http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58007
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=51244
--- Comment #63 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30566
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30566action=edit
Reduced test
(In reply to Laurent Aflonsi from comment #58)
Created attachment 30524
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52844
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: antoine.balestrat at gmail dot com
Hello !
With GCC 4.9.0 as of 20130728 :
$ cat max.c
int a, b, c, d, e;
void f(void)
{
if(c)
goto lbl;
for(; 0; c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58007
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30567
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30567action=edit
Reduced test case
Reduced test case, which fails at least on my 86-64-gnu-linux system
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58007
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58009
Bug ID: 58009
Summary: Elements with same value in vector subscript in
variable definition context
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: antoine.balestrat at gmail dot com
Hello !
Using GCC 4.9.0 as of 20130728 :
$ cat vect.c
short a, b, c, d;
void f(void)
{
short e;
for(; e; e++)
for(; b; b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58009
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58009
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: antoine.balestrat at gmail dot com
Using GCC 4.9.0 as of 20130728 :
$ cat seg.c
int a, b;
void f(unsigned p)
{
unsigned *pp = p;
if(!a)
p = 0;
for(b = 0; b 1; b++)
if(3 * p + 5 * *pp)
a = 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58009
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I also want to catch
a([i,j,i]) = ...
for which I cannot think of an algorithm which is O(n),
so I guess it will have to be O(n**2).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58009
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=58006
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
extern C float sqrtf (float);
extern int a;
extern int b;
struct Vector {
float i;
float j;
float Magnitude() const {
return sqrtf( i*i+j*j );
}
};
void f(){
int i = a;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #64 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Laurent Aflonsi from comment #61)
The movt(L2) and the tst(L3) are both removed, and that's coherent for that
run path, because it is preceded by the tst r2,r2.
But
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58009
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57435
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55789
--- Comment #15 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org ---
No, it does not work on 4.7.
I am inclined to say that it should be a WONTFIX.
Cheers
Paul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57435
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: burnus
Date: Sun Jul 28 14:13:17 2013
New Revision: 201293
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=201293root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-07-28 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57435
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31016
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58012
Bug ID: 58012
Summary: Gcc bootstrap failed with cloog-isl: undefined
reference to std::istream::ignore(long)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57992
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Draft patch:
* Handles POINTER (- temporary), POINTER, CONTIGUOUS (- no temporary) and
ALLOCATABLE (-no temporary)
TODO
* Nonpointers, nonallocatables (like f3) are *not* handled
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57994
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
On Sat, 27 Jul 2013, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Yeah, any of those. I was inspired by glibc, which has for instance:
double
__fdim (double x,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58007
--- Comment #3 from shapero at uw dot edu ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #2)
Created attachment 30567 [details]
Reduced test case
Reduced test case, which fails at least on my 86-64-gnu-linux system with a
recent GCC 4.9.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58013
Bug ID: 58013
Summary: main() not generated in assembler output
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58003
--- Comment #3 from Chris Gilbreth cngilbreth at gmail dot com ---
Thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58006
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Thanks Marc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58014
Bug ID: 58014
Summary: vshuf-v2si.C fails at -O3 on hppa64
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58015
Bug ID: 58015
Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/round_4.f90: Unsatisfied symbol
nextafterl
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57994
--- Comment #12 from Vincent Lefèvre vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #9)
I believe there are far fewer special cases (and thus
risks) with MPFR, but that would indeed require a suitable testsuite for all
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58016
Bug ID: 58016
Summary: stdatomic.h missing in 4.8.1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58017
Bug ID: 58017
Summary: [SH] Use shift and test for unsigned compare
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58016
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56791
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56668
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56307
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55625
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55626
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9702
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm*-* |arm*-* sh*-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58016
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
I don't know whether Andrew intends stdatomic.h to go in GCC or glibc, but
in any case I consider this a duplicate of bug 53769, which in turn I
don't really
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58011
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52280
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58016
--- Comment #2 from Jeff Hammond jeff.science at gmail dot com ---
If GCC doesn't support C11, it should not claim to support C11 via
__STDC_VERSION__. The C11 standard definition isn't a recommendation from
which implementers can pick and choose
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58009
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
4.9.0 20130728 (experimental) [trunk revision 201291] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -O2 -c small.c
$ gcc-4.8 -O3 -c small.c
$ gcc-trunk -O3 -c small.c
small.c: In function ‘foo’:
small.c:9:6: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
void foo ()
^
0x7d4c4f crash_signal
../../gcc-trunk/gcc/toplev.c:334
46 matches
Mail list logo
