https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67417
--- Comment #1 from Alan Modra ---
BTW, the linker error message doesn't identify the correct function, which is
looking like a linker bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67417
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64-linux
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67417
Bug ID: 67417
Summary: powerpc64 bootstrap with -mcmodel=small results in
linker error
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64430
Dimitar Dimitrov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67416
Bug ID: 67416
Summary: raised TYPES.UNRECOVERABLE_ERROR : comperr.adb:428
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67386
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67415
--- Comment #1 from Bernhard Rosenkränzer ---
Workaround: add -march=armv7-a to the command line as well
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67415
Bug ID: 67415
Summary: [5.1/5.2 Regression] -mcpu= breaks -print-file-name
for ARM crosscompilers
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67414
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53379
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67414
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67399
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67399
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67032
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #10 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43407
dank at kegel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dank at kegel dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67403
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53379
--- Comment #21 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Janne Blomqvist from comment #11)
> Looking at the frontend, calls to runtime_error_at are generated from
> gfc_trans_runtime_check() and gfc_trans_runtime_error(). I went through
> calls
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070
--- Comment #17 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I found it fixed in 5.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50555
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50539
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50537
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50069
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still on gfortran 5.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67414
Bug ID: 67414
Summary: [5 Regression] Error message on failed allocate
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67412
--- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2)
> I know, but only on Solaris 12. Also, there's
> gfortran.dg/large_real_kind_2.F90 that fails at -O0 only. I still mean
> to investigat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67412
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
>> It seems the old buggy Solaris /bin/sh is the culprit. According to the
>> OpenSolaris s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67412
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61753
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67403
--- Comment #2 from Ryan Gonzalez ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Iirc regex was not implemented in 4.8.x. Try 4.9 and above.
...but then why are the functions present? I would've preferred a compile-time
error if that is the c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67400
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67369
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67409
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67413
Bug ID: 67413
Summary: Complex NOP expanded to several operations
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67411
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Seems it started with r211084.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67412
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67412
Bug ID: 67412
Summary: gfortran.dg/execute_command_line_2.f90 FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libfor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67411
Bug ID: 67411
Summary: [5/6 Regression] internal compiler error: in
tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:13473
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67410
Bug ID: 67410
Summary: c/c-typeck.c references out of bounds array
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67409
Bug ID: 67409
Summary: tree-cfg.c dereferences a NULL pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
--- Comment #59 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Mon Aug 31 14:02:43 2015
New Revision: 227347
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227347&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libfortran/47571
* acinclude.m4 (LIBGFOR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67381
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67381
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Aug 31 14:00:16 2015
New Revision: 227344
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227344&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-31 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/67381
* gen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67405
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67005
--- Comment #12 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Aug 31 12:46:14 2015
New Revision: 227340
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227340&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/67005
* tree-ssa-dce.c (remove_dead_stmt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67407
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67407
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
markus@x4 tmp % cat b.ii
template class A;
template struct B;
template struct B >
{
static int
check ()
{
A a;
a.m_class->m_object;
}
};
template class A
{
public:
template bool o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65637
--- Comment #11 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Resubmitted at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-08/msg01867.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67174
--- Comment #4 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Dear Rainer,
I am not so sure that it is a kernel bug but, rather, it could be a
gcc bug that is affected by differences in the kernel. It seems to me
that this has crept in since the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67363
--- Comment #9 from İsmail Dönmez ---
Looks like on MinGW putenv has to be used instead of setenv/unsetenv, dmalcolm
can you please have a look? I know MinGW is a Tier-NotSupported platform but it
was at least compiling before this change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65737
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67174
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67407
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67005
--- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> Can you please backport to GCC 5 as well?
Sure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67408
Bug ID: 67408
Summary: assumes that __gthread_mutex_t
and__gthread_recursive_mutex_t are the same types
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65737
Yvan Roux changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yroux at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66786
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67363
İsmail Dönmez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67407
Bug ID: 67407
Summary: ice in friend_accessible_p
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67363
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67363
--- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Mon Aug 31 11:19:42 2015
New Revision: 227337
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227337&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Avoid strndup in gcc.c (PR bootstrap/67363)
PR bootstrap/67363
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67363
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|dmalcolm at redhat dot com |ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67386
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> My reading was that the implicit declaration is intended to be in effect only
> for the call to the otherwise undeclared function, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54833
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54833
--- Comment #2 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Mon Aug 31 10:54:36 2015
New Revision: 227336
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227336&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/54833
* trans.c (gfc_call_free):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48664
--- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
The commit message went to PR47571 instead of this one:
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Mon Aug 31 10:37:30 2015
New Revision: 227335
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227335&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48664
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
--- Comment #58 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Mon Aug 31 10:37:30 2015
New Revision: 227335
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227335&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libfortran/47571
* acinclude.m4 (LIBGFOR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67032
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67396
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67363
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67396
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-*-* |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67381
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
The related bug is PR64084 btw.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67406
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
No, you can only use -mfma and affect code generation for all the clones, not
just one.
Cilk+ has some processor clause or so which allows one to choose the ISA, but
only the ISA and not actually further opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67406
--- Comment #2 from vincenzo Innocente ---
is there any mechanism to tell gcc to generate the AVX2 clone using fma?
I understand it reduces portability still at the moment I have to support
mostly
Intel platforms.
for AMD, gcc suggests to use avx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67390
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|m68k-*-*|m68k-*-*, arm*
--- Comment #1 from Rich
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67396
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67406
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
-mfma is an independent ISA option, not part of -mavx2, there could be CPUs
with AVX2, but without FMA, so it can't be enabled.
As for AVX512 cloning, what ISAs we clone to is part of the ABI, and at the
tim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67406
Bug ID: 67406
Summary: OMP SIMD cloning does not generate fma instruction for
AVX2 target
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
77 matches
Mail list logo
