[Bug c/58236] New: -Wuninitialized doesn't report uninitialised variable as expected

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58236 Bug ID: 58236 Summary: -Wuninitialized doesn't report uninitialised variable as expected Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/54485] g++ should diagnose default arguments in out-of-line definitions for template class member functions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54485 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug libstdc++/56779] [4.8/4.9 Regression] libstdc++.so: undefined reference to `libintl_textdomain'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56779 --- Comment #4 from Dâniel Fraga --- Nobody?

[Bug c/58235] Missing diagnostic on assignment to array in c89

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58235 --- Comment #4 from farouk jouti --- the link contains all the necessary information about the bug (just check the comments and answers) ;)

[Bug c/58235] Missing diagnostic on assignment to array in c89

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58235 farouk jouti changed: What|Removed |Added CC||farouk.jouti at live dot co.uk --- Comment

[Bug libgcc/58061] internal compiler error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58061 --- Comment #3 from Whitequill Riclo --- I can not proceseed with a project due to this bug, is there anything I can do in the mean time?

[Bug inline-asm/58234] In-line asm version of __FD_ZERO in /usr/include/bits/select.h

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58234 --- Comment #6 from Larry Baker --- Thank you. The example I found (mov_blk) that does not use output constraints, but specifies that the input registers are clobbered, is from a 2003 document. It too fails using today's gcc. I appreciate your

[Bug inline-asm/58234] In-line asm version of __FD_ZERO in /usr/include/bits/select.h

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58234 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- > Can you tell me how it is possible to specify the clobber side effects without > requiring output constraints? It is too hard if you have inputs in those registers too. You could push/pop on the stack thos

[Bug c/58235] Missing diagnostic on assignment to array in c89

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58235 --- Comment #2 from Olivier Gay --- Still, constraint of assignment (c90, 6.3.16) requires the left operand of assignment to be a modifiable lvalue. But c object array is not a modifiable lvalue as arrays are not modifiable lvalues (6.2.2.1).

[Bug inline-asm/58234] In-line asm version of __FD_ZERO in /usr/include/bits/select.h

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58234 --- Comment #4 from Larry Baker --- Actually, there is: the useless movl instead of a movq of the updated address pointer into __d1 on x86_64. But, that is a benign flaw. Can you answer either of my questions?

[Bug c/58235] Missing diagnostic on assignment to array in c89

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58235 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- This seems correct: See also bug 461. non-lvalue arrays do not decay to pointers in C90/C89.

[Bug inline-asm/58234] In-line asm version of __FD_ZERO in /usr/include/bits/select.h

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58234 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Larry Baker from comment #2) > Andrew, > > Thank you for your prompt reply. Fair enough. > > Can you direct me to where glibc bugs are reported? Except there is no bug in glibc's headers as I

[Bug target/58208] deque 32-bit "-O3" bug

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58208 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Severity|major

[Bug inline-asm/58234] In-line asm version of __FD_ZERO in /usr/include/bits/select.h

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58234 --- Comment #2 from Larry Baker --- Andrew, Thank you for your prompt reply. Fair enough. Can you direct me to where glibc bugs are reported? I have already filed a bug report with Intel. The in-line asm is not quite correct. But the flaw is

[Bug target/58208] deque 32-bit "-O3" bug

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58208 Tammy Hsu changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |major --- Comment #2 from Tammy Hsu --- Can

[Bug inline-asm/58234] In-line asm version of __FD_ZERO in /usr/include/bits/select.h

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58234 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/58235] New: Missing diagnostic on assignment to array in c89

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58235 Bug ID: 58235 Summary: Missing diagnostic on assignment to array in c89 Product: gcc Version: 4.8.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug inline-asm/58234] New: In-line asm version of __FD_ZERO in /usr/include/bits/select.h

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58234 Bug ID: 58234 Summary: In-line asm version of __FD_ZERO in /usr/include/bits/select.h Product: gcc Version: 4.4.7 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug preprocessor/39029] #pragma once is not "exported" from the precompiled headers

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39029 Johan Boulé changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/57610] Reference initialized with temporary instead of sub-object of conversion result

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57610 --- Comment #9 from Hubert Tong --- CWG 1604 may address the issues with performance and slicing mentioned in CWG 1287 which led to CWG 1650.

[Bug fortran/58233] New: null pointer cm in gfc_conv_structure at fortran/trans-expr.c:6132

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58233 Bug ID: 58233 Summary: null pointer cm in gfc_conv_structure at fortran/trans-expr.c:6132 Product: gcc Version: 4.8.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/57610] Reference initialized with temporary instead of sub-object of conversion result

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57610 Hubert Tong changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hstong at ca dot ibm.com --- Comment #8 fro

[Bug libmudflap/58232] New: False mudflap positive on std::setw

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58232 Bug ID: 58232 Summary: False mudflap positive on std::setw Product: gcc Version: 4.8.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libmudflap

[Bug fortran/57798] [4.8 Regression] Incorrect handling of sum over first dimension of a product of automatic arrays

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57798 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regression]|[4.8 Regression] Incorrect

[Bug fortran/58229] [F03] Memory leak with allocatable function result

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58229 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Status|U

[Bug tree-optimization/58223] [4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58223 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- Ok, so what happens here is that rdg_build_partitions builds two partitions, that essentially means we split the loop in the original test case into two loops: for (b = 0; b < 2; b++) a[0] = 1; for (

[Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221 --- Comment #8 from Teresa Johnson --- Tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, and also reproduced the failure listed in PR rtl-optimization/58220 and verified the fix with it. Committed as r201941: Index: final.c

[Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221 --- Comment #7 from Teresa Johnson --- On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:49 AM, kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221 > > --- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima --- > (In reply to Teresa Johnson from comment

[Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221 --- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima --- (In reply to Teresa Johnson from comment #5) > Kaz, are you planning to apply your patch, or do you want me to test > it and commit it? I'm kicking off x86_64 tests with it right now, but > I didn't get the

[Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221 --- Comment #5 from Teresa Johnson --- Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. Kaz, are you planning to apply your patch, or do you want me to test it and commit it? I'm kicking off x86_64 tests with it right now, but I didn't get the failure on that

[Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 f

[Bug tree-optimization/58143] [4.8/4.9 regression] wrong code at -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143 --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek --- Because the bug is in lim, so hacking around it in other parts of the compiler and removing desirable optimizations just to mitigate the bug is not the right way to fix it. Either lim shouldn't move the expr

[Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221 Kazumoto Kojima changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221 Hans-Peter Nilsson changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2013-08-23 CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/58143] [4.8/4.9 regression] wrong code at -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143 --- Comment #12 from Bernd Edlinger --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11) > No, that is wrong as well. Because it is too destructive? Maybe. I think this is a general problem here. 1. the undefined behavior warning may be triggered b

[Bug c++/55677] Virtual inheritance, 'this' pointer used as constructor parameter, parameter specialized in derived method, generated binary dumps core

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55677 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/55677] Virtual inheritance, 'this' pointer used as constructor parameter, parameter specialized in derived method, generated binary dumps core

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55677 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |WORKSFORME

[Bug c++/50436] Crash or hang on invalid template code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50436 --- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini --- Currently both hang for me (after a rather useful error message). We can certainly do better, of course. Interesting that the error messages produced by clang and icc are completely different.

[Bug c/58231] Using post-decrement as a boolean expression in if statement leads to crash

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58231 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/58231] New: Using post-decrement as a boolean expression in if statement leads to crash

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58231 Bug ID: 58231 Summary: Using post-decrement as a boolean expression in if statement leads to crash Product: gcc Version: 4.6.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norm

[Bug regression/58221] [4.9 Regression]: Immense amount of execution regressions and increased test-time for cris-elf

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58221 --- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson --- No significant change in results for regress-446 -> regress-444 for r201882 from r201874 (some libstdc++ changes pass again, but others now fail). Maybe r201883 is the winner; checking.

[Bug target/58218] -mcmodel=medium cause assembler warning "ignoring incorrect section type for .lbss"

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58218 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libmudflap/58230] New: mutliple test fail in german language version

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58230 Bug ID: 58230 Summary: mutliple test fail in german language version Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libm

[Bug fortran/58229] New: Memory leak with overloaded operator

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58229 Bug ID: 58229 Summary: Memory leak with overloaded operator Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug tree-optimization/58228] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong code (with vectorization?) at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58228 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milesto

[Bug tree-optimization/58143] [4.8/4.9 regression] wrong code at -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- No, that is wrong as well.

[Bug tree-optimization/58143] [4.8/4.9 regression] wrong code at -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143 Bernd Edlinger changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #30681|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug fortran/58113] [4.9 Regression] gfortran.dg/round_4.f90 FAILs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58113 Bernd Edlinger changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de --- Co

[Bug tree-optimization/58228] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong code (with vectorization?) at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58228 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/58227] [4.9 Regression] wrong code (hangs) at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58227 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||4.8.1 Target Milestone|---

[Bug tree-optimization/58223] [4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58223 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 f

[Bug tree-optimization/58227] wrong code (hangs) at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58227 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/58228] New: wrong code (with vectorization?) at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58228 Bug ID: 58228 Summary: wrong code (with vectorization?) at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug tree-optimization/58227] wrong code (hangs) at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58227 --- Comment #2 from Zhendong Su --- But similar to 58143, because of short circuiting (since a == 0), the expression "0 < -2147483647 - h ? 0 : 1" shouldn't be evaluated at all, correct? Or maybe I'm mistaken? Thanks for looking into this Mare

[Bug tree-optimization/58209] [4.7 Regression] ICE in extract_range_from_binary_expr, at tree-vrp.c:2294

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58209 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||4.8.2, 4.9.0 Summary|[4.7/4.8/

[Bug tree-optimization/58227] wrong code (hangs) at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58227 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug target/57932] Aligned stack wastes more than k bytes (as needed), if preferred stack boundary k=2**n, n>=4

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57932 Markus Eisenmann changed: What|Removed |Added Target|IA-32/x86-64|i386 --- Comment #1 from Markus Eisenm

[Bug tree-optimization/58227] New: wrong code (hangs) at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58227 Bug ID: 58227 Summary: wrong code (hangs) at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tr

[Bug tree-optimization/58223] [4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58223 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||4.7.3 Target Milestone|---

[Bug tree-optimization/58223] [4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58223 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug tree-optimization/58223] [4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58223 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Status|UNCONFIRMED