[Bug sanitizer/59600] no_sanitize_address mishandled when function is inlined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59600 Yury Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #31515|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug sanitizer/59600] no_sanitize_address mishandled when function is inlined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59600 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > (In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #1) > > Created attachment 31515 [details] > > Draft patch > > > Why can't you just set DECL_UNINLINABLE on the function de

[Bug sanitizer/59600] no_sanitize_address mishandled when function is inlined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59600 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #1) > Created attachment 31515 [details] > Draft patch Why can't you just set DECL_UNINLINABLE on the function decl in handle_no_sanitize_undefined_attribute in c-common

[Bug sanitizer/59600] no_sanitize_address mishandled when function is inlined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59600 --- Comment #2 from Kostya Serebryany --- We had this problem in clang before http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=187967

[Bug target/59601] New: [4.9 Regression] __attribute__ ((target("arch=corei7"))) won't match Westmere processor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59601 Bug ID: 59601 Summary: [4.9 Regression] __attribute__ ((target("arch=corei7"))) won't match Westmere processor Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCO

[Bug sanitizer/59600] no_sanitize_address mishandled when function is inlined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59600 Yury Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||y.gribov at samsung dot com --- Comment #1

[Bug sanitizer/59600] New: no_sanitize_address mishandled when function is inlined

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59600 Bug ID: 59600 Summary: no_sanitize_address mishandled when function is inlined Product: gcc Version: 4.8.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priorit

[Bug debug/51358] incorrect/missing location for function arg, -O0, without VTA

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51358 --- Comment #11 from Frank Ch. Eigler --- This problem continues to hit in gcc 4.8.2.

[Bug target/59587] cpu_names in i386.c is accessed with wrong index

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59587 --- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: hjl Date: Wed Dec 25 22:44:04 2013 New Revision: 206202 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206202&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Remove target_cpu_default/cpu_names Add processor names to processor

[Bug fortran/59599] Compiler internal error on intrinsic ichar

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59599 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/59422] Support more targets for function multi versioning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59422 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/59422] Support more targets for function multi versioning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59422 --- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Wed Dec 25 22:22:24 2013 New Revision: 206200 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206200&root=gcc&view=rev Log: gcc/ 2013-12-25 Allan Sandfeld Jensen H.J. Lu PR

[Bug libitm/53113] Build fails in x86_avx.cc if AVX disabled by -mno-avx but supported by as

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53113 --- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu --- A patch is posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg01877.html

[Bug libitm/53113] Build fails in x86_avx.cc if AVX disabled by -mno-avx but supported by as

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53113 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4

[Bug libitm/53113] Build fails in x86_avx.cc if AVX disabled by -mno-avx but supported by as

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53113 --- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu --- A patch is posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg01877.html

[Bug fortran/59599] New: Compiler internal error on intrinsic ichar

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59599 Bug ID: 59599 Summary: Compiler internal error on intrinsic ichar Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug libitm/53113] Build fails in x86_avx.cc if AVX disabled by -mno-avx but supported by as

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53113 --- Comment #21 from Ryan Hill --- Well in practice we've had to have users build GCC with -mno-avx on no less than three occasions since 4.4 due to compiler bugs on certain chips (usually newer chips + old releases), so it'd be nice to have it ju

[Bug libitm/53113] Build fails in x86_avx.cc if AVX disabled by -mno-avx but supported by as

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53113 --- Comment #20 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to David Kredba from comment #17) > I can't bootstrap 4.9.0 snapshots without patch attached. My machine is > Core2 Quad where are not any avx instructions available. All is compiled > from sources (Gento

[Bug libitm/53113] Build fails in x86_avx.cc if AVX disabled by -mno-avx but supported by as

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53113 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW Summary|Build fails in x86_avx.c

[Bug libitm/53113] Build fails in x86_avx.cc if AVX disabled but supported by as (Solaris & Linux)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53113 --- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to David Kredba from comment #17) > > I think that reproducing needs machine where CPU does not know what AVX is. I have non-AVX machines and I have no problems with bootstrapping GCC 4.9.0 on them. S

[Bug libitm/53113] Build fails in x86_avx.cc if AVX disabled but supported by as (Solaris & Linux)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53113 --- Comment #17 from David Kredba --- I can't bootstrap 4.9.0 snapshots without patch attached. My machine is Core2 Quad where are not any avx instructions available. All is compiled from sources (Gentoo) but libitm x86_avx.lo crashes bootstrap. -

[Bug tree-optimization/59597] [4.9 Regression] Performance degradation on Coremark after r205074

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59597 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0

[Bug c++/59598] very simple code using file open for read

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598 --- Comment #5 from Denis Kolesnik --- thanks my mind possibly poisoned by some mushrooms(not by me), that is why I do not notice such simple things and can not find it.

[Bug c++/59598] very simple code using file open for read

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598 --- Comment #4 from Denis Kolesnik --- MY OS is MS Windows 8.1 64x licensed

[Bug c++/59598] very simple code using file open for read

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/59598] very simple code using file open for read

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598 --- Comment #2 from Denis Kolesnik --- echo off PATH=%PATH%;c:\MinGW\bin;C:\MinGW\x86_64-w64-mingw32\bin set application_file=main_app2 gcc replace_1.c

[Bug c++/59598] very simple code using file open for read

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598 --- Comment #1 from Denis Kolesnik --- Created attachment 31512 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31512&action=edit C++ source file

[Bug c++/59598] New: very simple code using file open for read

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598 Bug ID: 59598 Summary: very simple code using file open for read Product: gcc Version: 4.6.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: blocker Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug libitm/53113] Build fails in x86_avx.cc if AVX disabled but supported by as (Solaris & Linux)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53113 --- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to David Kredba from comment #15) > For me it looks like that GCC build process is taking from some internal > definition that AVX should be present on Core2 and enables it for libitm. > Patch attached in

[Bug libitm/53113] Build fails in x86_avx.cc if AVX disabled but supported by as (Solaris & Linux)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53113 --- Comment #15 from David Kredba --- For me it looks like that GCC build process is taking from some internal definition that AVX should be present on Core2 and enables it for libitm. Patch attached in this bug report works for gcc-4.9-20131222 f

[Bug tree-optimization/59597] [4.9 Regression] Performance degradation on Coremark after r205074

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59597 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libitm/53113] Build fails in x86_avx.cc if AVX disabled but supported by as (Solaris & Linux)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53113 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/58007] [4.7/4.9 Regression] [OOP] ICE in free_pi_tree(): Unresolved fixup - resolve_fixups does not fixup component of __class_bsr_Bsr_matrix

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58007 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #30656|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug lto/59582] LTO discards symbol that defined as weak elsewhere

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59582 --- Comment #5 from Joey Ye --- HJ, do you know which patch fixed this issue? I might need to backport it into local 2.23 branch.

[Bug lto/59582] LTO discards symbol that defined as weak elsewhere

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59582 Joey Ye changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/54742] Switch elimination in FSM loop

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54742 --- Comment #34 from Igor Zamyatin --- Done - http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59597

[Bug tree-optimization/59597] New: Performance degradation on Coremark after r205074

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59597 Bug ID: 59597 Summary: Performance degradation on Coremark after r205074 Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c++/59596] Unable to get the rpm file GCC 4.2 version for Linux X86_64 bit

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59596 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/59596] New: Unable to get the rpm file GCC 4.2 version for Linux X86_64 bit

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59596 Bug ID: 59596 Summary: Unable to get the rpm file GCC 4.2 version for Linux X86_64 bit Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: critical

[Bug rtl-optimization/57763] [4.9 Regression]: comp-goto-1.c: ICE verify_flow_info failed, error: EDGE_CROSSING missing across section boundary

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57763 --- Comment #15 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Steven Bosscher from comment #14) > Lots of hot/cold partitioning fixes have been committed in the past > few weeks. Uros, so you still see this bug with a recent trunk? I still see the failure wi

[Bug rtl-optimization/52714] [4.7/4.8/4.9 regression] ICE in fixup_reorder_chain, at cfglayout.c:880

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52714 Steven Bosscher changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW Last reconfirmed|2012-03-25 00:00