https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61923
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 33200
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33200&action=edit
original testcase
The issue is more visible with the original attached testcase:
markus@x4 linux % diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61938
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
array[selectvector[i]]
is not handled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61913
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61913
>
> --- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibá??ez ---
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Manuel López-Ibá??ez from comment #4)
> >
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61913
>
> --- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibá??ez ---
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Manuel López-Ibá??ez from comment #4)
> > > It is pretty strange that you need a Var() if it is not used anywhere.
> >
> > It is, w
> > It seems quite a major deficiency if we are going to keep adding warnings to
> > LTO, which are never tested and there is a high chance they are not working
> > at all. Is there a PR about it? Is Jan or someone else working on it?
>
> I don't know about such PR. Neither do I know whether Jan'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61913
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
> > It seems quite a major deficiency if we are going to keep adding warnings to
> > LTO, which are never tested and there is a high chance they are not working
> > at all. Is there a PR about it? Is Jan or so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57868
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60615
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60616
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60862
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61929
--- Comment #3 from Charles Greathouse ---
This appears to also block -floop-parallelize-all from functioning in these
cases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61940
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61929
Charles Greathouse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.8.3, 4.9.1
--- Comment #2 from Ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59837
--- Comment #2 from zhenqiang.chen at linaro dot org ---
The commit (r208511) fix the issue.
2014-03-12 Christian Bruel
PR target/60264
* config/arm/arm.c (arm_emit_vfp_multi_reg_pop): Emit a
REG_CFA_DEF_CFA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61929
Charles Greathouse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59837
zhenqiang.chen at linaro dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61941
Bug ID: 61941
Summary: Mis-parsing of warn_unused_result function with
ref-qualifiers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61940
Bug ID: 61940
Summary: Wrong error location for error in initialization list
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36631
--- Comment #15 from Daniel Santos ---
ack, undoing, so sorry!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61914
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 33198
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33198&action=edit
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61844
--- Comment #11 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to dhowe...@redhat.com from comment #2)
> Created attachment 33144 [details]
> Old, no-longer functional patch to libgcc
>
> I was given the attached patch when I was on gcc-4.7 but it doesn't seem to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61844
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo ---
Created attachment 33197
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33197&action=edit
a possible fix
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #9)
> The testcase in #7 can be compiled successfully whe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61939
Bug ID: 61939
Summary: warn when __attribute__((aligned(x))) is ignored
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61938
Bug ID: 61938
Summary: Vectorization not happening .
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61937
Bug ID: 61937
Summary: Misleading errors due to constructor template deducing
argument as void
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61914
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
This works:
diff --git a/gcc/gengtype.c b/gcc/gengtype.c
index ffe3f94..ce143ad 100644
--- a/gcc/gengtype.c
+++ b/gcc/gengtype.c
@@ -599,7 +599,8 @@ create_user_defined_type (const char *type_name, struct
fileloc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22401
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61914
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x32-*-* |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60850
--- Comment #9 from Tony Kelman ---
Sure. In a configure.ac, (in this case using autoconf 2.59, not sure the most
recent version for which this applies) a macro like
AC_CHECK_DECL([rand],[AC_DEFINE([HAVE_RAND],[1],
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60850
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Gutson
---
Could you please detail *exactly* what the problem is, what the output error is
and what does autotools do in its probe?
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61913
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #9)
> It doesn't seem to be the same bug at all. The other one does not ICE, just
> ignores -Wno-. I understand why -Wno- is ignored, but I don't understand why
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61935
Vyacheslav changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61913
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #8)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #5)
> > > (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61913
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #6)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
> > > It is pretty strange that you need a Var() if it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61913
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #5)
> > Also, most of my comments in this review have been ignored:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-07/msg00233.html
In particular, the manual d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61913
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #5)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
> > It is pretty strange that you need a Var() if it is not used anywhere.
>
> It is, we have a bug for i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61843
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||avr
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61935
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38958
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||galdralag at bk dot ru
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61920
--- Comment #8 from Ulrich Weigand ---
Author: uweigand
Date: Mon Jul 28 14:33:20 2014
New Revision: 213128
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213128&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libobjc/61920
* encoding.c (rs6000_special_adjust_field_ali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61920
--- Comment #7 from Ulrich Weigand ---
Author: uweigand
Date: Mon Jul 28 14:32:13 2014
New Revision: 213127
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213127&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libobjc/61920
* encoding.c (rs6000_special_adjust_field_ali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #62 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #60 from Richard Biener ---
[...]
> Fix:
>
> Index: gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
> ===
> --- gcc/tree-ssa-loo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61936
--- Comment #1 from SK ---
Apparently the errors remain under gcc 4.9
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24996398/gccg-being-bureaucratic-with-template-template-friends.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61913
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
> It is pretty strange that you need a Var() if it is not used anywhere.
It is, we have a bug for it: PR61480.
> Also, most of my comments in this review ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61480
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61936
Bug ID: 61936
Summary: gcc:g++ template template friends fail to compile.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61913
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61935
Bug ID: 61935
Summary: Missing "unused variable" warning in 4.9 but it was in
g++ 4.8
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54645
Winston Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||smith_winston_6079@hotmail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61762
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #9 from Richard Bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61762
--- Comment #8 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 33196
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33196&action=edit
-fdump-tree-release_ssa dump on sparc-sun-solaris2.11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61762
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60439
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61934
Bug ID: 61934
Summary: C++11 generalised attributes and plugins don't work
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61920
--- Comment #6 from Ulrich Weigand ---
Since we didn't backport the actual ABI change to the branches, only the
warning, I think it would be consistent to use something like this on the
branches:
#define rs6000_special_adjust_field_align_p(FIELD
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61895
--- Comment #1 from Dominik Vogt ---
> execv(argv[0], &argv[1]);
^^^ ^^^
1 2
Sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52478
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61801
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jul 28 09:02:39 2014
New Revision: 213121
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213121&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-07-28 Richard Biener
PR rtl-optimization/61801
* gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61801
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jul 28 09:02:23 2014
New Revision: 213120
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213120&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-07-28 Richard Biener
PR rtl-optimization/61801
* gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61801
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jul 28 09:01:54 2014
New Revision: 213119
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213119&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-07-28 Richard Biener
PR rtl-optimization/61801
* gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61734
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61734
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Jul 28 08:55:17 2014
New Revision: 213118
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213118&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/61734
* fold-const.c (fold_comparison): Disable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61909
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Jonath
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52478
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jul 28 08:47:38 2014
New Revision: 213117
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213117&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-07-28 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/52478
* optabs.c (g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61919
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61268
Bug 61268 depends on bug 61919, which changed state.
Bug 61919 Summary: [4.10 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_g0_6.f08 -O2
execution test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61919
What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61919
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Mon Jul 28 08:41:34 2014
New Revision: 213116
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213116&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR middle-end/61919
* tree-outof-ssa.c (ins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61913
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61913
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Jul 28 08:33:33 2014
New Revision: 213115
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213115&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/61913
* common.opt (Wodr): Add Var.
Modified:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61912
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61914
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.9.0 |4.10.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61919
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61921
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jul 28 08:25:34 2014
New Revision: 213114
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213114&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-07-28 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/61921
* tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61921
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61920
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61921
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61923
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Looks like a spurious diff though.
Not fully because TImode on an instruction means it was issued with a different
one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61921
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61923
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.4
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61921
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61932
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61933
Bug ID: 61933
Summary: Inquire on internal units
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61801
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jul 28 07:59:22 2014
New Revision: 213113
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213113&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-07-28 Richard Biener
PR rtl-optimization/61801
* gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61801
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jul 28 07:54:57 2014
New Revision: 213112
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213112&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-07-28 Richard Biener
PR rtl-optimization/61801
* gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61801
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jul 28 07:54:08 2014
New Revision: 213111
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213111&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-07-28 Richard Biener
PR rtl-optimization/61801
* gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61932
Bug ID: 61932
Summary: [4.10 Regression] ICE with -fipa-pta
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
86 matches
Mail list logo
