=/usr/local/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/6.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150830 (experimental) [trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47605
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67404
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67381
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hs.naveen2u at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67404
Bug ID: 67404
Summary: gcc.dg/builtins-11.c FAILS for the pattern sqrt(x) *
sqrt(x)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37355
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67367
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66765
--- Comment #9 from David Edelsohn ---
> [Book15] f90/bug% gcc ya_sincos.c -fdump-fortran-original
> cc1: error: unrecognized command line option '-fdump-fortran-original'
This is a valid Fortran option producing an error from cc1 when passed to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67403
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Iirc regex was not implemented in 4.8.x. Try 4.9 and above.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67403
Bug ID: 67403
Summary: std::regex is not matching
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66950
iverbin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37355
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24546
Bug 24546 depends on bug 41143, which changed state.
Bug 41143 Summary: Support DW_TAG_common_inclusion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41143
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41143
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66765
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Any of the Fortran FE options appearing in a link command likely cause an
> error.
Apparently it more complicated than that:
[Book15] f90/bug% gcc ya_sincos.c -fdump-fortran-original
cc1: error: u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67402
Bug ID: 67402
Summary: outside definition of member class of an explicitly
specialized member class
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66765
--- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn ---
AIX often exposes symptoms of bugs in common parts of the compiler. That does
not make the problem an AIX or target bug.
If the Fortran FE generates incorrect IR that causes an ICE in the middle end
of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67219
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
So, the problem is that if we have matched
( integer_const
but no comma after that. When integer_const is converted, a warning is issued,
but the result is later discarded.
We probably need something like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66521
--- Comment #16 from Eric Gallager ---
Created attachment 36272
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36272&action=edit
assembly that darwin 9 assembler rejects
Here's a snippet from the attached file for some of the lines around
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66521
--- Comment #15 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to ctice from comment #14)
> Author: ctice
> Date: Wed Aug 12 15:40:11 2015
> New Revision: 226820
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226820&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> Fix warnings when boot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66765
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
BTW what happens on AIX with the other gfortran options such as '-frealloc-lhs'
... ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66765
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> This is not a target-specific bug.
AFAICT the problem occurs only on AIX.
> The gfortran front-end should not insert FE-specific options into
> the environment utilized by other GCC tools.
If I co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67396
--- Comment #5 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
> please do before you report compile time regressions.
Ok. Here are the new numbers from current trunk built with
--enable-checking=release
(nothing's changed that I can see; still very slow):
for j in 5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66765
--- Comment #4 from David Edelsohn ---
This is not a target-specific bug. This has nothing to do with the target.
This is a bug where the gfortran front-end and collect2-ld do not work together
correctly. I don't know how collect2-ld can be ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67396
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
So it looks like you did not configure with --enable-checking=release please do
before you report compile time regressions.
Configure with --enable-checking=release to disable checks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67396
--- Comment #3 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Can you provide -ftime-report ?
Sure:
perl gen_bz18872.pl 2000 > t.c && gcc-svn-r227321/bin/gcc -c -O2 t.c
-ftime-report
Execution times (seconds)
phase se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67396
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67386
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
>From Doug Gwyn's response on the WG14 list about the C90 wording with respect
to the placement of the implicit declaration (quoted below) it seems that even
though diagnosing line 11 in f2() in comment #2 goe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67396
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jh at suse dot cz
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42478
Bug 42478 depends on bug 35423, which changed state.
Bug 35423 Summary: Implement OpenMP workshare
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35423
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35423
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56203
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Rainer,
Unless you provide a splitting that works on your slow machines, I don't see
the point to keep this PR open.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59398
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61960
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Is not this PR fixed by revision r220899?
PING! Without answer I'll close this PR as FIXED.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #15 from Dominiqu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66765
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> This has nothing to do with dejagnu. On AIX, collect2 re-invokes the compiler
> and collect2 uses the compiler command-line arguments. With or without
> dejagnu,
> the command is invoking a fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67401
Bug ID: 67401
Summary: Incorrect expand of __atomic_compare_exchange_8 using
__sync_val_compare_and_swap_8
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67400
Bug ID: 67400
Summary: -fno-plt doesn't work with function pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64613
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66765
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #14 from Walter Spector ---
Hi Dominique,
I am sorry I didn't see or respond to your comment from last year. Thank you
for the ping.
Yes, it would be fine with me to recategorize the error as GFC_STD_LEGACY.
Walter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63413
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28662
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||valeryweber at hotmail dot com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65438
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Ping!
Without answer, I'll close this PR as WONTFIX.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67398
--- Comment #6 from Mikhail Maltsev ---
$ cat test4_min.cc
struct B {
void *extradata;
};
template
class C {
static const B b;
virtual void m_fn1() { (void)b; }
};
template
struct strdata_t {
int data[];
};
template
const B C::b{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66765
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66182
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66576
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66907
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66969
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67174
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67398
--- Comment #5 from Mikhail Maltsev ---
$ cat test3.cc
template
struct B {
static const int staticMetaObject;
};
template
struct D {
int stringdata0 = T::className;
} staticStringData{};
template
const int B::staticMetaObject{static
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67398
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67399
Bug ID: 67399
Summary: no match for istream::operator==
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66534
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Created attachment 35780 [details]
> The file
> `/home/zgzg/gcc-5.1.0/powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu/libgfortran/config.log'
Are you sure you have posted the right log file?
I don't see the error
../.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67039
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > Resolved as WONTFIX?
>
> Probably not. See the last 2 paragraphs in comment #1.
Sorry, but my question was motivated by the reading of these two paragraphs!-(
Thus two more explicit questions:
(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64555
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40737
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thfanning at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Is there an agreement to downgrade the error from GFC_STD_GNU in
>
> gcc/fortran/io.c: && !gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_GNU, "Comma before i/o
> item list at %L",
>
> to GFC_STD_LEGACY? If yes, I'l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65073
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51266
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51076
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51266
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
*** Bug 51076 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67219
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
The backtrace shows where this comes from:
#0 gfc_warning_now (opt=201, gmsgid=0x1437d10 "Change of value in conversion
from %qs to %qs at %L") at ../../trunk/gcc/fortran/error.c:1187
#1 0x0061a05d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67398
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160
--- Comment #43 from steve <100adult at armyspy dot com> ---
http://www.10ults.com/escorts-in-usa.html
thanks for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50160
steve <100adult at armyspy dot com> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||100adult at armyspy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67363
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
Or actually, an even simpler solution to the strndup part of the bug would be
to just use xstrndup instead of strndup; then there's no worrying about which
header to add a declaration to, or anything related
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67398
--- Comment #2 from Jean-Michaël Celerier ---
I now get this error :
/home/jcelerier/i-score/base/plugins/iscore-plugin-scenario/source/Process/ScenarioModel.cpp:63:
internal compiler error: in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:1313
constexpr const QMe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67363
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
Actually on further investigation, libiberty should already provide a strndup
implementation, the issue is just that it's not getting picked up here... I'm
not sure whether it would be better to put a declara
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67398
--- Comment #1 from Jean-Michaël Celerier ---
I couldn't upload the attachment here (>1mb) so here is the preprocessed source
:
https://gist.githubusercontent.com/jcelerier/6e67a053e08188cac07f/raw/b74ad5be0dcc12ff230cc7212fe5fa94b6413686/gccsegf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67398
Bug ID: 67398
Summary: Segfault when template static references another
template
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
72 matches
Mail list logo
