https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61998
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #4)
> I suppose VECtors do not like to grow to 0 size. THe following patch fixes
> the ICE, does it also fixe you real testcases?
> Index: ipa-devirt.c
> =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62236
Bug ID: 62236
Summary: : error: aggregate value used where an
integer was expected
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62125
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Dominique
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61998
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
I suppose VECtors do not like to grow to 0 size. THe following patch fixes the
ICE, does it also fixe you real testcases?
Index: ipa-devirt.c
===
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62125
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61998
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #2)
> Markus, can you add attachment?
Well, an empty testcase is enough. Or:
% echo "int main () {}" | g++ -Wsuggest-final-types -O2 -x c++ -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61998
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
Markus, can you add attachment?
LTO doesn't really know what C++ language flags was used. I guess because the
flags are not on by default, prople will use it only if they actually want to
use finals...
Docs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61913
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka ---
The testcase still seems to work for me (with and without linker plugin).
Without linker plugin collect2 will not execute LTO unless it can resolve
symbols. You need to link with g++ (and have runtime or path
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61956
--- Comment #2 from Bruce Adams ---
I have tried using a newer binutils (2.24) either installed before attempting
to build gcc or in a combined tree build.
The combined tree build complains that binutils/bfd is already configured when
I run make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61955
--- Comment #3 from Bruce Adams ---
Running configure using --disable-libcilkrts (in addition to
--disable-libsanitiser) which is not documented results in a useable gcc 4.9.1
(with c++ working but presumably cilk++ broken).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61955
--- Comment #2 from Bruce Adams ---
Running configure using --disable-libcilkrts (in addition to
--disable-libsanitiser) which is not documented results in a useable gcc 4.9.1
(with c++ working but presumably cilk++ broken).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62233
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This again is related to bug 37451.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60550
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62150
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62199
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62199
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Aug 22 19:44:27 2014
New Revision: 214360
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214360&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/62199
* doc/invoke.texi: Update -Wlogical-not-parenthese
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61271
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Aug 22 19:40:28 2014
New Revision: 214359
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214359&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/61271
* ira-color.c (coalesced_pseudo_reg_slot_compare):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61998
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31593
--- Comment #46 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #45)
> Anything left to fix in this PR?
Unfortunately yes...
We still do not take advantage of the fact that the call
to a subroutine cannot change the value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #13 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Author: manu
Date: Fri Aug 22 19:12:46 2014
New Revision: 214357
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214357&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
2014-08-22 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR c++/577
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62129
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Aug 22 18:49:18 2014
New Revision: 214353
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214353&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/62129
* class.c (outermost_open_class): Fix logic.
* de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62135
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
Status|A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62195
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62235
Bug ID: 62235
Summary: Storage_Error in the compiler
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: ada
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62135
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher ---
Author: steven
Date: Fri Aug 22 18:43:50 2014
New Revision: 214351
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214351&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
fortran/
PR fortran/62135
* resolve.c (resolve_select): Fix lis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61913
--- Comment #13 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #12)
>
> So my tree shows it by default. I am at a conference and have to go for
> talks,
I cannot reproduce the above in trunk. Is it that a testcase that only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62234
Bug ID: 62234
Summary: warnings/errors from LTO cannot be tested
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62195
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri Aug 22 17:53:00 2014
New Revision: 214340
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214340&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-22 Michael Meissner
Backport fro mainline
2014-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62233
Bug ID: 62233
Summary: unnecessary shift instructions to prepare loop counter
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62195
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri Aug 22 17:30:39 2014
New Revision: 214336
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214336&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-22 Michael Meissner
Backport fro mainline
2014-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62223
--- Comment #6 from tower120 ---
Well, classical "static_asssert is not a function/variable/etc" would be enough
for me.
Because "there are no arguments to 'static_asssert' that depend on a template
parameter" means that there IS such a function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62129
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Aug 22 16:58:25 2014
New Revision: 214333
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214333&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/62129
* class.c (outermost_open_class): New.
* cp-tree.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62195
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri Aug 22 16:47:15 2014
New Revision: 214329
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214329&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-22 Michael Meissner
PR target/62195
* doc/md.tex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61407
--- Comment #24 from Dominyk Tiller ---
(In reply to James Clarke from comment #16)
> Created attachment 33180 [details]
> Patch For GCC 4.9.1 On Yosemite
>
> Requires DP 4 (or above), as I have also removed the fix for Availability.h
> which wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62215
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52830
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62232
Bug ID: 62232
Summary: -Wnon-virtual-dtor shouldn't warn on final classes
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62231
Bug ID: 62231
Summary: Exception handling broken on
powerpc-e500v2-linux-gnuspe
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62049
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517
--- Comment #17 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #16)
> Note that we still do not warn for my original testcase.
I didn't close the PR ;-)
There are patches around that may need more work, see these discussions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62230
Bug ID: 62230
Summary: Legal program rejected, RM 4.3.2(3, 5/3),
ancestor_part can not be expression against error
message by compiler itself
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62226
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62228
Ankzz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62228
--- Comment #2 from Ankzz ---
Why do you think its not a bug?
It would be better if you can explain me the reason why level should be
replaced with a "0".
In the same macro if I replace "level" with "_level",
#define LOG(module, level, msg) \
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62229
Bug ID: 62229
Summary: Broken uniform initialization when using std::string
ctor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62228
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62228
Ankzz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ankzzdev at gmail dot com
Severity|nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62228
Bug ID: 62228
Summary: gcc : expected identifier before numeric constant
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62227
Bug ID: 62227
Summary: Templated move not elided
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62223
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61876
--- Comment #12 from yroux at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: yroux
Date: Fri Aug 22 10:48:22 2014
New Revision: 214312
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214312&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-22 Yvan Roux
Backport from trunk r212989, r21362
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62225
--- Comment #2 from Yao Qi ---
arm-none-eabi gcc mainline (4.10.0 20140818) and 4.9.2 has this problem too.
The test case is compiled with -mthumb flag.
<1><71>: Abbrev Number: 6 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
<72> DW_AT_external: 1
<72> D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62223
--- Comment #4 from tower120 ---
Typo indeed.
I'm so sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62226
Bug ID: 62226
Summary: Encode CPP options in lang.opt
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62223
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
Typo, check the exact spelling of what g++ is complaining about.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61234
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61234
--- Comment #6 from vondele at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vondele
Date: Fri Aug 22 10:14:50 2014
New Revision: 214311
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214311&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-22 Joost VandeVondele
* gfortran.dg/use_wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62223
--- Comment #2 from tower120 ---
No, I compile it with -std=c++1y
Here, live example http://ideone.com/KsGrnH (though that is gcc-4.8.1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62008
--- Comment #2 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Fri Aug 22 09:40:13 2014
New Revision: 214306
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214306&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR other/62008
gcc/c/
* c-parser.c (c_parser_array_notation): Check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62008
--- Comment #1 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Fri Aug 22 09:37:01 2014
New Revision: 214305
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214305&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR other/62008
gcc/c/
* c-parser.c (c_parser_array_notation): Check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62225
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I bet if you remove register, it will work. Or compile with variable tracking
turned on.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62225
Bug ID: 62225
Summary: DW_AT_location for local variable is missing
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62223
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224
--- Comment #1 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 33377
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33377&action=edit
Preprocessed source file
ETOOBIG on uncompressed attachment. Now compressed with xz.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224
Bug ID: 62224
Summary: Possible regression in gcc-4.9-20140820
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62220
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
--- Comment #3 from Kirill Yukhin ---
As long as I understand `remove_exits_and_undefined_stmts'
iterate loop boundaries set marking `unreachable' stmts w/
impossible bounds.
For the example we have:
- for true edge
basic block 6, loop depth 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62223
Bug ID: 62223
Summary: error: there are no arguments to ‘static_asssert’ that
depend on a template parameter, so a declaration of
‘static_asssert’ must be available
Product:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
71 matches
Mail list logo
