http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58048
--- Comment #11 from Bernd Edlinger ---
hmm, this test compiles correctly if -msse2 is used.
gcc -O2 -msse2 -mno-avx -S intrinsics_4.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #3)
> To get rid of all of them, I would propose to use the gfc_symbol.resolved
> field (this is already done for ordinary symbols in 'resolve_symbol'). For
> derived
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58048
--- Comment #10 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #9)
so this test case has no chance to pass on a target without avx.
maybe this should be added to the test case then?
/* { dg-require-effective-target avx } */
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58104
--- Comment #6 from barto at visionpro dot com ---
Compiling the code listed in the original bug report with gcc4.8 using the
-pthread flag the program fails to complete execution due to a segmentation
fault while attempting to acquire a std::once_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58104
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
"Failed to execute" and "segmentation fault" are not the same thing, it would
help if you actually say what the problem is!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #3)
> For another example, see PR 51945. In this case, the double resolution seems
> to be related to the default initialization.
Here is a reduced test case from thi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51945
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Btw, here is a variant which triggers an internal error similar to comment 3,
but already with a clean trunk:
type t
integer :: i = 3
end type t
type my_t
integer :: i = t()
end type
type(my_t)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42955
--- Comment #9 from Brooks Moses ---
Patch posted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00490.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58048
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51945
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|una
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58101
--- Comment #3 from Luis A Lozano ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> Perhaps a dup of PR41847. Fails even with -O2, -O3, -Ofast, no only -Os.
> -fno-tree-vrp makes it go away...
I dont think it is a duplicate of this issue.
This
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58107
Bug ID: 58107
Summary: missing destructor call after thrown exception in
lambda capture
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44978
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|extended derived types are |derived types are resolved
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51945
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The following patch should somewhat improve the situation:
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/resolve.c(revision 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58079
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58079
--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Patch applied to trunk.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51945
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Applying the patches from PR 49213 (comments 8, 10 and 16), I get the
following:
1) test case with comment: same as before (error with t2)
2) test case with uncommented line:
c0.f90:15.16:
ty
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56824
Magnus Reftel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.7.3
Known to fail|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51945
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58104
--- Comment #4 from barto at visionpro dot com ---
Adding the -pthread flag allows the code to compile and execute on Linux.
MacOS still fails to execute.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42955
--- Comment #8 from Brooks Moses ---
FWIW, there was some interesting discussion of this on
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15823.
In particular, Joseph Myers argues that "the bug is installing the files in
$target/bin/ at all ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58064
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58085
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49213
--- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
With the patch in comment #16 the 'Internal Error' when compiling the code in
comment #15 disappears, but appears when compiling the test in pr51945 with the
type-declaration line 'type(my_t) :: a' is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51945
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58106
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58104
--- Comment #3 from DBarto at visionpro dot com ---
/opt/local/bin/g++-mp-4.7 -std=c++11 -Wall -Wextra -pthread -g use_once.cpp -o
use_once
./use_once
571_ ./use_once
Segmentation fault: 11
gdb use_once
(gdb) r
Starting program: /Users/barto/mvp/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58104
--- Comment #2 from DBarto at visionpro dot com ---
I added the -pthread flag and nothing changed.
The code failed to execute at the point noted in the assembly output.
David
On Aug 8, 2013, at 9:10 AM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> ht
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58106
Bug ID: 58106
Summary: ICE: in ipa_edge_duplication_hook, at ipa-prop.c:2839
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58105
Bug ID: 58105
Summary: wrong code generation for multiversioned functions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58104
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Works for me.
Are you using the -pthread flag?
You haven't actually said what fails, what fails to execute?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58104
Bug ID: 58104
Summary: std::call_once appears to fail on standard code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55057
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #8)
> (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #7)
> > It has been fixed between revisions 194721 and 195140.
>
> I can confirm that it is fixed on trunk, so le
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55057
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51160
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46321
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43366
Bug 43366 depends on bug 46321, which changed state.
Bug 46321 Summary: [OOP] Polymorphic deallocation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46321
What|Removed |Added
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58103
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This has nothing to do with GCC anyway.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57431
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56979
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Fixed with
PR target/56979
* arm.c (aapcs_vfp_allocate): Decompose the argument if the
suggested mode for the assignment isn't compatible with the
registers required.
On Trunk: r201598.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56193
David Abdurachmanov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david.abdurachmanov at gmail
dot c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58103
--- Comment #4 from heinz.dob...@fh-hagenberg.at ---
Thanks, maybe some other person has an idea for this problem ;-)
H
-Original Message-
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org [mailto:gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org]
Sent: Donnerstag, 08. August 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58103
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Sorry, I don't know neither Microsoft compiler nor Windows enough to answer
that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58103
--- Comment #2 from heinz.dob...@fh-hagenberg.at ---
Hello Marek!
Thank you for your fast response.
BUT: Why does it work when I compile this C program with, e.g., the Microsoft C
compiler (cl).
By the way: "echo ???" prints "???" (Windows).
Be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58103
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58048
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58103
Bug ID: 58103
Summary: Error in handling of command line parameters in
main(int argc, char *argv[]), in case of ???..?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58084
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54080
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57194
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cickumqt at gmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58065
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #10)
> (In reply to janus from comment #7)
> > The following patch makes the error go away, but (as expected) causes a
> > failure of proc_ptr_result_8.f90 in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus ---
I just saw that Janus has already posted a patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-08/msg00026.html , which is probably
sufficient for 4.8. But for 4.9 [at least as follow up], see my previous
remarks (comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
54 matches
Mail list logo
