https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67910
Guille changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67910
--- Comment #6 from Guille ---
Can confirm it does compile on gcc version 6.0.0 20151004.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63176
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from TC ---
: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20151009 (experimental) [trunk revision 228653] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 small.c; ./a.out
$ gcc-5.2 -O3 small.c; ./a.out
$
$ gcc-trunk -O3 small.c
$ ./a.out
Aborted (core dumped)
$
int a[6], b = 1, d, e;
long long c;
static
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65779
--- Comment #12 from baoshan ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> I suspect this was fixed for GCC 6 with the patch that fixed bug 67789
> (which is the more correct patch).
I think they are two different issues. 67789 is duplicate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65779
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
I suspect this was fixed for GCC 6 with the patch that fixed bug 67789 (which
is the more correct patch).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65779
--- Comment #10 from baoshan ---
This is my fix for this issue, any comment is welcome.
---
10 gcc/function.c |5 +++--
11 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
12
13 diff --git a/gcc/function.c b/gcc/functi
-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20151009 (experimental) [trunk revision 228653] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -Os -c small.c
$ gcc-5.2 -O2 -c small.c
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 -c small.c
small.c: In function ‘fn2’:
small.c:10:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
fn2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67892
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67914
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63499
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||e...@coeus-group.com
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67914
Bug ID: 67914
Summary: Unrecognized command line argument warning not shown
unless there is another warning for -Wno-*
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64945
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57126
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51284
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56758
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67913
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
The following otherwise untested patch makes GCC reject new expressions with
negative numbers of elements:
@@ -3066,6 +3378,14 @@ build_new (vec **placement, tree type, tree
nelts,
else
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67913
Bug ID: 67913
Summary: new expression with negative size not diagnosed
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67910
--- Comment #5 from Guille ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #4)
> This seems to be already fixed on trunk.
Just tested on most recent gcc version 5.2.1 20151006 (GCC) and it doesn't
compile:
t.c: In function ‘int main()’:
t.c:10:12: e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47595
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67909
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67894
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #7)
> AFAICT the (l\u)bound have been set by r190098. Mikael CCed.
I think that revision just made scalarization work.
For the calls with the dim= argument, I do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67757
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
-solaris2.10/include -isystem
/vol/gcc/i386-pc-solaris2.10/sys-include-c -g -O2 -m64 -fpic -W -Wall
-gnatpg -nostdinc -m64 s-regpat.adb -o s-regpat.o
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 6.0.0 20151009 (experimental) [trunk revision 228636] (i386-pc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67912
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67910
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67911
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
(I thought we already had a PR or 2 about this)
The future is likely to be based on
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0035r0.html
but sadly this is moving forward quite slowly.
Users can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67903
--- Comment #4 from Yucheng Low ---
I have tried version scripts and it ought to work but I couldn't quite figure
out what symbols to hide.
In any case, the proposed modification does fix a questionable bit of code in
locale.cc (i.e. the resize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67910
--- Comment #3 from Guille ---
gcc 5.2.0: -Wall -Wextra -std=c++1y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67910
--- Comment #2 from Guille ---
struct A {};
struct B {};
static auto f(auto b) -> A { return A(); } // error: could not convert 'A()'
from 'A' to 'B'
int main()
{
A a = f(B()); // error: conversion from 'B' to non-scalar type 'A'
requeste
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67911
Bug ID: 67911
Summary: new expression fails to align overaligned types
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67910
--- Comment #1 from Guille ---
Ignore "__attribute__((unused))", it was added by mistake.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67910
Bug ID: 67910
Summary: Two autos in a single function confuses the type
system
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59859
Bug 59859 depends on bug 50210, which changed state.
Bug 50210 Summary: [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE: in create_linear_expr_from_tree,
at graphite-sese-to-poly.c:1137 with fgraphite-identity -ffast-math
-fno-tree-scev-cprop -fstrict-overflow
https:/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50210
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67518
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59859
Bug 59859 depends on bug 67518, which changed state.
Bug 67518 Summary: [6 Regression][graphite] ISL: position out of bounds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67518
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66926
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67909
Bug ID: 67909
Summary: [6 Regression] 416.gamess in SPEC CPU 2006 is
miscompiled
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62113
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225
--- Comment #24 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> So deferring to 6.0 then.
Any progress?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47598
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67895
Alexander Fomin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67779
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I have instrumented the test and found that 'String = 10 ', which at
the first position, is compared only once at the first call to quick sort, but
not for the other invocations of array(1:j).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66070
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67895
--- Comment #1 from afomin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: afomin
Date: Fri Oct 9 15:57:06 2015
New Revision: 228660
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228660&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
AVX512: Fix embedded rounding/SAE specifier position.
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66860
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65437
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66518
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51132
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48241
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67518
--- Comment #2 from Joost VandeVondele
---
yes, on current trunk this doesn't fail anymore, not sure if it has gone latent
or was fixed with some of the recent activity.
Unfortunately, I seemingly still have a wrong code case, which I have not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58202
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57167
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57168
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64116
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64976
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67518
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57732
Bug 57732 depends on bug 59121, which changed state.
Bug 59121 Summary: [4.9/5/6 Regression] endless loop with -O2
-floop-parallelize-all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59121
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59859
Bug 59859 depends on bug 59121, which changed state.
Bug 59121 Summary: [4.9/5/6 Regression] endless loop with -O2
-floop-parallelize-all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59121
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59121
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59121
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spop at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67760
--- Comment #2 from Dr. Thomas Orgis ---
Am Fri, 09 Oct 2015 13:59:08 +
schrieb "dominiq at lps dot ens.fr" :
> After including a line
>
> module fancymod
Yeah, sorry about that, but it is kindof obvious that this line is
missing from the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59859
Bug 59859 depends on bug 59586, which changed state.
Bug 59586 Summary: [4.9 Regression] [graphite] Segmentation fault with -Ofast
-floop-parallelize-all -ftree-parallelize-loops
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59586
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59586
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64394
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66117
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64392
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67861
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Fri Oct 9 14:13:39 2015
New Revision: 228657
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228657&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
* config/nvptx/nvptx.c (nvptx_init_axis_predicate): Fix output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54753
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67760
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67908
Bug ID: 67908
Summary: gcc segfaults with -fstack-check (internal compiler
error) / armv7 host and target
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67779
--- Comment #3 from Arjen Markus ---
Let me clarify:
the STRING "String = 10" should come after the STRING "String = 1 ". It is not
a matter of the numbers inside. If you compare these strings with LLT(), you
will see this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67843
--- Comment #8 from Christophe Lyon ---
I've tested the patch you attached.
It needs a slight modification because it does not apply to current trunk:
_GLIBCXX_READ_MEM_BARRIER;
_GLIBCXX_WRITE_MEM_BARRIER;
have be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67779
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67806
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56149
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53867
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67907
Bug ID: 67907
Summary: regression: internal compiler error: Segmentation
fault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67894
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67894
--- Comment #6 from John Donners ---
I did have a look at the gcc code to see if I could change this, but I don't
know where to start. I did see the tests for the assumed rank bounds and I
could help to change those.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67894
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I think that you meant an assumed-shape array with ...
Indeed! Thanks for the pointer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67894
--- Comment #4 from John Donners ---
I think that you meant an assumed-shape array with
real,dimension(:,:,:) :: a
The assumed-shape array is described in section 5.5.8.3 of the draft standard
and it explicitly says that the lower bound is 1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67894
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Dominique
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67894
--- Comment #2 from John Donners ---
Hello Dominique,
thank you for your reaction. Yes, I should have added the output and my
expectation. I expected to see the following:
Actual argument, allocatable, lbound= 3 10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Bug 64164 depends on bug 67891, which changed state.
Bug 67891 Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr43300.c (internal compiler
error) on alpha-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67891
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67891
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Bug 64164 depends on bug 67766, which changed state.
Bug 67766 Summary: [6 Regression]: Bootstrap failure on alpha-linux-gnu: ICE in
simplify_subreg, at simplify-rtx.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67766
What|Remove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67766
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67828
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67766
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Oct 9 12:18:40 2015
New Revision: 228651
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228651&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR67766] reorder handling of parallels, concats and promoted values in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67891
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Oct 9 12:18:58 2015
New Revision: 228652
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228652&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR67891] don't test is_gimple_reg after parm expansion
for gcc/Chang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67817
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67828
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Oct 9 12:18:24 2015
New Revision: 228650
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228650&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR67828] don't unswitch on default defs of non-parms
for gcc/ChangeL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67894
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67903
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(If this is something that should be fixed in the library at all),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67900
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The code compiles without error with the patch in comment 2 without regression.
I have reread the comments in pr48858 and pr55465 and did not convinced myself
that the code is invalid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67903
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Yucheng Low from comment #0)
> This would not be a problem if not for the fact that:
> - the global locale is initialized with an inplace new:
> locale_init.cc:378
> _M_fac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67876
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67192
--- Comment #19 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #18)
> The "simpler" progression seems to be to remove code like
>
> if (CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P (t) && code != LABEL_EXPR)
> {
> if (!EXPR_HAS_LOCATIO
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
