https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60281
--- Comment #5 from linzj ---
Sorry, but I have to wait for my GNU assignment.
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #4)
> From code generated currently - looks fixed for 4.9.1 since GCC 4.9.0 was
> actually released on 22nd April !
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62118
Bug ID: 62118
Summary: cases under libstdc++-v3/testsuite/ext/ failed on
aarch64/arm
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62118
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46164
--- Comment #4 from Tim Pambor ---
Created attachment 33307
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33307&action=edit
testcase for gcc 4.9.1
I think this bug is still present in gcc 4.9.1 and 4.8.4.
I could reproduce the problem wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62119
Bug ID: 62119
Summary: dangling reference : gslice_array's copy constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46164
Tim Pambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33307|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46164
--- Comment #6 from Tim Pambor ---
Created attachment 33309
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33309&action=edit
"-da" rtl files for testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62119
--- Comment #1 from Akira Takahashi ---
expected output:
0
99
99
3
4
5
99
99
8
9
10
99
99
13
14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
Sven C. Dack changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|--with-build-config=bootstr |--with-build-config=bootstr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
Sven C. Dack changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33299|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62112
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62011
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62102
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
--- Comment #1 from Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62091
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ice in before_dom_children |[4.10 Regression] ice in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62090
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Yuri Rumyantsev from comment #8)
> Richard,
>
> I tested both proposed fixes and i turned out that the first one is
> preferable since performance of benchmark came back. Note that hoisting 2nd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62115
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener ---
Note that the differences can be reproduced even with non-LTO cc1/cc1plus.
Thus,
do a regular bootstrap --without-build-config then re-build stage2
build/genconfig.o with -flto (using
the stage1 compiler)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62120
Bug ID: 62120
Summary: [ICE] ADDITIONAL_REGISTER_NAMES for [YZ]MMs, regno>8
should be disable in 32-bit
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
--- Comment #4 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Aug 13 09:37:41 2014
New Revision: 213899
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213899&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-13 Thomas Preud'homme
Backport from mainli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #19)
> Note that the differences can be reproduced even with non-LTO cc1/cc1plus.
> Thus,
> do a regular bootstrap --without-build-config then re-build stage2
> bui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
--- Comment #21 from Venkataramanan ---
I randomly tried some revisions and last one that passed was r209650 on
2014-04-22. I am still continuing to go down and see some more revision.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62073
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Aug 13 10:03:15 2014
New Revision: 213901
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213901&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-12 Felix Yang
PR tree-optimization/62073
* tree-vec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62073
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Aug 13 10:11:49 2014
New Revision: 213904
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213904&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-13 Felix Yang
PR tree-optimization/62073
* tree-vec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
So if I instrument build_string_literal with
Index: builtins.c
===
--- builtins.c (revision 213814)
+++ builtins.c (working copy)
@@ -59,6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
--- Comment #23 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #22)
> So if I instrument build_string_literal with
>
> Index: builtins.c
> ===
> --- builtins.c (r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
Or "real" fix for the type_hash_canon issue (untested)
Index: gcc/tree.c
===
--- gcc/tree.c (revision 213814)
+++ gcc/tree.c (working copy)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62118
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Aug 13 11:24:35 2014
New Revision: 213906
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213906&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-13 Paolo Carlini
PR libstdc++/62118
* inclu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62118
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62116
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Shafik Yaghmour from comment #0)
> as far as I can tell both gcc 4.8.x and clang are correct here based on my
> reading of section 8.3 paragraph 6:
>
> int(::x) ;
>
> is equivalent to:
>
> i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62121
Bug ID: 62121
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62121
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35919
Georg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||georggcc at googlemail dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32164
Georg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||georggcc at googlemail dot com
--- Comment #16 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62122
Bug ID: 62122
Summary: GNAT RM: flaw in example of @node Attribute
Unrestricted_Access
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62123
Bug ID: 62123
Summary: internal compiler error: output_operand: invalid
expression as operand with option -std=c++11 and using
std::complex
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62079
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, so this is if-after-reload which calls loop_optimizer_init on a CFG
with an unreachable block. Thus we miss a cfg-cleanup somewhere.
Note that regular ifcvt runs a cleanup_cfg (CLEANUP_EXPENSIVE), but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62124
Bug ID: 62124
Summary: Out-of-bounds array access in optimized loop
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62125
Bug ID: 62125
Summary: Nested select type not accepted (rejects valid)
Product: gcc
Version: fortran-dev
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50595
Zack Weinberg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62124
Michael Marino changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
--- Comment #27 from Sven C. Dack ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #24)
> Or "real" fix for the type_hash_canon issue (untested)
>
> Index: gcc/tree.c
> ===
> --- gcc/tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62079
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62123
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62075
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9/5 Regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
--- Comment #28 from Venkataramanan ---
Richard,
I am still not able to understand why this problem is not seen in trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32164
--- Comment #17 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
4.8.2 and 4.9.1 behave well too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62116
--- Comment #2 from Shafik Yaghmour ---
I am happy to be mistaken here, but it seems like section 6.8 paragraph 1
applies, for example if we have the following:
int(y) = 10;
it is being treated as a declaration not a cast and further more secti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16082
--- Comment #3 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
Fixed in 4.8.2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16084
--- Comment #3 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
Fixed in 4.8.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40986
--- Comment #18 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
Fixed in 4.8.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40936
--- Comment #5 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
4.8.2 correctly detects the error:
gnat_bug.adb:13:10: enclosing body of accept must be a task
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37110
--- Comment #8 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
Both triggers produce the expected behaviour with 4.8.2:
gcc-4.8 -c trigger1.adb
gcc-4.8 -c p.ads
cannot generate code for file p.ads (package spec)
gnatmake: "p.ads" compilation error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50197
--- Comment #2 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
4.8.2 produces the expected result:
a.ads:10:10: unmatched actual "Foo"
a.ads:10:10: in instantiation of "B" declared at line 5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62025
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 33314
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33314&action=edit
pr62025.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62024
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Whatever we do for __atomic_always_lock_free, note that we'll probably
need to find some way for ATOMIC_*_LOCK_FREE (in stdatomic.h) to expand
to something usable in #if.
http://www.open-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62025
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 33315
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33315&action=edit
pr62025-2.c
Possible testcase for the testsuite. Except this one only used to be
miscompiled with trunk and n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62102
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62102
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
-fno-early-inlining triggers segfaults on non-cris targets.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58583
--- Comment #3 from Volker Reichelt ---
Since May all three testcases ICE on trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62126
Bug ID: 62126
Summary: -Wshadow for typedef and template parm
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61841
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Aug 13 18:40:10 2014
New Revision: 213922
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213922&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/61841
* include/std/thread (thread::_M_start_thread)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61841
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62091
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Honza - these should always be gcc_checking_assert ()s - there is no need to
> ICE (and in fact it shouldn't even be a gcc_checking_assert in any tree but
> yours used for testing).
Yep, I plan to remove the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62106
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62127
Bug ID: 62127
Summary: [5.0 Regression] ICE with VLA in constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62127
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.0, 4.8.0, 4.9.0
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
--- Comment #29 from Venkataramanan ---
Hi Richard,
I tried the patch you posted last on GCC patches, on top of GCC 4.9 on Aarch64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-08/msg01324.html
I am still getting same number of compare errors.
Now
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62128
Bug ID: 62128
Summary: Use vpalignr for AVX2 rotation
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61566
Brooks Moses changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61566
--- Comment #8 from Brooks Moses ---
Here's the traceback:
$ ~/gcc-archive/trunk/213772/bin/g++ --std=c++11 -c t2.cc
t.cc: In instantiation of ‘std::function<_Res(_ArgTypes
...)>::function(_Functor) [with _Functor = C<>::;
= int; _Res = std::A;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62100
Peter A. Bigot changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62105
Kostya Serebryany changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eugeni.stepanov at gmail dot
com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53976
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25509
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppluzhnikov at google dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62102
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> +2014-06-28 Jan Hubicka
> +
> + * tree-inline.c (remap_type_1): Do not duplicate fields
> + that are shared in between type and its main vari
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25509
--- Comment #29 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Paul Pluzhnikov from comment #28)
> Well, that did expose the 30 bugs above, but unfortunately I can't do that
> permanently, because it also exposed this false positive:
>
>assert(v.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25509
--- Comment #30 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Paul Pluzhnikov from comment #28)
> P.S. Some of the bugs I found were in parts of the code imported from
> open-source projects, so it's not a problem that is specific to just Google.
> I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
--- Comment #30 from Venkataramanan ---
(In reply to Venkataramanan from comment #29)
> Hi Richard,
>
> I tried the patch you posted last on GCC patches, on top of GCC 4.9 on
> Aarch64.
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-08/msg01324.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60465
Mike Frysinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62129
Bug ID: 62129
Summary: internal compiler error: in output_constant, at
varasm.c:4755
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60465
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
This sounds like the same bug which I fixed with the set of patches at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-08/msg00932.html .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
--- Comment #5 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Thu Aug 14 06:16:56 2014
New Revision: 213941
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213941&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-14 Thomas Preud'homme
Backport from mainli
85 matches
Mail list logo
