http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58313
Bug ID: 58313
Summary: [4.9 Regression] kdelibs build failure
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58313
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de ---
markus@x4 tmp % g++ c -O2 test.ii
markus@x4 tmp % nm test.o|grep _ZN8KNetwork18KPassiveSocketBase
U _ZN8KNetwork18KPassiveSocketBaseC2EPPKv
markus@x4 tmp %
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58210
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44489
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58313
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47191
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56750
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58210
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58311
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58308
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58305
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Sep 4 08:57:26 2013
New Revision: 202242
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202242root=gccview=rev
Log:
/cp
2013-09-03 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58305
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58210
--- Comment #3 from GGanesh Ganesh.Gopalasubramanian at amd dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
Please provide preprocessed source and compiler flags and the architecture
that fails.
Its for 400.perlbench (Spec 1.2) with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58305
--- Comment #7 from Johannes Wienke languitar at semipol dot de ---
Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58314
Bug ID: 58314
Summary: SH4 error: 'asm' operand requires impossible reload
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #27 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #22)
Created attachment 30732 [details]
Another attempt at a fix
I simply moved the decision whether to go the misalignp path or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #28 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #19)
Barking up wrong trees. Hacky fix looks like:
Index: gcc/expr.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE|[4.7/4.8/4.9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #31 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #29)
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #28)
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #19)
Barking up wrong trees. Hacky
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55637
Mark Wielaard mark at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55637
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org ---
it prints
-1
-1
-1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55637
--- Comment #8 from Mark Wielaard mark at gcc dot gnu.org ---
What happens when you run it by hand?
$ gij -cp ./libjava/testsuite/libjava.lang/sourcelocation.jar sourcelocation
10
13
15
-1 indicates something went wrong, which is indeed not very
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58313
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de ---
Probably dup of Bug 58201.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58201
Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58313
Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55637
--- Comment #9 from Mark Wielaard mark at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I assume this is some weirdness in the testsuite. It does indeed fail for me in
a make check, but seems to work just fine when ran by hand.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55637
--- Comment #10 from Mark Wielaard mark at gcc dot gnu.org ---
O wait, it is more complicated than that. My by hand tests were using the
interpreter. But there are multiple sourcelocation tests:
PASS: sourcelocation compilation from source
PASS:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55637
--- Comment #11 from Mark Wielaard mark at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It seems somewhat related to the binutils version.
The results form comment #10 are with binutils-2.20.51.0.2-5.36.el6.x86_64
If I build and put current binutils trunk on the path the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58076
--- Comment #3 from chenpoyang young.cpy at gmail dot com ---
Before I see an error when compiling gcc, now forgotten...- -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53808
--- Comment #4 from Rafael Avila de Espindola rafael.espindola at gmail dot
com ---
The equivalent clang bug (llvm.org/pr13124) just got fixed by avoiding the
devirtualization in this case.
Not sure how similar the issues are internally, but I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30747
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30747action=edit
testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Bug ID: 58315
Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] Excessive memory use with -g
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: memory-hog
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Unsurprisingly the culprit is var-tracking. Disabling it gets memory use
down to 250MB.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58304
--- Comment #3 from Harsha harsha.patankar at gmail dot com ---
I'm compiling Revision: 202247 using gcc 4.7.3.
git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@202247
138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4
And my OS is Ubuntu 64-bit
Linux DESK
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58304
--- Comment #4 from Harsha harsha.patankar at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30748
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30748action=edit
config.log attached
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58201
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
OK, the destructor is used as:
_ZN1BD2EPPKv/21 (B::~B()) @0x7f56014ecd10
Type: function
Visibility: external public
References:
Referring:
Availability: not_available
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58201
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30749
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30749action=edit
Proposed fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58186
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58201
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In C++ destructors don't have parameters, so the question is where the bogusly
mangled name comes from. Is that coming from the implicit this argument that
is somehow used again in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58125
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
OK, the testcase no longer reproduces, but the dump seems clear. We introduced
new aliases but did not resize the summary vector, because we do not need info
for these. Then we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58316
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Integer conversions are not ranked by size. The call is ambiguous, G++ is
correct. Intel and clang agree.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58316
Bug ID: 58316
Summary: error: call of overloaded ‘foo(long long unsigned int,
long long unsigned int)’ is ambiguous
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57776
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57366
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58084
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The patch to fix this is issue is proposed at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00078.html
If a type is refered to by two functions it is by definition not local. But
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58011
--- Comment #2 from eraman at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: eraman
Date: Wed Sep 4 17:48:15 2013
New Revision: 202262
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202262root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-09-04 Easwaran Raman era...@google.com
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57370
--- Comment #10 from eraman at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: eraman
Date: Wed Sep 4 17:48:15 2013
New Revision: 202262
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202262root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-09-04 Easwaran Raman era...@google.com
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58096
Pat Haugen pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58316
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58304
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
You should really figure out what's so special about your setup/system, because
we have so many reports of successful builds, just look at gcc-testresults.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24926
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Sep 4 23:52:48 2013
New Revision: 202266
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202266root=gccview=rev
Log:
/cp
2013-09-04 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24926
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58317
Bug ID: 58317
Summary: Calling a method while preparing to call the
constructor should be illegal
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
20130904 (experimental) [trunk revision 202240] (GCC)
$
$
$ time gcc-trunk -O3 reduced.c
0.06user 0.00system 0:00.23elapsed 30%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 51792maxresident)k
0inputs+32outputs (0major+7258minor)pagefaults 0swaps
$
$
$ time gcc-trunk -O3 -g reduced.c
11.70user 0.68system 0:18.93elapsed 65%CPU
56 matches
Mail list logo
