https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66332
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66331
--- Comment #3 from John Stanley ---
Wonderful. Thanks much, and sorry I missed 65903. I guess this can be closed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66331
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
See PR 65903
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66331
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66334
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Run-time testcases are nptl/tst-cancelx4.c and nptl/tst-cancelx5.c
in glibc when compiled with -fPIE -pie on Linux/x86.
ef.__gcc_personality_v0, 4
DW.ref.__gcc_personality_v0:
.long __gcc_personality_v0
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 6.0.0 20150528 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
[hjl@gnu-tools-1 tmp]$
The problem is
.L8:
subl$12, %esp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45780
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> > The -Wc90-c99-compat that made it into gcc5 currently warns about
> > any usage of bool whatsoever, not just the s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65248
Khem Raj changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||raj.khem at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66333
Bug ID: 66333
Summary: [C++14] Static constexpr template
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66332
Bug ID: 66332
Summary: goacc/acc_on_device-2.c scan-rtl-dump-times expand
testsuite failure
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66326
--- Comment #2 from Eric ---
Additional information and discussion about this bug may be found on the Intel
Cilk Plus developer forum at
https://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/558825
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66331
Bug ID: 66331
Summary: gfortran.dg/continuation_13.f90 execution failure
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66329
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66318
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66330
Bug ID: 66330
Summary: gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-1.c compilation fatal
error with -flto -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45780
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66329
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66329
--- Comment #2 from sandeep ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1)
> & has lower precedence than ==.
Thanks Markus. It never occurred to me when hit by a bug in some other code.
I myself was wondering how could this kind of bug st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65443
--- Comment #17 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu May 28 21:23:54 2015
New Revision: 223848
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223848&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add transform_to_exit_first_loop_alt
2015-05-28 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66017
--- Comment #7 from M. Hanselmann ---
Confirmed for revision 223846 in gcc-5-branch. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66329
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66329
Bug ID: 66329
Summary: If condition evaluated wrongly for "y&1 == 0"
condition
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priorit
Hi there
I Japanese.
Poor English.
I like gcc.
But,
Why,
gcc is, in this code, or put out a warning?
-O4 only???
+ cat -n bug.c
1#include
2intary[2][12] ;
3voidfunc(intx,int y)
4{
5inti,j ;
6for(i = 0 ; i < x ; i++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66328
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66328
Bug ID: 66328
Summary: Wrong initialization of derived-type DATA
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66327
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66327
Bug ID: 66327
Summary: -fsanitize=nonnull-attribute errors in stl_algobase.h
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45780
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66310
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Gerhard Steinmetz from comment #3)
> I do agree, that some extra temporary data is necessary and there
> should be a practical (high) limit for something like that.
>
> Let the helper buffers be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66326
--- Comment #1 from Eric ---
The compilers gcc-5.1 and cilkplus-4_8-branch were bootstrapped using the
Debian 4.7.2-5 gcc compiler on Debian Wheezy. Compiling and running the test
program yields the following output:
$ /usr/local/gcc-5.1/bin/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66326
Bug ID: 66326
Summary: Floating point exception with -mfpmath=387 and
-fcilkplus.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65352
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65352
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 28 16:27:56 2015
New Revision: 223842
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223842&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65352
* include/profile/array (array::data):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37522
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 28 16:27:46 2015
New Revision: 223840
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223840&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-12-22 Jonathan Wakely
PR libstdc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65352
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 28 16:14:26 2015
New Revision: 223839
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223839&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65352
* include/profile/array (array::data):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63810
--- Comment #31 from Lawrence Velázquez ---
(In reply to m...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #27)
> Fixed in 6.0. Backports pre approved after bake time and testing that
> includes older darwins and ppc.
Thanks! I've attached updated patches against 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63810
Lawrence Velázquez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34012|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63810
Lawrence Velázquez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34011|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63810
Lawrence Velázquez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34010|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65352
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 28 16:00:09 2015
New Revision: 223838
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223838&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65352
* include/profile/array (array::data):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66314
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> char *a;
> int b, c, d;
int d;
is enough I guess.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66314
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66314
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35644
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35644&action=edit
Reduced testcase
Confirmed on aarch64-none-elf with current trunk.
Attaching reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66314
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Broken by DOM2.
Can somebody reduce this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66251
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #14 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu May 28 14:18:19 2015
New Revision: 223832
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223832&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add IFN_GOACC_DATA_END_WITH_ARG
2015-05-28 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66264
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Should be switch-conversion doing the job?
Yes, I think so. I'll try to have a look in the near future.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66142
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu May 28 13:24:53 2015
New Revision: 223816
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223816&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-28 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/66142
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66301
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66017
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65352
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 28 12:33:41 2015
New Revision: 223812
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223812&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65352
* include/std/array (__array_traits::_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66017
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 28 12:33:36 2015
New Revision: 223811
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223811&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/66017
* include/bits/stl_tree.h (_Rb_tree_no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63810
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63810
--- Comment #26 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mrs
Date: Thu May 28 12:27:05 2015
New Revision: 223808
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223808&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-28 Lawrence Velázquez
PR target/63810
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63368
--- Comment #7 from Mathieu Malaterre ---
For anyone reading this. the comment "-latomic is there already." means:
replace __sync_val_compare_and_swap(ptr, oldval, newval) in your code with
__atomic_compare_exchange(ptr, &oldval, &newval, false,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62308
--- Comment #10 from Christophe Lyon ---
Hello Vladimir,
Have you been able to make progress on this bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65352
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 28 11:53:35 2015
New Revision: 223806
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223806&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65352
* include/std/array (__array_traits::_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Well, using switch on bool is always weird, one really should use if for
> that.
> If you want fallthrough, then just use if (cond) { first } second, if wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66325
Bug ID: 66325
Summary: ICE in gcc.c-torture/execute/930408-1.c, verify_type
fails with --enable-checking=yes
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
Szabolcs Nagy changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nszabolcs at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66299
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66299
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66320
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66310
--- Comment #3 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
I do agree, that some extra temporary data is necessary and there
should be a practical (high) limit for something like that.
Let the helper buffers be five or ten times the amount of the
effectively wr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #13 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #9)
> The GOACC_parallel is more tricky. I don't see what kind of fnspec for
> GOACC_parallel could fix this. The only other potential solution I see
> besides postp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65352
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnozicka at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66323
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65742
--- Comment #6 from jules at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jules
Date: Thu May 28 09:38:40 2015
New Revision: 223802
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223802&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgomp/65742
gcc/
* builtins.c (expand_builtin_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
I guess we also shouldn't warn on
(1) switch (bool)
{
case true: ...
default: ...
}
(2) switch (bool)
{
case true: ...
}
(3) switch (bool)
{
default:
}
Similarly wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66310
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66323
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66324
Bug ID: 66324
Summary: GOACC_parallel is optimization barrier
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: tree-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66302
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66302
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65742
--- Comment #5 from jules at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jules
Date: Thu May 28 09:29:19 2015
New Revision: 223801
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223801&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgomp/65742
gcc/
* builtins.c (expand_builtin_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #12 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35642
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35642&action=edit
Updated tentative patch
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> (In reply to vries from comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66302
--- Comment #5 from Andrey Kolesov ---
Ok, we understand your points. Obviously there are two approaches:
1) provide maximum random bits in all precisions but not preserve sequences
2) provide reasonable number of random bits but preserve sequen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #4 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #1)
> As Kaz mentioned in PR 65979 #c8, first revert all the SH specific patches.
> The SVN revisions are r221686, r221305, r221166, r220957, r220917, r219258.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66323
Bug ID: 66323
Summary: runtime error with zero sized std::array using begin
and end methods
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66314
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.1.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> D is not part of FSF GCC so I am inclined to close as invalid.
If there's a bug that shows up with D but doesn't show up with non-D, and the
bug can be identified a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66320
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
D is not part of FSF GCC so I am inclined to close as invalid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66313
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66314
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66319
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44672
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||damian at sourceryinstitute
do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66321
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
93 matches
Mail list logo
