int jpgDecode_convert (un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57044
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-04-23
10:54:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Ok sorry I'm new to GCC bugzilla, If you need real code I'll provide it.
That's why you should read http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs
It explains what we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57044
--- Comment #3 from Piergiorgio Beruto 2013-04-23
10:48:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Please read http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs
>
> Is this really what you're compiling?
> "nemaspace" and "..." should not be there and uint32_t is not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57046
Bug #: 57046
Summary: wrong code generated by gcc 4.8.0 on i686
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57044
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57044
--- Comment #1 from Piergiorgio Beruto 2013-04-23
10:36:46 UTC ---
Work Around is the following (add an intermediate const variable):
template
inline explicit myclass(T_ *s)
{
const uint32_t sz = mylib::someclass::some_const;
ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57036
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57045
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57045
Bug #: 57045
Summary: Build failure in libgo/runtime/proc.c: error:
‘({anonymous})’ may be used uninitialized in this
function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57044
Bug #: 57044
Summary: The following code won't compile with -std=c++0x
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57043
Bug #: 57043
Summary: converting overloaded complex function pow in C++11 is
ambiguous
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57042
Bug #: 57042
Summary: ICE/Segfault with -fdump-parse-tree
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57041
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek 2013-04-23
10:06:37 UTC ---
lookup_field_1 instead of IDENTIFIER_NODE gets the error_mark_node, and the
following assert chokes on it:
gcc_assert (identifier_p (name));
It seems that if we just return
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56988
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.3
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57003
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57003
Kirill Smirnov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kirill.k.smirnov at math
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57041
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57041
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57041
Bug #: 57041
Summary: ICE in lookup_field_1, at cp/search.c:376 (with
dot-prefixed structure initialisation)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57026
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56895
André Wöbbeking changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #17 from André Wöbb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57040
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55445
--- Comment #5 from Kai Tietz 2013-04-23 07:25:49
UTC ---
*** Bug 57040 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
78 matches
Mail list logo
