http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60470
Bug ID: 60470
Summary: Building gcc using "make" fails after a successful
configure when flex and bison are not installed.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60471
Bug ID: 60471
Summary: template aliasing doesn't compile (using aa = bb)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60471
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60438
--- Comment #21 from linzj ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #19)
> Created attachment 32311 [details]
> proposed patch
>
> Running full tests on this overnight, but it fixes the ICE.
It just pass the tests & fixes the ICE.But it a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60438
--- Comment #22 from linzj ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #19)
> Created attachment 32311 [details]
> proposed patch
>
> Running full tests on this overnight, but it fixes the ICE.
If you just want to pass the tests,you may use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60438
--- Comment #23 from linzj ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #19)
> Created attachment 32311 [details]
> proposed patch
>
> Running full tests on this overnight, but it fixes the ICE.
I try to remove the following hunk from you pat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60472
Bug ID: 60472
Summary: Warning: array subscript is above array bounds when
compiling crtstuff.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60472
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Reduced testcase:
--cut here--
static void *__JCR_LIST__[] __attribute__ ((used)) = { };
void frame_dummy (void)
{
if (__JCR_LIST__[0])
asm ("");
}
--cut here--
~/gcc-build/gcc/cc1 -O2 -Wall -quiet t.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60470
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is expected and only effects snapshots and subversion users and never the
release.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60471
--- Comment #2 from Martin ---
Oh, sorry, thanks for the info.
On 03/09/2014 01:21 PM, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60471
>
> Marc Glisse changed:
>
> What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60363
bin.cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker.cheng at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60363
--- Comment #3 from bin.cheng ---
After patching 208165, there are two more jump threading opportunities for dom1
pass. Jump threading is doing alright, the interesting thing is why there is
no such opportunities before patching.
I attatched rel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60473
Bug ID: 60473
Summary: optimization after shift sub-optimal
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimizat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60474
Bug ID: 60474
Summary: [regression] Crash in tree_class_check
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60267
--- Comment #13 from Sylwester Arabas ---
Just confirming it solved the problem with compilation of Blitz++ with the
ivdep pragmas.
Thanks,
Sylwester
P.S. Turning them on, causes a slowdown in this case, though :).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60474
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59746
--- Comment #4 from Bud Davis ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2014-03/msg00066.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60363
--- Comment #4 from bin.cheng ---
Although may be irrelavant. I found loop's latch doesn't get updated after
removing the forwarder latch basic block. Previous patch only catches function
remove_forwarder_block, but remove_forwarder_block_with_p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60438
--- Comment #24 from linzj ---
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes102183
# of expected failures251
# of unsupported tests1322
This is the result after removing the methioned hunk.Seems okay for me.
make check
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60474
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60474
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60452
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> But even if I try:
> int a;
> __attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void
> foo (int *e)
> {
> asm volatile ("" : : "r" (e) : "memory");
> }
>
> int
> main ()
> {
> int e[2] = { 0, 0 }, f = 0;
> if (a ==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60470
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's also documented: http://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html#TOC1
While it would be nice if it failed earlier, we don't want configure to fail
for releases if flex isn't installed, because it isn't n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59626
--- Comment #16 from David Kredba ---
Todays Gentoo to tree pushed flac-1.3.0 with gcc-4.9 rev. 208429. The flac
package is still broken in ABI=32 but this should go anyway I think.
/usr/include/bits/stdio2.h: In function
'FLAC__metadata_simple_i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60475
Bug ID: 60475
Summary: undefined reference to `__gxx_personality_seh0'
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60476
Bug ID: 60476
Summary: DWARF DW_AT_declaration && DW_AT_low_pc
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60450
--- Comment #9 from Dave Allured ---
(In reply to janus from comment #8)
>
> Thanks, committed to the 4.8 branch as r208430. Will backport to 4.7 soon.
Janus, are you sure that the release branch of 4.7 really needs a fix? My test
shows that th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60475
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60221
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zosrothko at orange dot fr
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60475
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pins
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60450
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dave Allured from comment #9)
> Janus, are you sure that the release branch of 4.7 really needs a fix? My
> test shows that the latest release, 4.7.3, passes this test case, but you
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60450
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Mar 9 18:44:42 2014
New Revision: 208443
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208443&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-09 Janus Weil
Backport from 4.8
2014-03-08 J
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60450
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60450
--- Comment #13 from Dave Allured ---
(In reply to janus from comment #11)
> (In reply to Dave Allured from comment #9)
> > Janus, are you sure that the release branch of 4.7 really needs a fix? My
> > test shows that the latest release, 4.7.3,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60155
--- Comment #11 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 3-Mar-14, at 8:01 PM, danglin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Bah, doesn't fix bug:
Attached new patch which seems to fix bug. Testing.
--
John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60477
Bug ID: 60477
Summary: unlimited type class(*) not working properly
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60477
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60325
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
It looks that this failure was fixed between r208406 [1] and r208419 [2].
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-03/msg00432.html
[2] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-03/msg00454.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60325
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> It looks that this failure was fixed between r208406 [1] and r208419 [2].
>
> [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-03/msg00432.html
> [2] http://gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60477
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60410
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
On x86_64-apple-darwin13 I get the same ICE in 32 bit mode also (-m32):
FAIL: gcc.dg/lto/pr55113 c_lto_pr55113_0.o assemble, -flto -fshort-double -O0
(internal compiler error)
UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/lto/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60475
--- Comment #3 from zosrothko at orange dot fr ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> (In reply to zosrothko from comment #0)
> > $ gcc -xc++ -std=gnu++11 -o foo foo.c
>
> To link a C++ program you should explicitly link to the C++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38199
--- Comment #34 from Jerry DeLisle ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2014-03/msg00079.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60478
Bug ID: 60478
Summary: convert_move assert failed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
As
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60479
Bug ID: 60479
Summary: convert_move assert failed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
As
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60478
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60479
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
*** Bug 60478 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
gcc 4.8.2 fails to do optimization on global register variables when
compiling on x86_64 Linux.
Consider the following code:
-
include
register uint64_t i0_BP __asm__ ("r14");
register uint64_t i0_SP __asm__ ("r15");
void
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60480
Bug ID: 60480
Summary: gcc 4.8.2 fails to do optimization on global register
variables when compiling on x86_64 Linux.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
50 matches
Mail list logo
