https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67888
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65345
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sch...@linux-m68k.org
--- Comment #24 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67887
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67830
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Whoops. c#4 was for an unrelated BZ.
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20151007 (experimental) [trunk revision 228566] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O0 -c small.c
$ gcc-5.2 -O1 -c small.c
$
$ gcc-trunk -O1 -c small.c
small.c: In function ‘fn1’:
small.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67888
--- Comment #1 from Craig Rodrigues ---
I was able to work around this problem in two ways, as I mentioned
on the cfe-dev mailing list for LLVM:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-October/045336.html
(1) Patch Module.cpp to move "stru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67888
Bug ID: 67888
Summary: Compiling clang 3.7.0 results in is used but never
defined
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67882
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 36459
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36459&action=edit
/home/remote/msebor/patches/gcc-67882-surprising_offsetof_result.patch
Proposed patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67887
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67887
Bug ID: 67887
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/pr65345-3.c (internal compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67885
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67747
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.0 |5.3
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67173
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67843
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 36458
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36458&action=edit
Require consistent shared_ptr lock policy
Maybe we should solve this by forcing a linker error when an object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67843
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I've just realised this is probably the same issue as PR42734
If you compile for armv5 then shared_ptr uses a mutex internally, because armv5
doesn't support the necessary atomics. The library is compiled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67747
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Oct 7 21:00:50 2015
New Revision: 228584
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228584&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport Filesystem TS fixes from mainline.
PR libstdc++/67173
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67173
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Oct 7 21:00:50 2015
New Revision: 228584
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228584&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport Filesystem TS fixes from mainline.
PR libstdc++/67173
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67886
Bug ID: 67886
Summary: Incomplete optimization for virtual function call into
freshly constructed object
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67885
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67477
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Ryan Mansfield from comment #0)
> Created attachment 36298 [details]
> reduced preprocessed source
>
> $ ./xgcc -v
> Using built-in specs.
> COLLECT_GCC=./xgcc
> Target: arm-unknown-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67885
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Deleting this inner block gives another error :
$ cat z5.f90
program p
block
real, parameter :: a(2) = 1.0
real :: x(2)
x = a
print *, x
end block
end
$ gfortran -g -O0 -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67885
Bug ID: 67885
Summary: ICE on using parameter array in block
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67884
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Whereas, detected with explicit result variable :
$ cat z5a.f90
program p
integer i
print *, [(f(i), i=1,3)]
contains
function f(n) result(z)
integer :: n
character(:) :: z
ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67884
Bug ID: 67884
Summary: Missing error message on required allocatable
attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67883
Bug ID: 67883
Summary: ICE on empty array constructor of character function
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67124
--- Comment #9 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #6)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #5)
> > Wrong expansion, adding CC.
>
> The expand code looks OK to me. Assigning to one DImode word
> of a TImo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67124
--- Comment #8 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #6)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #5)
> > Wrong expansion, adding CC.
>
> The expand code looks OK to me. Assigning to one DImode word
> of a TImo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66697
--- Comment #27 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 36457
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36457&action=edit
Backport for gcc-5 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66697
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.3
--- Comment #26 from Uroš Bizjak ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67882
Bug ID: 67882
Summary: surprising offsetof result on an invalid array member
without diagnostic
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66697
--- Comment #25 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Oct 7 17:42:09 2015
New Revision: 228577
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228577&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66697
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_option
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #35 from Christopher Torres ---
(In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #33)
> Err, this is only fixed in the trunk so far. It's approved for 5.2 too,
> after some time, if no issues pop up. So, reopening.
Hey Alexandre,
I was w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67874
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67874
--- Comment #2 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Wed Oct 7 17:22:08 2015
New Revision: 228576
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228576&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/67874
net, runtime: Call C library fcntl function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67865
--- Comment #3 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com ---
I can say that it works with gcc 4.8.
Clang 3.7 could take a while because I suffer from an incompatibility between
gcc and clang so I cannot bind my C++ libs compiled with gcc to a c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67557
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Calling copy constructor of |[4.9/5/6 regression]
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67828
--- Comment #6 from Zhendong Su ---
Below is another testcase that I believe exposes the same issue:
---
int a = 2, b = 1, c = 1;
int
fn1 ()
{
int d;
for (; a; a--)
{
for (d = 0; d < 4; d++)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67828
--- Comment #5 from Zhendong Su ---
> This testcase invokes undefined behavior because of the overflow on the
> iterator, ...
Just a quick comment that the testcase doesn't have undefined behaviors. As the
variable c is of type short, there sho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67867
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Oct 7 14:09:05 2015
New Revision: 228569
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228569&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/67867
* search.c (accessible_p): Initializ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67867
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67385
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67385
--- Comment #1 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Oct 7 13:45:21 2015
New Revision: 228567
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228567&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Check $READELF_FOR_TARGET for readelf in configure
Similar to as,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67766
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 36456
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36456&action=edit
Patch that fixes bootstrap problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67766
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #1)
> Mine. Moving down the code in function.c that's under the comment:
> /* If a named return value dumped decl_return to memory, then
> we may
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66697
--- Comment #24 from Justas L ---
Oh, OK. I was looking at the patched code and forgot that part was patched.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66697
--- Comment #23 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #22)
> i386.h has
>
> * Minimum stack boundary. */
> #define MIN_STACK_BOUNDARY (TARGET_64BIT ? (TARGET_SSE ? 128 : 64) : 32)
But the patch changes this definition to:
/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66697
--- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Justas L from comment #21)
> When is MIN_STACK_BOUNDARY equal to 128? I thought it defaulted to 64 (8*8)
> for x86_64 and 32 (4*8) for x86, no?
i386.h has
* Minimum stack boundary. */
#define MIN_S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66697
--- Comment #21 from Justas L ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #20)
> -mstackrealign works correctly as designed on x86-64. The
> issue is MIN_STACK_BOUNDARY. When MIN_STACK_BOUNDARY is 128,
> you don't need to realign the stack if you onl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67323
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
I note that the efficiency you gain is only by a reduced number of loads/store
instructions. vld3 instead of six vldr (huh, appearantly vld3 can load 16
byte vectors but vldr only 8 byte ones?). I assume v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67794
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65889
--- Comment #4 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Wed Oct 7 10:58:46 2015
New Revision: 228566
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228566&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
2015-10-07 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66697
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #20 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67850
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Oct 7 10:30:12 2015
New Revision: 228565
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228565&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Merge ix86_maybe_switch_abi with ix86_set_current_function
ix86_ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67843
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Running this under valgrind I see 900+ errors, the first 100 seem to be from
the global strings in the libstdc++-v3/testsuite/util/testsuite_fs.h file (I
think).
All the errors are basically nonsense, repo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67764
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67764
Marcin Ślusarz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40752
Marcin Ślusarz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marcin.slusarz at intel dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65766
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Vous avez raison; j'en suis désolé. Je viens de le faire.
No problem! Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65766
--- Comment #11 from louis.krupp at zoho dot com ---
Dominique,
Vous avez raison; j'en suis désolé. Je viens de le faire.
Louis
On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 00:47:39 -0700 dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67868
--- Comment #5 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> What GCC version (with VTV enabled) did work for you?
I do not think any version of GCC with VTV enabled has worked for AArch64 or
ARM - I failed to noti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65345
--- Comment #23 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Wed Oct 7 08:37:35 2015
New Revision: 228562
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228562&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR c/65345 for arm
2015-10-07 Ramana Radhakrishnan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67868
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |other
Target Milestone|4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67881
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67881
Bug ID: 67881
Summary: type deduced incorrectly in constructor template when
binding to const int
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67868
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67683
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Right shifts are divisions so the result isn't an affine evolution.
Yes, you could enhance the vectorizer to not rely on scalar evolutions (only)
for reduction detection.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67871
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67872
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67877
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67879
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65766
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> 2015-10-06 Louis Krupp
>
> PR fortran/65766
> * gfortran.dg/substr_alloc_string_comp_1.f90: New.
AFAICT the test has not been committed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67880
--- Comment #1 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
optimize flags should not be part of the alignment ABI.
fixed with https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-09/msg02198.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67880
Bug ID: 67880
Summary: [ARM] -fno-align-functions does not work for thumb
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
73 matches
Mail list logo
