https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64005
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63850
--- Comment #5 from Dmitry Vyukov ---
I suspect that configure and Makefiles are gcc-specific, that is needs to be
submitted to gcc diredctly.
And for tsan_rtl.h we have a change in flight that does essentially the same
(for mips64 support):
http
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63850
vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61933
--- Comment #13 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #12)
> (In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #11)
>
> See patch here:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg01616.html
Thanks! One minor ni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64664
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64664
Bug ID: 64664
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected
function_decl, have in
opts_for_fn, at tree.h:4706
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61933
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #11)
See patch here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg01616.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64532
--- Comment #6 from baoshan ---
After several days study to the code, I turn to feel the code is wrong. It
seems we should use "=t" instead of "=w" for 'y' because single float register
is expected here for "vcvt.f32.s32". From the document, "w"
-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20150118 (experimental) [trunk revision 219826] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O0 -g -c small.c
$ gcc-trunk -O1 -c small.c
$
$ gcc-trunk -O1 -g -c small.c
small.c: In function ‘fn1’:
small.c:13:1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57664
tbsaunde at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tbsaunde at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64537
--- Comment #5 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Is this sort of multiple-use potential candidate for ree pass? Haven't looked
ree in detail yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64635
--- Comment #13 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
Created attachment 34480
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34480&action=edit
proposed fix with aix support added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64644
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #2)
> A question, though: I see that like many other existing warnings, this
> doesn't handle -Werror=pedantic. Is that something that should be addressed
> as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64635
--- Comment #12 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #11)
I tried another bootstrap with the addition of --enable-lto (most of the
buildbots seem to just use the lto language for that) and it had
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53075
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
More discussion in the topic:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg01799.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43892
--- Comment #24 from joakim.tjernlund at transmode dot se ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #23)
> Do you know what addcc does? PowerPC does not have any instruction
No, just guessing :) To me it was generic way to express add wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64662
Bug ID: 64662
Summary: [SH] QImode/HImode atomics should return sign extended
SImode values
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64625
--- Comment #12 from David Edelsohn ---
libgomp-plugin-host_nonshm.so.1 which is inserted into
libgomp-plugin-host_nonshm.a (Traditional AIX shared library filenames do not
have version numbers.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64661
Bug ID: 64661
Summary: [SH] Allow @(disp,reg) address mode for atomics
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64644
--- Comment #2 from Harald van Dijk ---
Yep, thanks, testing that on 4.9.2 seems to give the right results. I see it
covered by existing tests in at least
gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.law/union4.C and
gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.law/union4.C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43892
--- Comment #23 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Do you know what addcc does? PowerPC does not have any instruction
that behaves like it at all. So it would have to expand to a big
fat sequence of instructions, that then hopefully are optimised to
s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64374
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
This is ugly issue indeed, I will look more into it tomorrow.
Optimally of course we should be able to handle -fPIC per symbol basis, but
that is hard to do. I guess having it handled via ix86_option_override_i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64218
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka ---
Good, now it reproduces. The problem is that inliner removes the alias target
and it leaves the alias itself to be removed by remove_unreachable_nodes. It
however manages to crash ealrier looking if the alia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64659
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo ---
The other issue is that atomic add insns for models other than 'hard-llcs' do
not utilize the 'add #imm,Rn' insn at all, because those insns allow
'register_operand' only.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64659
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64218
--- Comment #13 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 34479
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34479&action=edit
unreduced testcase
Unreduced testcase is attached. Crashes both on ppc64 and x86_64.
% g++ -w -c -O3 -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64635
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
For some reason you have less expected passes than me: yours
=== libgomp Summary ===
# of expected passes11430
# of unsupported tests562
mine
=== libgomp Summary ==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60255
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jan 18 22:01:29 2015
New Revision: 219827
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219827&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-18 Andre Vehreschild
Janus Weil
PR fortran/60255
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64578
--- Comment #16 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jan 18 22:01:29 2015
New Revision: 219827
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219827&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-18 Andre Vehreschild
Janus Weil
PR fortran/60255
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63576
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
I don't seem to be able to make sense of Ilya's logic in the probability
calculation (incrementing the count with bb->count seem wrong).
Will try to update his patch today.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43892
--- Comment #22 from joakim.tjernlund at transmode dot se ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #21)
> Mainine (will be GCC 5 in a few months).
>
> There is no addcc thing, that is not suitable for PowerPC.
> The big changes are in th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64660
Bug ID: 64660
Summary: [SH] Convert atomic_fetch_ to atomic__fetch
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64218
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka ---
Would be possible to upload updated testcase? The reduced one seems to work for
me on both x86-64 and ppc64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64635
--- Comment #10 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
The test cases showing up as unsupported here are actually aborting...
% fsf-gdb ./acc_on_device-1.exe
Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
0x9b91069a in __pthread_kill () from /u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64659
Bug ID: 64659
Summary: [SH] Immedate values not used for atomic ops
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
-x c++
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc50-5.0.0-1000/gcc-5-20150118/libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.oacc-c++/../libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/acc_on_device-1.c
-B/sw/src/fink.build/gcc50-5.0.0-1000/darwin_objdir/x86_64-apple-darwin14.1.0/i386/libgomp/
-B/sw/src/fink.build/gcc50-5.0.0-1000/darwin_objdir/x86_64-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64378
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64654
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43892
--- Comment #21 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Mainine (will be GCC 5 in a few months).
There is no addcc thing, that is not suitable for PowerPC.
The big changes are in though (and they are much bigger than
I originally thought, fwiw -- scope cree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29366
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
Created attachment 34478
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34478&action=edit
proposed workaround patch
There hasn't been any update for PR 53579. I'd like to propose the attached
patch as a w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64435
--- Comment #11 from clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David Abdurachmanov from comment #8)
> I will finish testing my patch for upstream next week. I was busy with other
> tasks.
>
How are you going to test it?
FYI, I am now able to run
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64435
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||64131
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64655
--- Comment #10 from Adrien Guinet ---
Well, okay, that implication didn't look that obvious. Sorry for the constant
bug reopening, it was not my intent. And thanks for the clarifications!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64435
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64435
--- Comment #8 from David Abdurachmanov
---
I will finish testing my patch for upstream next week. I was busy with other
tasks.
AArch64 is young, this kind of things are bound to happen :/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64655
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64655
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Adrien Guinet from comment #7)
> From my understanding of
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Variable-Attributes.html, the "aligned"
> attribute inside a structure aligns the object inside this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64578
--- Comment #15 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #12)
> AFAICT gfortran.dg/unlimited_polymorphic_21.f90 has not yet been committed.
You are absolutely correct. I just notice it when app
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64655
Adrien Guinet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64652
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64635
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64652
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sun Jan 18 18:12:53 2015
New Revision: 219824
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219824&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/64652
* config/sh/sh.md (udivsi3_i4, divsi3_i4): Mak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64655
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64655
--- Comment #5 from Adrien Guinet ---
Moreover, the test case runs fine without any automatic vectorisation and
crashes when it is applied, so from my point of view there is something wrong
with this optimisation!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64655
Adrien Guinet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64655
--- Comment #3 from Adrien Guinet ---
I don't think this is a user error. Some attributes might be declared aligned
inside a structure, without any specifications that every instanced objects
must be themselves aligned on a specific boundary. Thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61641
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64655
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56166
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. this is fixed when using the new std::__cxx11::basic_string in GCC 5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64580
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Hi Markus,
How often is rs6000_stack_info called there? Are there any hotspots
in the function?
Do you have a standalone testcase?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64378
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Sun Jan 18 17:31:35 2015
New Revision: 219822
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219822&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/64378
* ipa-prop.c (try_make_edge_direct_virtual_call): Cl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64658
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Testcase for 4.9 (which doesn't have the fix for PR64940 that allows
std::atomic_int t o be used interchangeably with std::atomic):
#include
int main()
{
std::atomic a;
atomic_init(&a, 0);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64658
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64658
Bug ID: 64658
Summary: std::atomic_init() undefined
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64657
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43892
--- Comment #20 from joakim.tjernlund at transmode dot se ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #19)
> Current code:
>
> add 3,3,4
> subfc 4,4,3
> subfe 9,9,9
> subf 3,9,3
>
> so we got rid of the useless register move.
Which gcc ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64657
Bug ID: 64657
Summary: Support iterators with overloaded operator-comma
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: minor
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64505
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64656
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64656
Bug ID: 64656
Summary: [C++14] DR 2128 Absence of global functions
cbegin/cend
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43892
--- Comment #19 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Current code:
add 3,3,4
subfc 4,4,3
subfe 9,9,9
subf 3,9,3
so we got rid of the useless register move.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64655
--- Comment #1 from Adrien Guinet ---
Created attachment 34476
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34476&action=edit
test case reproducing the issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64655
Bug ID: 64655
Summary: Vectorizer is always using load aligned instructions
with objects with the "aligned" attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64646
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64646
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Sun Jan 18 16:31:06 2015
New Revision: 219821
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219821&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/64646
* include/bits/stl_algo.h (__is_permutation):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64654
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64646
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Sun Jan 18 16:29:57 2015
New Revision: 219820
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219820&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/64646
* include/bits/stl_algo.h (__is_permutation):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64625
--- Comment #11 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #9)
Also, could you confirm the exact filename you are getting for the
libgomp-plugin-host_nonshm shared library on AIX (e.g, is the suffix .1.a or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57959
--- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Committed to trunk as revision 219818. Change logs correct in 219819.
Sorry for the mess.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64578
--- Comment #14 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Ignore comment 13! I screwed up the Change Logs for PR57959.
Paul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57959
--- Comment #5 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
The incorrect PR numbers in the Change Logs have been corrected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64578
--- Comment #13 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jan 18 15:52:49 2015
New Revision: 219818
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219818&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-18 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/64578
* trans-expr.c (gfc_tra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64625
--- Comment #10 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #9)
> Locally reverting the creation of offload_table may avoid the reference to
> the undefined symbol as a workaround to get sane testsuite results
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57959
paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com
changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paul.richard.thom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64654
Bug ID: 64654
Summary: problem of handling character arguments in parent of
an 'entry' with fewer arguments leads at -O0
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64435
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And the reason for that is that aarch64 again changed ABI, what a stable port
:(.
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=5c40c3bab2fddaca8cfe12d75944d1fef8adf1a4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64637
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64643
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64644
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64639
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64648
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Hopefully we'll sort it out in GCC 6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64648
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
If the bug is present then it will occur at any optimization level.
Given this further information I investigated and discovered the problem. My
system somehow had a broken cygmpfr-4.dll installed in /bin. Given that the
assert was from MPFR I should have checked this earlier but I naively a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64435
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, for the old uid/git we can temporarily also just cherry pick upstream
r223925. Even with that patch I'm running into:
../../../../libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_internal_defs.h:272:72:
error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55901
--- Comment #13 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jan 18 12:21:38 2015
New Revision: 219814
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219814&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-18 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/55901
* primary.c (gfc_match_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64163
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thiago at kde dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64653
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64635
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
oh, and IIRC, the shlib suffix for AIX is .a so there might be another case to
placed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64635
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
this seems reasonable.
=
However, for the record:
* if a shared library is User-facing and needs to be passed to ld64, then the
convention is that the suffix = .dylib
* if it's part of a framework, then
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64653
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
