http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The 4.8 version of the patch bootstrapped/regtested fine on both s390x-linux
and s390-linux, both configured with --with-arch=z10 --with-tune=zEC12.
Andreas, could you please bootstrap/regtest some 4.9 versio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57586
--- Comment #9 from Alan Modra ---
Once upon a time I understood this code quite well, but it's been a while since
I looked at it in detail, and I'd forgotten that inout gets split to separate
input and output operands if a register is allowed.
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58569
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini ---
We badly need a reduced testcase for this. The issue doesn't seem to involve
std::function in a fundamental way, seems more about using
std::is_convertible inside foo.
Adding Daniel in CC, in case he wants to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58587
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33911
Easwaran Raman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eraman at google dot com
--- Comment #10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55570
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dbruening at acm dot org
--- Comment #8 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58588
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58588
Bug ID: 58588
Summary: "internal compiler error: Segmentation fault" from
aligned attribute with undefined token for size
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58587
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 30941
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30941&action=edit
pr58587.tar.bz2
I've tried to create a C small reproducer from scratch, but just using TImode
seems to work, relo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58587
Bug ID: 58587
Summary: Bootstrap error with ada with -mcpu=power7
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58586
Bug ID: 58586
Summary: ICE with derived type with a polymorphic allocatable
component passed by value
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58585
Bug ID: 58585
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE in ipa with virtual inheritance
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58584
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini ---
Please don't use anymore -std=c++0x, it's legacy, supported only for backward
compatibility.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58579
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Completely untested draft patch
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
@@ -2355,11 +2355,13 @@ gfc_conv_string_tmp (gfc_se * se, tree type, tree len)
{
/* Allocate a tempora
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58579
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58584
Bug ID: 58584
Summary: [c++11] ICE with invalid argument for alignas
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58564
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression]|[4.7 Regression] possible
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58564
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Sep 30 20:17:07 2013
New Revision: 203044
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203044&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/58564
* fold-const.c (tree_unary_nonnegative_warnv_p)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58583
Bug ID: 58583
Summary: [c++11] ICE with invalid non-static data member
initialization in template
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58564
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Sep 30 20:16:14 2013
New Revision: 203043
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203043&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/58564
* fold-const.c (fold_ternary_loc): For A < 0 :
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58564
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Sep 30 20:15:20 2013
New Revision: 203042
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203042&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/58564
* fold-const.c (fold_ternary_loc): For A < 0 :
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58582
Bug ID: 58582
Summary: [c++11] ICE defining and instantiating deleted
template function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58581
Bug ID: 58581
Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] [c++11] ICE with no-throw
specification in deleted function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58563
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> Does not ICE for me with 4.7/4.8, but with trunk it does.
I guess this does not apply, please ignore. Should be reproducible even with
4.7/4.8.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58563
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #29 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Sep 30 17:43:05 2013
New Revision: 203037
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203037&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-09-30 Chris Jefferson
PR libstdc++/58437
* incl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #28 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Sep 30 17:42:52 2013
New Revision: 203036
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203036&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-09-30 Chris Jefferson
PR libstdc++/58437
* incl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58437
--- Comment #27 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Sep 30 17:42:31 2013
New Revision: 203035
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203035&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-09-30 Chris Jefferson
PR libstdc++/58437
* incl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Yes, threading is rotating the loop in "interesting" ways -- I was going to
look at that independently of the correctness issue.
One of the things I've noticed as I've been laying down some infrastructure f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58322
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58578
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
I suspect this was introduced with r197527
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58578
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58580
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.2
Summary|preprocessor go
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58580
Bug ID: 58580
Summary: preprocessor goes OOM with warning for zero literals
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58579
Bug ID: 58579
Summary: Memory allocation fails when calling character-valued
function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note that I can't test this easily on the trunk, the partition I have access to
has just 2 CPUs and 1GB of RAM, bootstrap/regtest would be very slow if it
worked at all, but am testing the 4.8 version of the p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 30939
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30939&action=edit
gcc48-pr58574.patch
Yeah, perhaps. I'm attaching 4.8 version of the patch, which wasn't using
tablejump_p at all
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Created attachment 30938
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30938&action=edit
Alternate fix - v2
Since tablejump_p is checking for JUMP_P anyway we could move the check even
outside the jum
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58577
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58554
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Ganesh.Gopalasubramanian@am
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58577
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Let's see if it is fixed by the fixes for PR58553 and PR58554.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
Bug 58553 depends on bug 58554, which changed state.
Bug 58554 Summary: [4.9 Regression] Revision 202619 causes runtime failure in
CPU2006 benchmark 445.gobmk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58554
What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58554
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58554
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Sep 30 12:22:00 2013
New Revision: 203031
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203031&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-09-30 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/58554
* tree-l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53001
Joshua Cogliati changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30913|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58578
Bug ID: 58578
Summary: mpfr tasinh test doesn't terminate when built with
trunk for ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Created attachment 30935 [details]
> Alternate fix
>
> Another possibility. If the check is there really just to prevent handling
> tablejumps, I wonder why we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Thanks for tracking this down!
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> I'd say the bug is in s390_chunkify_start:
> if (GET_CODE (pat) == PARALLEL && XVECLEN (pat, 0) > 2)
> pat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57608
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Testcase that also fails on x86_64:
#define MAX_LENGTH 96
#define SEQUENCE_LENGTH 31
static struct {
char buf[MAX_LENGTH + 1];
} u1, u2;
extern void abort (void);
int main ()
{
int i;
char c;
u1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 30935
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30935&action=edit
Alternate fix
Another possibility. If the check is there really just to prevent handling
tablejumps, I wonder wh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 30934
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30934&action=edit
Possible fix
Possible fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58574
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'd say the bug is in s390_chunkify_start:
if (GET_CODE (pat) == PARALLEL && XVECLEN (pat, 0) > 2)
pat = XVECEXP (pat, 0, 0);
Dunno what exactly the > 2 condition has been added for, JUMP
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58555
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58554
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, this one shows that pattern detection does not consider conditionally
executed stores properly. I have a fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58556
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arc-elf32 |arc-elf32, arm-none-eabi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58543
--- Comment #5 from Yury Gribov ---
> I guess you mean *un*poison here.
Right you are!
> My understanding is that in the loop above, we are setting the memory
> pointed to by frame_shadow_base + { 0, 4, 8, 12, 16} to zero.
>
> And in the code be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58555
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |middle-end
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58556
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
Summary|wrong code at -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58568
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58567
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58543
--- Comment #4 from dodji at seketeli dot org ---
Thank you for reporting this bug.
Please find my comments below,
"y.gribov at samsung dot com" a écrit:
> Prologue seems to poison words at frame_shadow_base + { 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24,
> 28}:
R
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58572
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58577
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58564
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 30933
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30933&action=edit
gcc49-pr58564-nonnegative.patch
Actually, teaching fold that it should fold that < 0 into 0 is easy, just needs
m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53631
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||galens at capaccess dot org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58576
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58564
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50749
bin.cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker.cheng at gmail dot com
--- Comment #15
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58507
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Ilya,
I have now checked my patches in. If you use the latest (development) FSF
sources for GCC and the binutils you should see that correct parsing of the
-mmcu command line option and the correct displ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58560
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9 Regression] [c++11]|[4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58564
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58560
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58561
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58554
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58552
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58532
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58532
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Sep 30 07:44:46 2013
New Revision: 203024
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203024&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-09-30 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/58532
* tree-cfg.c (m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58576
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
[:alnum:] only matches the six characters ":almnu". If you want to match any
letter or digit you have to write [[:alnum:]].
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58563
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58577
Bug ID: 58577
Summary: Capacita regresses with 202619
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55190
bin.cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker.cheng at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58567
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
86 matches
Mail list logo
