https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67443
--- Comment #2 from wmi at google dot com ---
Another problem is found in true_dependence_1 in alias.c. true_mem_addr or
true_x_addr got after calling get_addr may be used as inputs of
memrefs_conflict_p. However memrefs_conflict_p expects to use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67443
--- Comment #1 from wmi at google dot com ---
Seems the patch makes some problem exposed.
For the testcase 1.cxx below:
typedef struct A {
unsigned i : 8;
unsigned j : 24;
} A;
void foo(A *a) {
a->i = 3;
a->j = 5;
}
The rtl generated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57607
--- Comment #3 from Douglas Mencken ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> Seems to be fixed in GCC 5 though:
Yep, 5.2 works:
$ g++-5.2 -std=gnu++11 -framework CoreFoundation -lobjc test.mm && ./a.out
Hello world!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #21 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #19)
> Yes, that's what I meant. Could you try building gdc with gcc 5?
Sure. But I will have to wait a little. We are currently missing some buildds
that we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67490
Bug ID: 67490
Summary: [6 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/pr16458-1.c
scan-assembler-not cmpw
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67489
Bug ID: 67489
Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/p8vector-builtin-8.c (test
for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67479
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 7 Sep 2015, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Perhaps this should be called then -Wformat-undefined and not depend on
> -Wpedantic at all?
But if you're writing code for the GNU syst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67479
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Perhaps this should be called then -Wformat-undefined and not depend on
-Wpedantic at all?
We still need a -Wx option that is to -pedantic-errors what -Wpedantic is to
-Werror=pedantic ...
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150907 (experimental) [trunk revision 227515] (GCC)
$:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67479
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #3)
> This should not be a pedwarn, because it only has undefined behavior in
> ISO C at runtime, not compile time.
But it is enabled by -pedantic -Wf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67479
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 7 Sep 2015, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> Index: c-format.c
> ===
> --- c-format.c (revision 227095)
> +++ c-fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67468
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67479
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
If maintaining the current behavior, which requires both -Wpedantic and
-Wformat, is desired, just define -Wformat-pedantic using LangEnabledBy(,
Wformat && Wpedantic) in c.opt.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67479
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, easyhack
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30929
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67210
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67487
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67480
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Fomin ---
Created attachment 36304
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36304&action=edit
Proposed fix
Proposed fix.
Splitting instruction pattern into two patterns, namely:
(a) any logic instruc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63758
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
posted as
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-09/msg00447.html
with Eric's suggested move of environ.h -> include/
checked with a bootstrap on darwin12 that libiberty.a only contains references
to _NSGetEnv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66142
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||enkovich.gnu at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57607
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Seems to be fixed in GCC 5 though:
l.mm: In function ‘int main()’:
l.mm:10:23: error: cannot find interface declaration for ‘NXConstantString’
std::cout << [@"Hello world!" UTF8String] << std::end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67487
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67487
Bug ID: 67487
Summary: ICE: Illegal instruction, header
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65725
Fredrik Nyström changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fredrik at lysator dot liu.se
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67486
Bug ID: 67486
Summary: ira-color.c sanitizer detects signed integer overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67485
Bug ID: 67485
Summary: expmed.c sanitizer detects overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67484
Bug ID: 67484
Summary: options-save.c sanitizer asan detects freed storage
referenced heap-use-after-free
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67483
Bug ID: 67483
Summary: combine.c sanitizer detects undefined negative left
shift
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67482
Bug ID: 67482
Summary: dwarf2out.c sanitizer detects undefined behaviour
negation of -9223372036854775808
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57607
Douglas Mencken changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dougmencken at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67481
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> I'm testing a fix for PR 67456.
> Hopefully they have the same root cause and the patch will fix them all
Great: please let me kno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67481
--- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm testing a fix for PR 67456.
Hopefully they have the same root cause and the patch will fix them all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67481
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67481
Bug ID: 67481
Summary: [6 regression] gcc.c-torture/execute/20071216-1.c
FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56109
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67480
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Fomin ---
Created attachment 36301
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36301&action=edit
Testcase
A reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67480
Bug ID: 67480
Summary: AVX512 bitwise logic operations pattern is incorrect
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: assemble-failure, wrong-code
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67465
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66919
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67478
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oh sorry, I missed that was in your first comment! Checking it now...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67478
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Please could you provide powerpc-ibm-aix6.1.7.0/libstdc++-v3/config.log
instead?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66681
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
This cures the problem in all its guises:
Index: /home/pault/svn/trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
===
*** /home/pault/svn/trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67438
--- Comment #8 from graham.stott at btinternet dot com ---
Sent from Samsung Mobile on O2
Original message From: "afomin.mailbox at
gmail dot com" Date:07/09/2015 13:35
(GMT+00:00) To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug
middle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67438
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Fomin ---
Looks like a cost model should be introduced to avoid such kind of
transformations for targets with HW min/max implementation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67469
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67479
Bug ID: 67479
Summary: Support for -Wformat-pedantic
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67478
Torbjörn Gard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tgard at opentext dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67478
Bug ID: 67478
Summary: gcc-5.1.0/gcc-5.2.0 undefined symbol
std::__once_callable in AIX 6.1
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
gnueabi --enable-languages=c++ --disable-libssp
--enable-checking
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150907 (experimental) [trunk revision 227519] (GCC)
$ ./xgcc -B. ~/ice.i -O3 -fstack-protector-strong -mfpu=neon -mfloat-abi=softfp
-march=armv7-a -mfloat-abi=softfp -c
/home/rmansfield/ic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66605
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||exodus6395 at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67467
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67470
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67456
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Thanks, hopefully it'll fix the other two as well ;).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67456
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'll have a look at this testcase since it's the simplest one of them
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67456
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67464
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67465
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65089
--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Fixed on trunk. It would be good to backport to 5.2 and probably 4.9.x
IMO 4.9 is almost EOL and is not worth the trouble. What is the plan for 5.3?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59694
Ian Harvey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian_harvey at bigpond dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67472
Ian Harvey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336
Bug 37336 depends on bug 67472, which changed state.
Bug 67472 Summary: Finalizer not invoked for undefined and unreferenced local
variable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67472
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66681
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Looks to me, from your result, that it is present in 5.2 :-)
( 0., 0.) instead of ( 1., 0.
)?-(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66408
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67470
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66681
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #2)
> Confirmed for trunk (6.0). I get an ICE for the test in comment 0 and the
> first one in comment 1 with 4.9:
>
> pr66681_1.f90:4:0: internal compiler error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66640
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66681
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67476
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
All but the static omp schedules use expand_omp_for_generic. There does seem to
be some ssa support in expand_omp_for_generic.
If we revert "Don't cancel loop tree in parloops" (r226427) to elimina
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67448
Sergey Barannikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #5 from Sergey Ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67448
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67448
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Sep 7 09:19:13 2015
New Revision: 227517
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227517&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR inline-asm/67448
* gimplify.c (gimplify_asm_expr): D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67476
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 36297
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36297&action=edit
Initial patch, adding param
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67476
Bug ID: 67476
Summary: Add --param
parloops-schedule=
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67472
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||37336
--- Comment #1 from Dominiq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67472
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67471
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67475
Bug ID: 67475
Summary: [6 regression] reload1.c:3772:41: error: 'orig_dup[1]'
may be used uninitialized in this function breaks
SPARC bootstrap
Product: gcc
Versi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67474
Bug ID: 67474
Summary: [6 regression] tree-vect-loop.c:2759:1: error: insn
does not satisfy its constraints breaks ARM bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67379
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
There is a similar bug in gcc/function.c:254
unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT size = FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD ? -offset : offset;
when offset == -9223372036854775808
Should I open a new bug?
80 matches
Mail list logo
