[Bug middle-end/59272] New: Incorrect name of TLS_MODEL_GLOBAL_DYNAMIC

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59272 Bug ID: 59272 Summary: Incorrect name of TLS_MODEL_GLOBAL_DYNAMIC Product: gcc Version: 4.8.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: P3 Component: middle-e

[Bug c++/59271] a.C:16:21: internal compiler error: in strip_typedefs, at cp/tree.c:1315

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59271 --- Comment #1 from darpeer at hotmail dot com --- #include using namespace std; void f(int n) { int a[n]; for (auto& i : a) { i = &i - a; } [&a] (auto m) { for (auto i : a) { cout << i << endl; }

[Bug c++/59271] New: a.C:16:21: internal compiler error: in strip_typedefs, at cp/tree.c:1315

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59271 Bug ID: 59271 Summary: a.C:16:21: internal compiler error: in strip_typedefs, at cp/tree.c:1315 Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58162 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.9.0 |4.8.3

[Bug c++/59031] [4.8/4.9 Regression] vtable lookup not optimized away

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59031 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/59031] [4.8/4.9 Regression] vtable lookup not optimized away

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59031 --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Sun Nov 24 02:44:09 2013 New Revision: 205323 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205323&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/59031 * call.c (build_new_method_call_1): Comnpare function c

gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58162 --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Sun Nov 24 02:43:54 2013 New Revision: 205322 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205322&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/58162 * parser.c (cp_parser_late_parse_one_default_arg): Set

[Bug c++/59246] GCC should issue runtime error for calling pure virtual function with definition

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59246 --- Comment #3 from Ryou Ezoe --- Sorry. I should have provide a complete source code. I thought it's more helpful to issue runtime abort even though the standard doesn't requires it.

[Bug rtl-optimization/59020] [4.9 Regression] internal compiler error: in maybe_add_or_update_dep_1, at sched-deps.c:933

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59020 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wmi at google dot com --- Comment #4 from H.J.

[Bug c++/59270] New: [4.9 Regression] [c++11] ICE with decltype of a broken class

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59270 Bug ID: 59270 Summary: [4.9 Regression] [c++11] ICE with decltype of a broken class Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pr

[Bug c++/59269] New: [4.9 Regression] ICE with reference in union

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59269 Bug ID: 59269 Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE with reference in union Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/59268] New: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] [c++11] ICE with constexpr in a virtual function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59268 Bug ID: 59268 Summary: [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] [c++11] ICE with constexpr in a virtual function Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug sanitizer/59258] usan: ICE(segfault): stack-buffer-overflow with -fsanitize=undefined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59258 --- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek --- (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #5) > I don't find it obvious that 5 is sufficient, even if closer inspection will > shows that this is always the case. At worst, the fields array can have 5 elements:

[Bug fortran/54797] Gnu Fortran compiler does not recognize module file it created

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54797 Francois-Xavier Coudert changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug sanitizer/59258] usan: ICE(segfault): stack-buffer-overflow with -fsanitize=undefined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59258 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek --- (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #4) > Except for staring at the -fsanitize=null code, I don't have any good idea > how to debug this - valgrind and an -fsanitized=address instrumented GCC > don't help.

[Bug c++/59244] [c++11] can't specialize template on ref-qualified member function pointer type

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59244 --- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler --- This seems to be fixed in gcc 4.8.2 and in gcc 4.9.0 HEAD

[Bug sanitizer/59258] usan: ICE(segfault): stack-buffer-overflow with -fsanitize=undefined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59258 --- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3) > Why? We are already checking that nelts is < 3. See the > gcc_checking_assert above. Well, at least to me it is not obvious whether it can get larger. size_t i

[Bug sanitizer/59258] usan: ICE(segfault): stack-buffer-overflow with -fsanitize=undefined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59258 --- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus --- (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #2) > Seems to work for the reduced test case but not for the big code - also > -fsanitize=addr can only detect a segfault. Hopefully, it can be reduced to > something s

[Bug tree-optimization/59267] gcc 4.8.2 optimizes code with side-effects away

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59267 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I think you forgot to go back in the stream so is.str() returns the string from the current location. That is the stream current location is at the end of the input string and you should go back to start of t

[Bug tree-optimization/59267] New: gcc 4.8.2 optimizes code with side-effects away

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59267 Bug ID: 59267 Summary: gcc 4.8.2 optimizes code with side-effects away Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug middle-end/59257] usan/*san: Dpcumentation oddness of -fsanitize= / -fsanitize=shift

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59257 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug sanitizer/59258] usan: ICE(segfault): stack-buffer-overflow with -fsanitize=undefined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59258 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Why? We are already checking that nelts is < 3. See the gcc_checking_assert above.

[Bug c++/59031] [4.8/4.9 Regression] vtable lookup not optimized away

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59031 --- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Sat Nov 23 21:01:46 2013 New Revision: 205317 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205317&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/59031 * call.c (build_new_method_call_1): Comnpare function c

[Bug sanitizer/59258] usan: ICE(segfault): stack-buffer-overflow with -fsanitize=undefined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59258 --- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1) > Ugh, of course. This should fix it. Thanks for the report. Seems to work for the reduced test case but not for the big code - also -fsanitize=addr can only dete

[Bug rtl-optimization/59020] [4.9 Regression] internal compiler error: in maybe_add_or_update_dep_1, at sched-deps.c:933

ail.c fail.c: In function 'f': fail.c:10:1: internal compiler error: in maybe_add_or_update_dep_1, at sched-deps.c:933 } ^ Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions. Using gcc 4.9 as of 20131123.

[Bug c++/59266] New: Segmentation fault in ipa-devirt.c (record_target_from_binfo) for Inkscape

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59266 Bug ID: 59266 Summary: Segmentation fault in ipa-devirt.c (record_target_from_binfo) for Inkscape Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norma

[Bug c++/59265] New: Segmentation fault in ipa_note_param_call for -fprofile-use in SPEC CPU2006

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59265 Bug ID: 59265 Summary: Segmentation fault in ipa_note_param_call for -fprofile-use in SPEC CPU2006 Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norm

[Bug c/59264] Incorrect order of execution on increament/decrement operator

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59264 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/59187] internal error with -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59187 --- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson --- I can reproduce the ICE with 4.8.1 configured as a cross to x86_64-w64-mingw32 hosted on x86_64-linux, but not with 4.8.2. Looks like you need to upgrade.

[Bug target/58314] SH4 error: 'asm' operand requires impossible reload

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58314 --- Comment #14 from Oleg Endo --- Created attachment 31283 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31283&action=edit re-work movqi / movhi insns The attached patch seems to fix the problem. It removes the questionable reg_reg pattern

[Bug c/59264] Incorrect order of execution on increament/decrement operator

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59264 --- Comment #3 from Mahesh S --- but it gets executed correctly for 1st condition why not for 2nd and 3rd On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 10:36 PM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org < gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id

[Bug c/59264] Incorrect order of execution on increament/decrement operator

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59264 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/59264] Incorrect order of execution on increament/decrement operator

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59264 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Your code has undefined behaviour because it modifies the same variables more than once between sequence points.

[Bug c/59264] New: Incorrect order of execution on increament/decrement operator

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59264 Bug ID: 59264 Summary: Incorrect order of execution on increament/decrement operator Product: gcc Version: 4.8.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug c++/58525] __cxa_throw_bad_array_new_length is generated with -fno-exceptions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58525 --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Sat Nov 23 16:28:42 2013 New Revision: 205310 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205310&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/58525 * call.c (build_operator_new_call): Add flag_exceptions

[Bug c++/58868] [4.9 Regression] ICE: in count_type_elements, at expr.c:5495 with -std=gnu++0x

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58868 --- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Sat Nov 23 16:28:57 2013 New Revision: 205311 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205311&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/58868 * init.c (build_aggr_init): Don't clobber the type of

[Bug sanitizer/59061] Port leaksanitizer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061 --- Comment #36 from Kostya Serebryany --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #34) > And what is the reason why you want to duplicate the library optimization > (which for memset/memcpy etc. is highly optimized, in glibc these days > depends

[Bug fortran/59263] New: Fortran debug: For MODULEs, set DW_AT_accessibility with DW_ACCESS_private where appopriate

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59263 Bug ID: 59263 Summary: Fortran debug: For MODULEs, set DW_AT_accessibility with DW_ACCESS_private where appopriate Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/33704] AIX runs c++ constructors in incorrect order

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33704 --- Comment #23 from David Edelsohn --- Author: dje Date: Sat Nov 23 15:38:07 2013 New Revision: 205309 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205309&root=gcc&view=rev Log: libgcc: PR target/33704 * config/rs6000/aixinitfini.c: New file

[Bug sanitizer/59061] Port leaksanitizer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061 --- Comment #35 from Kostya Serebryany --- > What I meant is that LSan could clear the memory instead of relying on the > sanitizer allocator to do it. Then we'd only have to call memset() from the > LSan runtime. Right, that's an option. (to c

[Bug bootstrap/59217] GCC fails to cross-build: conflicting declarations of 'basename', 'sbrk', etc.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59217 --- Comment #2 from Ludovic Courtès --- > PS: For the record the corresponding fix in Guix is > . err, should read:

[Bug bootstrap/59217] GCC fails to cross-build: conflicting declarations of 'basename', 'sbrk', etc.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59217 Ludovic Courtès changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/59154] [4.9 Regression] internal compiler error: tree check: expected ssa_name, have integer_cst

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59154 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Sat Nov 23 14:21:46 2013 New Revision: 205307 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205307&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/59154 * tree-ssa-reassoc.c (maybe_optimize_rang

[Bug middle-end/59257] usan/*san: Dpcumentation oddness of -fsanitize= / -fsanitize=shift

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59257 --- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus --- (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #0) >*<-fsanitize=shift> >This option enables checking that the result of a > The < > look odd. > @item @option{-fsanitize=shift} > Maybe t

[Bug c++/48379] -Wdouble-promotion warns for promotion by varargs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48379 Andrew Church changed: What|Removed |Added CC||achurch+gcc at achurch dot org --- Commen

[Bug fortran/47674] gfortran.dg/realloc_on_assign_5.f03: Segfault at run time for deferred (allocatable) string length

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47674 --- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres --- gfortran.dg/realloc_on_assign_5.f03 also fails at run time when compiled with -fsanitize=address.

[Bug fortran/57354] Wrong run-time assignment of allocatable array of derived type with allocatable component

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57354 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug sanitizer/59061] Port leaksanitizer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061 --- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek --- And what is the reason why you want to duplicate the library optimization (which for memset/memcpy etc. is highly optimized, in glibc these days depends on the CPUs through ifunc etc.)? I mean, for small size

[Bug tree-optimization/59262] __attribute__ ((optimize())) broken (and corrupts optimization of the whole compilation unit)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59262 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug sanitizer/59061] Port leaksanitizer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061 --- Comment #33 from Sergey Matveev --- (In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #32) > > I think standalone LSan should support the max_alloc_fill_size flag. > > Mmm. Maybe... > max_alloc_fill_size in asan is there primarily to protect from

[Bug fortran/34928] Extension: volatile common blocks

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34928 --- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Bud, > > What was the purpose of this construct? > What is the valid way to replace it? Should I close again this PR as WONTFIX to get an answer?

[Bug fortran/57048] [4.9 Regression] Handling of C_PTR and C_FUNPTR leads to reject valid

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57048 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/56788] _mm_frcz_sd and _mm_frcz_ss ignore their second argument

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56788 --- Comment #14 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Sat Nov 23 13:24:19 2013 New Revision: 205306 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205306&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/56788 * config/i386/i386.c (bdesc_multi_arg) :

[Bug target/56788] _mm_frcz_sd and _mm_frcz_ss ignore their second argument

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56788 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Target|x86_64-linux-gnu|x86 URL|

[Bug target/56788] _mm_frcz_sd and _mm_frcz_ss ignore their second argument

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56788 --- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #11) > I left the prototype the way it was. Makes sense to me. > Marc, since it looks you have access to XOP target (I don't have one), can > you please write an XOP test

[Bug sanitizer/59061] Port leaksanitizer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061 --- Comment #32 from Kostya Serebryany --- (In reply to Sergey Matveev from comment #31) > (In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #30) > > lsan's allocator clears all memory using internal_memset, which is damn > > slow. (sets on byte at a ti

[Bug sanitizer/59061] Port leaksanitizer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061 --- Comment #31 from Sergey Matveev --- (In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #30) > lsan's allocator clears all memory using internal_memset, which is damn > slow. (sets on byte at a time) > > asan's allocator doesn't do that (it sets firs

[Bug target/56788] _mm_frcz_sd and _mm_frcz_ss ignore their second argument

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56788 --- Comment #11 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #10) > (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #9) > > Arguably the LLVM intrinsic is more useful than the Microsoft one, but > that's a different issue that doesn't matter

[Bug target/56788] _mm_frcz_sd and _mm_frcz_ss ignore their second argument

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56788 --- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #9) > Patch that fixes _mm_frcz_{ss,sd} intrinsics Looks good (assuming the detailed description is more correct than the high-level one in AMD's doc), thank you. Arguabl

[Bug tree-optimization/59262] New: __attribute__ ((optimize())) broken (and corrupts optimization of the whole compilation unit)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59262 Bug ID: 59262 Summary: __attribute__ ((optimize())) broken (and corrupts optimization of the whole compilation unit) Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/56788] _mm_frcz_sd and _mm_frcz_ss ignore their second argument

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56788 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #31278|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug sanitizer/59250] ubsan: ICE (segfault) with -fsanitize=undefined in ubsan_create_data

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59250 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug bootstrap/59260] fold-const.c:14871:5: error: 'hash_table' has not been declared

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59260 Dmitry G. Dyachenko changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amacleod at redhat dot com,

[Bug sanitizer/59061] Port leaksanitizer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061 --- Comment #30 from Kostya Serebryany --- (In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #29) > I've tried -fsanitize=leak and it works well, thanks! > > Concerning the speed, I'm still seeing about 20% slowdown (again, this is > acceptable from

[Bug c/59259] [x32] Incorrect packing and/or alignment when using a 64 bit type as array of zero length in a structure

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59259 cjanderson at yandex dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED --- Comment #3 from

[Bug sanitizer/59258] usan: ICE(segfault): stack-buffer-overflow with -fsanitize=undefined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59258 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/56788] _mm_frcz_sd and _mm_frcz_ss ignore their second argument

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56788 --- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #7) > Ah no, I was wrong, sorry about that: > > The VFRCZSS and VFRCZSD instructions extract the fractional portion of the > single-/double-precision scalar floating-point

[Bug target/56788] _mm_frcz_sd and _mm_frcz_ss ignore their second argument

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56788 --- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse --- Ah no, I was wrong, sorry about that: The VFRCZSS and VFRCZSD instructions extract the fractional portion of the single-/double-precision scalar floating-point value in an XMM register or 32- or 64-bit memory l

[Bug target/56788] _mm_frcz_sd and _mm_frcz_ss ignore their second argument

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56788 --- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse --- Uros, I can't seem to find the AMD documentation anymore (marketing has gotten hold of the website and tech info got hidden somewhere deep), but if I remember correctly, vfrczsd %xmm0, %xmm1 does: xmm0[0]=frcz(

[Bug middle-end/59261] New: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-26.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects (internal compiler error)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59261 Bug ID: 59261 Summary: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-26.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects (internal compiler error) Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/56788] _mm_frcz_sd and _mm_frcz_ss ignore their second argument

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56788 --- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1) > _mm_frcz_ss is inconsistent between compilers. Microsoft gives it 2 > arguments and movss-like semantics, whereas clang gives it a single > argument. AMD doesn't docum

[Bug sanitizer/59061] Port leaksanitizer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061 --- Comment #29 from Joost VandeVondele --- I've tried -fsanitize=leak and it works well, thanks! Concerning the speed, I'm still seeing about 20% slowdown (again, this is acceptable from my point of view). Under oprofile, the __sanitizer::int

[Bug fortran/59228] ICE-on-invalid with assumed type and ASYNCHRONOUS

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59228 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/56788] _mm_frcz_sd and _mm_frcz_ss ignore their second argument

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56788 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4 --- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---

[Bug fortran/59228] ICE-on-invalid with assumed type and ASYNCHRONOUS

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59228 --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: janus Date: Sat Nov 23 09:14:11 2013 New Revision: 205304 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205304&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2013-11-23 Janus Weil PR fortran/59228 * interface.c (

[Bug target/56788] _mm_frcz_sd and _mm_frcz_ss ignore their second argument

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56788 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/59243] [SH] Build fails during compiling libjava/interpret.cc with segfault

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59243 --- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima --- (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #2) > Created attachment 31274 [details] > Infinite recursion fix It fixes the build failure on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu too. The patch is pre-approved.

[Bug bootstrap/59260] fold-const.c:14871:5: error: 'hash_table' has not been declared

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59260 --- Comment #1 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko --- Created attachment 31277 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31277&action=edit proposed patch

[Bug bootstrap/59260] New: fold-const.c:14871:5: error: 'hash_table' has not been declared

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59260 Bug ID: 59260 Summary: fold-const.c:14871:5: error: 'hash_table' has not been declared Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal