https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63509
Chenry changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chenrylee at qq dot com
--- Comment #4 from Che
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65988
Bug ID: 65988
Summary: Trying to compile GCC 5.1 in my (customized) Solaris
10/x86-64 fails with GMP errors
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #33 from Frédéric Buclin ---
I found only one user account which uses the Asia/Kolkata timezone. But no
reason why this would interact with the local timezone.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #32 from Frédéric Buclin ---
For some reason, DateTime::TimeZone->new(name => 'local') sometimes returns
Asia/Kolkata, which explains the -05:30 offset observed in the famous 2% of
bugmails with an incorrect timestamp. I added extra d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65987
--- Comment #1 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 35445
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35445&action=edit
patch for section crossing jumps
It turns out that some SH specific jump optimizations don't take into
accoun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65987
Bug ID: 65987
Summary: [6 Regression] [SH] Wrong jump generated for
gcc.dg/tree-prof/va-arg-pack-1.c with -fprofile-use
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17995
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65986
Bug ID: 65986
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn, at
recog.c:2244 (insn does not satisfy its constraints)
with -mavx512ifma
Product: gcc
Versi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65985
--- Comment #1 from rhalbersma ---
See also LWG active issue 2234
http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2234
-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rhalbersma at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following code segfaults with -std=c++1y for g++ 5.1.0 and trunk 20150502
on the combination of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65984
Bug ID: 65984
Summary: ICE: definition in block 4 does not dominate use in
block 2 with -fnon-call-exceptions -fsanitize=enum
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17995
--- Comment #16 from Cary Lewis ---
Sorry, here is the output of the command that generates the error during make
bootstrap.
I appreciate the help very much.
Here is the configure command:
../gcc-3.4.3/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-3.4.3x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65641
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
Currently, the only implemented policy uses primes from a hard-coded list for
the number of buckets. This makes it easy to precompute (and hard-code in the
library) anything that may be helpful to speed-up modu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65983
Bug ID: 65983
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in mark_label_nuses
(emit-rtl.c:3618) with -fsanitize=thread -mavx512ifma
-march=barcelona
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17995
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It can't be this exact error, because the line number will have changed, and it
would be useful to know the exact line numbers where the errors happen with the
current sources (we have three different vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17995
--- Comment #14 from Cary Lewis ---
It's this exact error. The 3rd stage fails. With the conflict about ::strstr
and std::strstr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65976
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65976
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65976
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat May 2 16:40:18 2015
New Revision: 222726
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222726&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-02 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/65976
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65976
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat May 2 16:37:35 2015
New Revision: 222725
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222725&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-02 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/65976
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17995
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Cary Lewis from comment #12)
> gcc-core builds fine on sco 5.0.7, but the I would like to be able to build
> a more modern version of the c++ compiler.
Try it, if it still fails then re-open
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65972
--- Comment #1 from AK ---
PS: The bootstrap fails after applying this patch and emits the error reported
above.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65982
Bug ID: 65982
Summary: [5/6 Regression] ICE: in lto_output_varpool_node, at
lto-cgraph.c:623
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17995
Cary Lewis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cary.lewis at gmail dot com
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #4 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #3)
> I can't see these failures on my cross builds of gcc-5, though.
> It could be a problem of the build compiler too.
Although I can't see them in my cross buil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65975
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65980
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65950
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Do we eventually think the loop is cold?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65951
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
--- Comment #34 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Rainer Emrich from comment #30)
> I'm testing the following instead:
>
> Index: gcc/lto-wrapper.c
> ===
> --- gcc/lto-wrapper.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65981
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65978
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65978
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Sat May 2 11:20:03 2015
New Revision: 222719
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222719&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65978
* include/std/tuple (forward_as_tuple,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65975
--- Comment #3 from Carl Ponder ---
So the compiler is really complaining about the "external" qualifier here
!$ external, logical:: omp_in_parallel
right? Is this something not supported in gfortran?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65981
Bug ID: 65981
Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/bound_9.f90 -O execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65975
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65861
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There are actually good reasons *not* to reject input iterators at
compile-time.
You could have an iterator which meets most, but not all, the forward iterator
requirements, and so must have input_iterator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65958
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65958
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65980
Bug ID: 65980
Summary: [6 Regression] -fcompare-debug building Linux kernel
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Additional comment:
There seem to be multiple (unrelated?) errors which prevent the built but all
of them, including the one I reported seem to relate to conftest.c. So I'll
rename the bug title
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65973
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #1 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 35441
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35441&action=edit
Preprocessed source files for gcc-5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
Bug ID: 65979
Summary: internal compiler error: in make_edges, at
tree-cfg.c:923
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65978
Bug ID: 65978
Summary: missing constexpr on std::forward_as_tuple and
std::tie (LWG issues 2275 and 2301)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65977
Bug ID: 65977
Summary: Constexpr should be allowed in declaration of friend
template specialization
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59098
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to fenugrec from comment #3)
> Probable duplicate of Bug 38341
I don't think so. The problem here is not only whether the warning is correct
or not. A major issue is that the original code do
49 matches
Mail list logo