[Bug middle-end/60013] [4.9 Regression] Build of 176.gcc from CPU2000 loops in cc1 starting with r207231

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60013 --- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka --- Author: hubicka Date: Thu Feb 6 07:39:24 2014 New Revision: 207529 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207529&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR middle-end/60013 * ipa-inline-analysis.c (compute_bb_predicates

[Bug c/55791] gcc fails to detect wrong type in sizeof in malloc

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55791 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug c/55903] [Patch] cleanup redundant assignment of pointer in gcc/c-family/c-ada-spec.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55903 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c/57544] /../libcommon/stdio.h:121:12: error: expected declaration specifiers or ... before numeric constant

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57544 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c/60087] Incorrect column number for -Wsign-compare

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60087 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/60089] New: Complex arithmetic instructions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60089 Bug ID: 60089 Summary: Complex arithmetic instructions Product: gcc Version: 4.8.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: P3 Component: rtl-optimization

[Bug target/60088] Segfault when using quad precision and -march=native on gfortran

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088 --- Comment #8 from Jacob Abel --- Seriously? Look, you falsely assumed it was mingw only. Jerry reproduced the problem on linux as well. Excuse me for not knowing to post the backtrace. I come here to post a legitimate bug and all you've done is

[Bug middle-end/54041] [4.7/4.8/4.9 regression] -mshort ICE in convert_memory_address_addr_space, at explow.c:327

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54041 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P4 |P5 CC|

[Bug target/60088] Segfault when using quad precision and -march=native on gfortran

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088 --- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jacob Abel from comment #6) > (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #5) > > What output file? gcc_flags.txt does not show a segfault > > or a debugger backtrace. > > It shows that I wa

[Bug c/59850] Support sparse-style pointer address spaces (type attributes)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59850 --- Comment #16 from H. Peter Anvin --- Josh: nullptr pollutes the C user namespace, so it's not an option.

[Bug target/60088] Segfault when using quad precision and -march=native on gfortran

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088 --- Comment #6 from Jacob Abel --- (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #5) > What output file? gcc_flags.txt does not show a segfault > or a debugger backtrace. It shows that I was not using MinGW, as you assumed. Here's the gdb output: jake@

[Bug target/60088] Segfault when using quad precision and -march=native on gfortran

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 02:25:27AM +, thatcadguy at gmail dot com wrote: > > If you bothered to look at the gcc output file, you'd see that I tested it on > Linux as well. This is a GCC and MinGW problem. T

[Bug target/60088] Segfault when using quad precision and -march=native on gfortran

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/60088] [MingW] Segfault when using quad precision and -march=native on gfortran

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088 --- Comment #3 from Jacob Abel --- If you bothered to look at the gcc output file, you'd see that I tested it on Linux as well. This is a GCC and MinGW problem. The code segfaults on both platforms with both compilers.

[Bug target/60088] [MingW] Segfault when using quad precision and -march=native on gfortran

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/60088] New: Segfault when using quad precision and -march=native on gfortran

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088 Bug ID: 60088 Summary: Segfault when using quad precision and -march=native on gfortran Product: gcc Version: 4.7.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/60088] Segfault when using quad precision and -march=native on gfortran

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60088 --- Comment #1 from Jacob Abel --- Created attachment 32062 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32062&action=edit gcc -v output and march=native flags

[Bug libffi/60073] [4.9 regression] 64-bit libffi.call/cls_double_va.c FAILs after recent modification

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60073 --- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou --- > Note that powerpc64-gcc passes fp arguments corresponding to the ellipsis > part of variadic functions in both the parameter save area and fp registers, > contrary to the ABI which says they just go in the p

[Bug c/60087] New: Incorrect column number for -Wsign-compare

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60087 Bug ID: 60087 Summary: Incorrect column number for -Wsign-compare Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c/59850] Support sparse-style pointer address spaces (type attributes)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59850 --- Comment #15 from Josh Triplett --- (In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #14) > (In reply to Josh Triplett from comment #11) > > Personally, I'd actually suggest merging the two in GCC, and always issuing > > both sets of warnings. I'd also su

[Bug middle-end/60013] [4.9 Regression] Build of 176.gcc from CPU2000 loops in cc1 starting with r207231

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60013 --- Comment #16 from Pat Haugen --- I tried the patch from Comment 15 and was able to build/run the benchmark successfully.

[Bug libffi/60073] [4.9 regression] 64-bit libffi.call/cls_double_va.c FAILs after recent modification

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60073 --- Comment #7 from Alan Modra --- The variadic support in libfii is fairly recent. And yes, it might have been there earlier if the testcases actually tested what they were suppose to test! Note that powerpc64-gcc passes fp arguments correspond

[Bug rtl-optimization/60086] New: suboptimal asm generated for a loop (store/load false aliasing)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60086 Bug ID: 60086 Summary: suboptimal asm generated for a loop (store/load false aliasing) Product: gcc Version: 4.7.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/56458] support for crash on invalid array access

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56458 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug middle-end/60085] ICE in get_frame_type on weird code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60085 --- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek --- Even gcc34 ICEs on this, not a regression.

[Bug middle-end/60085] New: ICE in get_frame_type on weird code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60085 Bug ID: 60085 Summary: ICE in get_frame_type on weird code Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-end

[Bug libffi/60073] [4.9 regression] 64-bit libffi.call/cls_double_va.c FAILs after recent modification

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60073 --- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou --- It's a bad interaction between closures and variadic functions (and the other test cls_longdouble_va.c passes by accident), which will require the SPARC-V9 code to define FFI_TARGET_SPECIFIC_VARIADIC. I'm a b

[Bug c/53123] Double return statement in c-omp.c source file

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53123 --- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Wed Feb 5 21:06:56 2014 New Revision: 207524 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207524&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c/53123 c-family/ * c-omp.c (c_finish_omp_atomic): Remove unre

[Bug c/53123] Double return statement in c-omp.c source file

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53123 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/53123] Double return statement in c-omp.c source file

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53123 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/42174] Gcc and pointers to empty structures.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42174 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug objc/56044] Add dialect option to gobjc to prevent instance variables from posing as local variables inside methods.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56044 --- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, dpapavas at gmail dot com wrote: > I see, thanks for the advice. Just a clarification: you mean that I should CC > the personal email of the two objc maintainers as I fi

[Bug ipa/60072] wrong code (for code with an optimize attribute) at -O0 on x86_64-linux-gnu in 32-bit mode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60072 --- Comment #4 from Zhendong Su --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > It is fixed by the same patch, and is the same problem. If one of the two > PRs ever worked with optimize attribute, it was purely by accident. Okay, thanks Jakub!

[Bug objc/56044] Add dialect option to gobjc to prevent instance variables from posing as local variables inside methods.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56044 --- Comment #10 from Dimitris Papavasiliou --- I see, thanks for the advice. Just a clarification: you mean that I should CC the personal email of the two objc maintainers as I find it from the page below, correct? http://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/bra

[Bug c/59850] Support sparse-style pointer address spaces (type attributes)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59850 --- Comment #14 from Tom Tromey --- (In reply to Josh Triplett from comment #11) > Without -Wcast-to-as, you won't get a warning for unforced casts that add an > address space. Thanks! > Personally, I'd actually suggest merging the two in GCC,

[Bug c/46112] internal compiler error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46112 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c/59850] Support sparse-style pointer address spaces (type attributes)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59850 --- Comment #13 from Josh Triplett --- (In reply to H. Peter Anvin from comment #8) > Arguably the *right* way to solve that would be to support __null for C as > well as for C++. __null or nullptr?

[Bug c/59850] Support sparse-style pointer address spaces (type attributes)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59850 --- Comment #12 from Josh Triplett --- (In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #9) > (In reply to Josh Triplett from comment #7) > > > I can't think of a legitimate reason to have a null pointer constant in a > > non-zero address space; there's alre

[Bug c/59850] Support sparse-style pointer address spaces (type attributes)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59850 --- Comment #11 from Josh Triplett --- (In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #10) > Relatedly, could you say what the option "-Wcast-to-as" provides > beyond the normal warnings about changing address spaces? > I wonder if this is something I shoul

[Bug ada/60078] acats c761007 fails on ARM

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078 --- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #4) > > This passes for me on armv5tel-linux-gnueabi with gcc trunk/4.8/4.7, on real > > HW (Kirkwood), glibc-2.17, linux-3.13 kernel. > > Single or multi core? Si

[Bug target/60084] GCC 4.8.3 miscompiles code on ARM at -Os optimization level

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60084 --- Comment #8 from Florin Iucha --- Andrew, You are correct! Sorry, I have missed the lack of 'extern'. I noticed the warning, but did not heed it ;( florin

[Bug target/60084] GCC 4.8.3 miscompiles code on ARM at -Os optimization level

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60084 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/60084] GCC 4.8.3 miscompiles code on ARM at -Os optimization level

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60084 --- Comment #6 from Florin Iucha --- Andrew, Is that a general comment regarding Linaro GCC build, or do you have more specific information about some of their changes that might have an impact on compiling the source code I am referencing in thi

[Bug target/60084] GCC 4.8.3 miscompiles code on ARM at -Os optimization level

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60084 --- Comment #5 from Florin Iucha --- Created attachment 32059 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32059&action=edit Preprocessed source file (both 4.7.4 and 4.8.3 produce the same .i file)

[Bug target/60084] GCC 4.8.3 miscompiles code on ARM at -Os optimization level

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60084 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- Do you have the preprocessed source? >Using GCC built by Linaro. Also you should be reporting this bug to them as they are the ones who modified the source.

[Bug target/60084] GCC 4.8.3 miscompiles code on ARM at -Os optimization level

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60084 --- Comment #3 from Florin Iucha --- gcc version 4.7.4 20130913 (release) [ARM/embedded-4_7-branch revision 202601] (GNU Tools for ARM Embedded Processors) generates the same code as 4.7.3

[Bug debug/59575] [4.9 regression] ICE in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2239

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59575 Richard Henderson changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|rth at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- C

[Bug debug/52727] [4.9 Regression] internal compiler error at dwarf2cfi.c2:685

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52727 --- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #23) > Re-fixed. That is, the broken commit reverted and another fix > for that other problem (with apparently no PR) applied. For the record, the other problem w

[Bug c/60084] GCC 4.8.3 miscompiles code on ARM at -Os optimization level

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60084 --- Comment #2 from Florin Iucha --- Created attachment 32058 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32058&action=edit objdump of binary built with gcc-4.8.3

[Bug c/60084] GCC 4.8.3 miscompiles code on ARM at -Os optimization level

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60084 --- Comment #1 from Florin Iucha --- Created attachment 32057 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32057&action=edit objdump of binary built with gcc-4.7.3

[Bug c/60084] New: GCC 4.8.3 miscompiles code on ARM at -Os optimization level

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60084 Bug ID: 60084 Summary: GCC 4.8.3 miscompiles code on ARM at -Os optimization level Product: gcc Version: 4.8.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug debug/52727] [4.9 Regression] internal compiler error at dwarf2cfi.c2:685

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52727 Richard Henderson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ada/60078] acats c761007 fails on ARM

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou --

[Bug debug/52727] [4.9 Regression] internal compiler error at dwarf2cfi.c2:685

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52727 --- Comment #22 from Richard Henderson --- Author: rth Date: Wed Feb 5 18:42:19 2014 New Revision: 207518 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207518&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR debug/52727 * combine-stack-adj.c: Revert r206943. *

[Bug c/59984] OpenMP and Cilk Plus SIMD pragma makes loop incorrect

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59984 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/59176] [4.9 Regression] ICE edge points to wrong declaration / verify_cgraph_node failed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59176 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug c++/60082] Certain Cilk keywords executable Hanging for -O1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60082 --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > According to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2014-02/msg1.html > this appeared between r207378 and r207382 (candidates r207382 or r207383). (candidates r207382 or r207383) should be r207382

[Bug ada/60078] acats c761007 fails on ARM

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078 --- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson --- This passes for me on armv5tel-linux-gnueabi with gcc trunk/4.8/4.7, on real HW (Kirkwood), glibc-2.17, linux-3.13 kernel.

[Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 --- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Created attachment 32056 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32056&action=edit sampling of one of the runs.

[Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 --- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Even that seems to require ifunc support, which isn't supported on Solaris > even with gld. AFAICR ifunc is not supported on darwin. I have posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-02/m

[Bug c++/60082] Certain Cilk keywords executable Hanging for -O1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60082 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/60082] Certain Cilk keywords executable Hanging for -O1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60082 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug libffi/60073] [4.9 regression] 64-bit libffi.call/cls_double_va.c FAILs after recent modification

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60073 --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou --- Btw, in the introduction section of the documentation, there is: "Compilers for high level languages generate code that follow certain conventions. These conventions are necessary, in part, for separate comp

[Bug c/59753] -Woverflow warning inconsistency with signed constant conversion between T_MAX+1 and UT_MAX vs larger than UT_MAX

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59753 --- Comment #6 from Vincent Lefèvre --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #5) > (In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #4) > > There's still an inconsistency without -Wpedantic, which is the point of > > this bug. I've changed the b

[Bug c/59850] Support sparse-style pointer address spaces (type attributes)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59850 --- Comment #10 from Tom Tromey --- Relatedly, could you say what the option "-Wcast-to-as" provides beyond the normal warnings about changing address spaces? I wonder if this is something I should be pulling in as well. "man sparse" doesn't reall

[Bug middle-end/57748] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE when expanding assignment to unaligned zero-sized array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748 --- Comment #54 from Bernd Edlinger --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #53) > So fixed on the trunk? yes, fixed on trunk.

[Bug c/59850] Support sparse-style pointer address spaces (type attributes)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59850 --- Comment #9 from Tom Tromey --- (In reply to Josh Triplett from comment #7) > I can't think of a legitimate reason to have a null pointer constant in a > non-zero address space; there's already a null pointer constant, NULL, > effectively in a

[Bug c/60083] New: Duplicate conversion warnings from negative integer to unsigned type (gcc-4.3 emits only one warning)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60083 Bug ID: 60083 Summary: Duplicate conversion warnings from negative integer to unsigned type (gcc-4.3 emits only one warning) Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRME

[Bug objc/56044] Add dialect option to gobjc to prevent instance variables from posing as local variables inside methods.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56044 --- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- After sending a patch to gcc-patches, please keep pinging weekly on gcc-patches with the ObjC maintainers CC:ed, and giving the URL of the original patch submission, for as long as it takes

[Bug middle-end/57748] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE when expanding assignment to unaligned zero-sized array

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug middle-end/59150] [4.9 Regression] ICE: in expand_one_var, at cfgexpand.c:1242 with -fopenmp

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59150 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 32055 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32055&action=edit gcc49-pr59150.patch Untested fix for that and various other issues.

[Bug ada/60078] acats c761007 fails on ARM

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078 --- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger --- it's a real hardware (Altera CyloneV SoC Eva-Board) with dual core ARMv7 running linux and eglibc

[Bug c++/60082] Certain Cilk keywords executable Hanging for -O1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60082 Balaji V. Iyer changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |major

[Bug rtl-optimization/59999] [4.9 Regression] Sign extension in loop regression blocks generation of zero overhead loop

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5 --- Comment #11 from Paulo J. Matos --- (In reply to Paulo J. Matos from comment #10) > (In reply to Paulo J. Matos from comment #8) > > > > Made a mistake. With the attached test, the final gimple before expand for > > the loop basic block is: >

[Bug c++/60082] New: Certain Cilk keywords executable Hanging for -O1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60082 Bug ID: 60082 Summary: Certain Cilk keywords executable Hanging for -O1 Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c/59850] Support sparse-style pointer address spaces (type attributes)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59850 --- Comment #8 from H. Peter Anvin --- Arguably the *right* way to solve that would be to support __null for C as well as for C++.

[Bug middle-end/59737] [4.9 Regression] ice from optimize_inline_calls

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59737 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug c/59753] -Woverflow warning inconsistency with signed constant conversion between T_MAX+1 and UT_MAX vs larger than UT_MAX

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59753 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug ada/60078] acats c761007 fails on ARM

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/59753] -Woverflow warning inconsistency with signed constant conversion between T_MAX+1 and UT_MAX vs larger than UT_MAX

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59753 Vincent Lefèvre changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|WORKSFOR

[Bug libffi/60073] [4.9 regression] 64-bit libffi.call/cls_double_va.c FAILs after recent modification

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60073 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|ebotcazou at

[Bug c++/60047] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE with defaulted copy constructor and virtual base class

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60047 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug libffi/60073] [4.9 regression] 64-bit libffi.call/cls_double_va.c FAILs after recent modification

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60073 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Target|sparc*-sun-solaris2.* |sparc*-*-* Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug ipa/59918] [4.9 Regression] ICE in record_target_from_binfo, at ipa-devirt.c:693

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59918 --- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #5) > Should be the same issue as PR59947 No. Still happens after r207512.

[Bug ipa/59918] [4.9 Regression] ICE in record_target_from_binfo, at ipa-devirt.c:693

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59918 Bug 59918 depends on bug 59947, which changed state. Bug 59947 Summary: [4.9 Regression] Segmentation fault with #pragma GCC optimize ("O2"), ICE in get_odr_type http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59947 What|Removed

[Bug c++/58703] [4.9 Regression] ICE with invalid types in OpenMP declare reduction clause

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58703 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ipa/59947] [4.9 Regression] Segmentation fault with #pragma GCC optimize ("O2"), ICE in get_odr_type

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59947 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ipa/60072] wrong code (for code with an optimize attribute) at -O0 on x86_64-linux-gnu in 32-bit mode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60072 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- It is fixed by the same patch, and is the same problem. If one of the two PRs ever worked with optimize attribute, it was purely by accident.

[Bug c++/60081] New: Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines re-entered.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60081 Bug ID: 60081 Summary: Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines re-entered. Product: gcc Version: 4.7.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major Pr

[Bug c/59850] Support sparse-style pointer address spaces (type attributes)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59850 --- Comment #7 from Josh Triplett --- (In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #6) > Null pointer constants are treated specially, which makes sense, > but only if they have type "void *" and are in address space 0. Otherwise, they're not a null poin

[Bug c/59753] Missing -Woverflow warning with signed constant conversion between T_MAX+1 and UT_MAX

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59753 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/60062] [4.7/4.9 Regression] wrong code (for code with the optimize attribute) at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu in 32-bit mode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60062 --- Comment #5 from Zhendong Su --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > *** Bug 60072 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** The testcase below is most likely another dup as the only difference is that it affects the trunk at -

[Bug rtl-optimization/59999] [4.9 Regression] Sign extension in loop regression blocks generation of zero overhead loop

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5 --- Comment #10 from Paulo J. Matos --- (In reply to Paulo J. Matos from comment #8) > > Made a mistake. With the attached test, the final gimple before expand for > the loop basic block is: > ;; basic block 5, loop depth 0 > ;;pred:

[Bug ipa/59947] [4.9 Regression] Segmentation fault with #pragma GCC optimize ("O2"), ICE in get_odr_type

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59947 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Feb 5 15:34:25 2014 New Revision: 207512 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207512&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR ipa/59947 * ipa-devirt.c (possible_polymorphic_call_targets): Fix

[Bug c++/58703] [4.9 Regression] ICE with invalid types in OpenMP declare reduction clause

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58703 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Feb 5 15:32:01 2014 New Revision: 207511 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207511&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/58703 * parser.c (cp_parser_omp_declare_reduction): Save and

[Bug ipa/60072] wrong code (for code with an optimize attribute) at -O0 on x86_64-linux-gnu in 32-bit mode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60072 --- Comment #2 from Zhendong Su --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > Seems to be a dup of PR60062. > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 60062 *** Sorry for the dup Jakub, but are you certain about it? Since 60062

[Bug middle-end/60080] New: gcc.dg/vect/vect-nop-move.c FAILs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60080 Bug ID: 60080 Summary: gcc.dg/vect/vect-nop-move.c FAILs Product: gcc Version: 4.9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-end

[Bug middle-end/60080] gcc.dg/vect/vect-nop-move.c FAILs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60080 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0

[Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 --- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe --- (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #13) > > --- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe --- > [...] > > Do you repeat the findings we see on Darwin, where a heavily loaded system > > does > > not ex

[Bug target/60076] gcc.dg/vect/pr60012.c FAILs on Solaris/SPARC

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60076 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Wed Feb 5 15:14:56 2014 New Revision: 207509 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207509&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2014-02-05 Richard Biener PR testsuite/60076 * gcc.dg/vect/pr

  1   2   >