https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68166
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68166
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Mon Nov 2 07:42:04 2015
New Revision: 229652
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229652&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR middle-end/68166] Restore build with fold checking enabled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68164
--- Comment #3 from Casey Carter ---
Apologies for the vagueness of my response; I actually needed your quote from
[class.cdtor]/3 to complete it:
"To ... access the value of ... a direct non-static member of an object obj,
the construction of o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68164
--- Comment #2 from W E Brown ---
(In reply to Casey Carter from comment #1)
> [basic.life]/5 says:
>
> Before the lifetime of an object has started ... or, after the lifetime of
> an object has ended and before the storage which the object occu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68061
Casey Carter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Casey at Carter dot net
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68099
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Ben-Avraham ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #1)
> The gcc developers do not use crosstool, so providing us with a config for
> it is of no help. Furthermore, un-preprocessed source means we are unlikel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68099
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Ben-Avraham ---
Created attachment 36633
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36633&action=edit
The preprocessed source code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68164
Casey Carter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Casey at Carter dot net
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68100
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Ben-Avraham ---
jonathana@orcam81:~/pub/gcc/bugs$
/homes/jonathana/pub/mxs/tc/2015092100/arm-mxs-linux-gnueabihf/bin/arm-mxs-linux-gnueabihf-gcc
-v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/homes/jonathana/pub/mxs/tc/2015092
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68099
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Ben-Avraham ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #1)
> The gcc developers do not use crosstool, so providing us with a config for
> it is of no help. Furthermore, un-preprocessed source means we are unlikel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070
--- Comment #23 from neil.n.carlson at gmail dot com ---
Here's an even simpler example with the deferred length character array as a
local variable -- not a function result or dummy argument. Sure seems as
though the allocate statement itself is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070
--- Comment #22 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> What is the status of this issue? It would appear from comment 18
> to be "fixed" insofar as the the provided examples compile, but is
> the compiled code correct?
This a wrong interpretation: mos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070
--- Comment #21 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
*** Bug 66065 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66065
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070
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=54070
neil.n.carlson at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||neil.n.carlson at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67508
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67968
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67968
--- Comment #15 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Sun Nov 1 20:46:21 2015
New Revision: 229643
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229643&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/67968
compiler: Traverse types of call expressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67968
--- Comment #16 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Sun Nov 1 20:46:37 2015
New Revision: 229644
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229644&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/67968
compiler: Traverse types of call expressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67968
--- Comment #14 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Sun Nov 1 20:46:04 2015
New Revision: 229642
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229642&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/67968
compiler: Traverse types of call expressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68151
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68153
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68178
Bug ID: 68178
Summary: [arm] Relative address expressions bind at as-time,
even if symbol is weak
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68177
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68176
--- Comment #1 from Nix ---
I can confirm that reverting the fix for bug 65550 makes the pch failures go
away on my increasingly creaky eglibc 2.18 systems. So that's the smoking gun.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68177
Bug ID: 68177
Summary: Lambda capture doesn't work correctly when lambda is
used in a pack expansion
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68176
Bug ID: 68176
Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] all pch tests fail on eglibc
systems (with bits/predefs.h)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68173
--- Comment #4 from Robert Clausecker ---
No, it wasn't swapping, although I probably didn't let it run long enough to
exhaust all my memory (8 GiB). Either way, the file compiles pretty quickly
with -O3 so something seems to be wrong when no opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30409
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
*** Bug 45676 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36854
Bug 36854 depends on bug 45676, which changed state.
Bug 45676 Summary: Move array assignments out of loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45676
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45676
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67982
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68173
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||memory-hog
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68173
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68175
Bug ID: 68175
Summary: g++ 5.2.1 produces broken executables with
devirtualization enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68108
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||neil.n.carlson at gmail dot com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68174
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68173
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you check if you are swapping (that is if the memory usage is high).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68174
Bug ID: 68174
Summary: Length parameter in character allocation not
recognized as a scalar (regression from 5.2)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68173
Bug ID: 68173
Summary: gcc does not terminate with -O0 on source file with a
very large expression
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66033
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig ---
Another issue: What should we do if the user supplies an external subroutine
DGEMM which does something unrelated?
I suppose we should then make DGEMM (and SGEMM) an intrinsic subroutine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68172
Bug ID: 68172
Summary: [6 Regression] LTO/PGO bootstrapped compiler is
miscompiled (looping in sched_rgn_init)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68171
--- Comment #1 from Troy ---
As an aside, the test is based on an example in the Ada 2012 Rationale. The
original uses Static_Predicate, but fails to compile with gnat 4.9.2. That is
why I used Dynamic_Predicate instead.
45 matches
Mail list logo