http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51749
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59948
Bug ID: 59948
Summary: Optimize std::function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59949
--- Comment #1 from Moritz Bunkus moritz at bunkus dot org ---
Created attachment 31955
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31955action=edit
compiler output with g++ 4.8.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59949
Bug ID: 59949
Summary: default value to std::function template function
parameter causes »already defined« messages in
assembler
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59940
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58007
--- Comment #16 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mikael
Date: Sun Jan 26 13:04:54 2014
New Revision: 207117
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207117root=gccview=rev
Log:
fortran/
PR fortran/58007
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59948
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #0)
if (f != 0B)
// Shouldn't we know that f!=0? It is defined just above.
This happens because the test in fold-const.c is:
return
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59949
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||assemble-failure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58007
--- Comment #17 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mikael
Date: Sun Jan 26 14:12:50 2014
New Revision: 207118
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207118root=gccview=rev
Log:
fortran/
PR fortran/58007
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59414
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58007
--- Comment #18 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mikael
Date: Sun Jan 26 14:49:47 2014
New Revision: 207119
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207119root=gccview=rev
Log:
fortran/
PR fortran/58007
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58007
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57033
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #16 from Ryan Mansfield rmansfield at qnx dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
Created attachment 31943 [details]
gcc49-pr59575.patch
Updated patch, which should now handle the dummy pushes also in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57048
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57048
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31956
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31956action=edit
Bigger patch (doesn't work better :-/ )
And this is how far I got before giving up.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51749
--- Comment #29 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
As was discussed a couple of years ago, the glibc maintainers are willing
to work with the libstdc++ maintainers on providing whatever features
libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59414
--- Comment #15 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com paul.richard.thomas
at gmail dot com ---
I hadn't forgotten - I will be back in France tomorrow night and will deal
with it then.
Cheers
Paul
On Jan 26, 2014 3:31 PM, mikael at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59946
Vincent Riviere vincent.riviere at freesbee dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59389
--- Comment #5 from Richard Smith richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk ---
Under [over.best.ics]p4, I think both the original example in comment#0 and the
example in comment#2 are valid (so GCC is incorrect to reject both and Clang is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59950
Bug ID: 59950
Summary: Bogus diagnostic taking address of temporary taking
address of trivial no-op assignment to temporary
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59946
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson mikpelinux at gmail dot com ---
Reproduced with m68k-elf and m68k-linux toolchains built from binutils-2.23.2
and gcc-4.9-20140119, 4.8.2, and 4.7.3. Removing -m68000 causes the .l
suffix to disappear and gas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can I ask for preprocessed source + options again?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575
--- Comment #18 from Ryan Mansfield rmansfield at qnx dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #17)
Can I ask for preprocessed source + options again?
$ cat ~/conftest.c
void bar ();
void clean (int *);
void foo ()
{
int i
: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
With revision 207121, dated today 20140126, I tried a bootstrap
build with BOOT_CFLAGS=-g -O3.
It went wrong in the following way
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59950
--- Comment #1 from Richard Smith richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk ---
Additional clarification was requested: Foo() = Foo() means
Foo().operator=(Foo()). The 'operator=' has return type 'Foo', thus that
expression is not a temporary.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51749
--- Comment #30 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks, Joseph, I'll determine what changes we would need. I hope we can make
some progress just by being a bit smarter in libstdc++, and then only need
glibc changes for what's left
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59679
Michael Cree mcree at orcon dot net.nz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mcree at orcon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59679
--- Comment #11 from Michael Cree mcree at orcon dot net.nz ---
Created attachment 31957
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31957action=edit
Reduced version of scope.c illustrating problem.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59679
--- Comment #12 from Michael Cree mcree at orcon dot net.nz ---
Created attachment 31958
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31958action=edit
Preprocessed version of scope-reduced.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59335
--- Comment #8 from PaX Team pageexec at gmail dot com ---
Uroš, i tried your patch and it didn't install those two files. on the other
hand i found more missing headers:
gcc/tree-phinodes.h
gcc/stor-layout.h
gcc/ssa-iterators.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59952
Bug ID: 59952
Summary: -march=core-avx2 should not enable RTM
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59733
--- Comment #23 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Relevant Kernel bug: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67651
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
--- Comment #22 from Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com ---
(In reply to Paul H. Hargrove from comment #21)
Do I need to test other branches too?
No, I don't think so.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59952
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
35 matches
Mail list logo
