https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66752
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66828
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Indeed, I always forget. But as it goes, the excerpt you quote from C++
standard is exactly the same as in C99 so that doesn't invalidate the remaining
of my analysis.
The testing for the new patch is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66840
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose ---
adding this to extra_headers in gcc/config.gcc, it gets installed into
/include, adding it to tm_file results in a build error. Not sure
where to add it ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66828
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Well, gcc is a C++ project so the C99 standard doesn't apply.
The C++ standard says:
5.8.2:
The value of E1 << E2 is E1 left-shifted E2 bit positions; vacated bits are
zero-filled. If E1 has an unsig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66864
Bug ID: 66864
Summary: floor function error
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66862
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
--- Comment #2 from An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19987
Bug 19987 depends on bug 23664, which changed state.
Bug 23664 Summary: fold does not change (a&C1)+(b&C2) to (a&C1)|(b&C2) iff (C1
& C2) == 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23664
What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23664
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66092
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jul 14 04:11:11 2015
New Revision: 225758
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225758&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66092
PR c++/66834
* gcc/cp/pt.c (coerce_te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66834
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jul 14 04:11:11 2015
New Revision: 225758
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225758&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66092
PR c++/66834
* gcc/cp/pt.c (coerce_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66834
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #9)
So it seems that applying the DR 1430 tentative resolution to concepts severely
limits the usability of variadic concepts, and we should reconsider that, so
that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23664
hs.naveen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||naveen_gcc at indiatimes dot
com
--- Commen
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150713 (experimental) [trunk revision 225727] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O1 small.c; ./a.out
$ gcc-5.1 -Os small.c; ./a.out
$
$ gcc-trunk -Os small.c
$ ./a.out
Floating point exception (core dumped)
$
-
int a, b;
int
fn1 (int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66852
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey Walton ---
A quick update
We did out best to take the advice of Jakub, Janathan, Markus and others:
https://github.com/weidai11/cryptopp/commit/9bf0eed0f6ff6d0b0a2d277e5401d69dc8c0e394.
We are paying for past tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66848
--- Comment #8 from Jack Howarth ---
Note that radr://21372179 has been closed by Apple as "behaves as expected' so
that they believe the bug lies in the FSF gcc boehm-gc code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66828
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
The C standard says nothing about the cumulative effect of several shift so I'm
guessing that the real issue is probably that the type is signed. Quoting C99
section 6.5.8 paragraph 4:
"If E1 has a sign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65249
--- Comment #19 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Although this is essentially a problem with the old reload, I'm testing
another adhoc patch which is hinted by an Oleg's patch for gbr addressing.
The problematic insn is (set (DImode R0) (DImode reg for )
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66857
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66726
--- Comment #11 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for reporting. This test case is valid for targets that has branch cost
greater than 1.
One way to handle this is by disabling this for convections involving bool that
are part of branch (?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66861
--- Comment #4 from Rainer Emrich ---
Am 13.07.2015 um 20:56 schrieb jb at gcc dot gnu.org:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66861
>
> --- Comment #3 from Janne Blomqvist --- Or rather,
> also fixing another similar potential issu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66726
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Sinking the cast changes the form of the range tests into one that
tree-ssa-reassoc isn't prepared to handle. Sadly the form presented with the
cast sunk is *simpler* than the original.
I'm testing a bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
--- Comment #13 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Mon Jul 13 20:35:53 2015
New Revision: 225749
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225749&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR c++/65186
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR c++/65186
* pt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66834
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #8)
> I think we should reconsider the rule against partial specialization of a
> variable concept, as that seems like the right way to handle this situation.
Except t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66834
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
I think we should reconsider the rule against partial specialization of a
variable concept, as that seems like the right way to handle this situation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66855
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.3
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66855
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Jul 13 20:07:48 2015
New Revision: 225748
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225748&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/66855
* src/c++11/codecvt.cc (__codecvt_utf8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66861
--- Comment #3 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Or rather, also fixing another similar potential issue, you might instead want
to test this:
diff --git a/libgfortran/io/unix.c b/libgfortran/io/unix.c
index e5fc6e1..a1ce9a3 100644
--- a/libgfortran/io/un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66861
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63522
aaron.mcdaid at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aaron.mcdaid at gmail dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66861
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Emrich ---
I suspect the following commit causing the issue:
215307:
File size: 43008 byte(s)
PR libfortran/62768 Handle filenames with embedded null characters.
testsuite ChangeLog:
2014-09-17 Janne Blomqvist
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66860
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
Stack overflow?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66862
--- Comment #1 from William Jordan ---
Created attachment 35972
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35972&action=edit
Disassembled code
Assembly shows that code generated with #pragma omp simd is the same as without
when the "fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66862
Bug ID: 66862
Summary: OpenMP SIMD does not work (use SIMD instructions) on
conditional code
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66846
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35970
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35970&action=edit
Tentative patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66861
Bug ID: 66861
Summary: [5/6 Regression] Segmentation fault in
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/streamio_5.f90
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66860
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.4
Summary|]F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66842
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, so either C or C++ might be appropriate, but not libstdc++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66860
Bug ID: 66860
Summary: ]FAIL: gfortran.dg/graphite/pr42393.f90 -O (internal
compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52846
--- Comment #8 from Salvatore Filippone ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #7)
> Created attachment 35926 [details]
> A partially cooked patch to complete the implentation of submodules
>
> The attached is a first attempt to complete the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66842
--- Comment #2 from Bin Fan ---
I couldn't find a category for libatomic, and my understand is that C and C++
share libatomic library.
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> This obviously isn't a libstdc++ bug because you're not even u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66851
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63345
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I believe all the real problems are fixed now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66856
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66857
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66859
Bug ID: 66859
Summary: internal compiler error: in lower_stmt
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66829
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We either need to change how we build testsuite_shared.cc, or change what goes
into it.
--- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/libstdc++.exp
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/libstdc++.exp
@@ -668,7 +668,7 @@ pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66857
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The gimple dump shows a temporary int being created from the global, and the
temporary is passed to the constructor.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66858
Bug ID: 66858
Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/pch/system-2.C -O2 -g
assembly comparison on aarch64-none-elf, arm-none-eabi
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66857
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66857
--- Comment #1 from Sebastian Lauwers ---
Command: g++ -v -save-temps test.cpp
Output:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/5.1.1/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-redhat-linux
Configured with:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66857
Bug ID: 66857
Summary: Reference not bound to lvalue
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65913
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66855
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13)
> Created attachment 35964 [details]
> Combined middle/end/target patch
>
> Patch in testing.
I tried it on GCC 5 and it works on glibc. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jeffrey Walton from comment #16)
> OK, so you'll have to forgive my ignorance again.
>
> So you are saying that it may be a bug to use vmovdqa if the source and/or
> destination are not 16-byte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66555
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66856
Bug ID: 66856
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE in compute_live_loop_exits, at
tree-ssa-loop-manip.c:234
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66760
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Paolo has submitted a patch for this issue to the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg00984.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709
--- Comment #16 from Jeffrey Walton ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> I'm saying that if the program does not trigger undefined behavior (e.g. by
> accessing misaligned integers without telling the compiler about it (by
> using m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66855
Bug ID: 66855
Summary: codecvt wrong endianness in UTF-16 conversions
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'm saying that if the program does not trigger undefined behavior (e.g. by
accessing misaligned integers without telling the compiler about it (by using
memcpy, or packed attribute or pragma), then it would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
--- Comment #14 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13)
> Patch in testing.
This patch fixes the testcase, now we get:
:
0: 41 56 push %r14
2: 41 55 push
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 35964
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35964&action=edit
Combined middle/end/target patch
Patch in testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46193
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from vrie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709
Jeffrey Walton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||noloader at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #47 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Another cosmetic issue that I've noticed is that an extra newline is added
after every quoted comment.
For example:
> test
reply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66852
--- Comment #12 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jeffrey Walton from comment #10)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> > So I suppose the IsAligned template is wrong.
>
> So I'm clear (please forgive my ignorance)...
>
> Ac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66809
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66852
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey Walton ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> The code in algparam.h is just disgusting. AssignFromHelperClass binds a
> reference to NULL just to default-construct a temporary of some type, then
> binds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66852
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey Walton ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> So I suppose the IsAligned template is wrong.
So I'm clear (please forgive my ignorance)...
According to http://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/MOVDQA.html, vmovdq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66852
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey Walton ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> The code in algparam.h is just disgusting. AssignFromHelperClass binds a
> reference to NULL just to default-construct a temporary of some type, then
> binds a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66852
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The code in algparam.h is just disgusting. AssignFromHelperClass binds a
reference to NULL just to default-construct a temporary of some type, then
binds a const-reference to that temporary, then casts away
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66852
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> So I suppose the IsAligned template is wrong.
Yes.
390 template
391 inline unsigned int GetAl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66854
Bug ID: 66854
Summary: libgcc2.c:1846:9: internal compiler error:
Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66726
--- Comment #9 from Andreas Schwab ---
On m68k:
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr46309.c scan-tree-dump-times reassoc1 "Optimizing range tests
a_[0-9]*.D. -.1, 1. and -.3, 3.[\n\r]* into" 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr46309.c scan-tree-dump-times reassoc1 "Optimizing range te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66852
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
So I suppose the IsAligned template is wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66852
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
See PR65709 for a similar issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66842
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |c
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66852
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #12 from Uroš
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64589
--- Comment #5 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Mon Jul 13 09:01:54 2015
New Revision: 225730
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225730&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2015-07-13 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66852
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66556
--- Comment #3 from renlin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: renlin
Date: Mon Jul 13 08:29:46 2015
New Revision: 225729
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225729&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH]Fix PR66556. Don't drop side-effect in
simplify_const_r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66849
--- Comment #1 from simon at pushface dot org ---
I should have said, I’m interested in Cortex-M3 and Cortex-M4{F); and possibly
Cortex-M7(F).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66853
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64327
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
*** Bug 66853 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64327
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66752
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66853
Bug ID: 66853
Summary: sanitized gcc shows bug in rtlanal.c:4911 shift
exponent too large because bitwitdth==0
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
89 matches
Mail list logo
