https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1078
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64132
--- Comment #8 from li xin ---
(In reply to li xin from comment #7)
> (In reply to li xin from comment #6)
> > The LSB test cases also Failed.
> > /22_locale/messages/members/char/2.cc 1
> > /22_locale/messages/members/char/wrapped_env.cc 1
> > /
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69008
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69008
Bug ID: 69008
Summary: gcc emits unneeded memory access when passing trivial
structs by value (ARM)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69007
Bug ID: 69007
Summary: [6 regression] test cases
gcc.dg/vect/vect-reduc-dot-s8a.c fails starting with
r231815
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67425
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69002
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> int
> read1 (_Atomic S p)
> {
> S s = p;
> return s.x;
That's fine.
> read2 (_Atomic S *p)
> {
> S *s = p;
No, assignment /
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68993
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 08:29:57PM +, Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68993
>
> --- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele ethz.ch> ---
> (In reply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66848
--- Comment #26 from Jack Howarth ---
Created attachment 37100
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37100&action=edit
proposed patch to suppress PR66848 on darwin
The attached proposed patch suppresses PR66848 on darwin until eit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68993
--- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #4)
>
> I would urge anyone trying to be clever to use clear syntax:
>
https://github.com/hfp/libxsmm/commit/cc308fc5debe6151157a4fa9efacc7aa03351283
is what we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66921
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67257
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68770
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #5)
> Created attachment 37099 [details]
> Initialise the t_icode field of the sri structure created by copy_cost.
> Please could you try out the uploaded patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68917
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
by the way, did you have also trouble to build the
libgcc multilib configuration or did you --disable-multilib?
this seems completely broken too...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68917
--- Comment #2 from Chen Gang ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #1)
> does something like this help?
>
Oh, sorry for replying late.
I shall try to give a test within this month.
Thanks. :-)
> Index: tilegx.md
> ==
-linux-gnu
Configured with: /home/aurel32/git/gcc/configure --enable-languages=c
--prefix=/usr --target=mipsel-linux-gnu
--includedir=/usr/mipsel-linux-gnu/include
Thread model: posix
gcc version 5.3.1 20151221 (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-v' '-B' '/home/aurel32/work/mips-gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69006
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69006
Bug ID: 69006
Summary: Extraneous newline emitted between error messages in
GCC 6
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69002
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
FWIW, I think it would make sense to diagnose some of the constructs for other
reasons besides accessing a member (of an atomic struct). For example, in
write1(), the function is most likely not going to do w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68302
--- Comment #18 from Steve Ellcey ---
I think there is still a difference in our configurations. If you add '-v' to
the compile line when compiling the test program what do you see? Specifically
what does COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS show? Mine has:
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69002
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68982
--- Comment #5 from Roger Orr ---
Thank you ;-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
--- Comment #23 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #22)
> Jerry, thanks very much for investigating. Given all the discussion here I
> agree with XFAILing this test for all powerpc. However, it does appear to
> be one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69002
--- Comment #5 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> The footnote to 6.5.2.3/5 says "Members can be safely accessed using a
> non-atomic object which is assigned to or from the atomic object." Does it
> mean that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68987
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=69002
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68770
--- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 37099
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37099&action=edit
Initialise the t_icode field of the sri structure created by copy_cost.
Hi Markus,
Please could you try out t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67339
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68302
--- Comment #17 from Aurelien Jarno ---
Created attachment 37098
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37098&action=edit
output log with cselib.c patched
Please find attached the output with your cselib.c patch. Sorry for the dela
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69002
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68860
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 37097
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37097&action=edit
gcc6-pr68860-lto.patch
I've noticed that the new tests still fail with LTO.
It seems the reason is that LTO ign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66808
--- Comment #8 from Roger Orr ---
Thank you.
I've tested the fix and it successfully compiles works both the sample program
uploaded to my duplicate pr69000 and also my original presenting case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69002
--- Comment #2 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> I actually wouldn't want to see GCC start issuing warnings for this code
> because it has well-defined semantics there.
Unfortunately, the generated code is trul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69002
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69005
Bug ID: 69005
Summary: [5/6 Regression] infinite(?) recursion in template
instantiations
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69004
Bug ID: 69004
Summary: -fprofile-use stage fails on ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-profile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68993
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 07:20:59AM +, Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
wrote:
> I believe there was some confusion about the second testcase.
> The real question
> is if this is valid in all cases:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It hasn't, but I'll do it for GCC 6 so people who care about the resulting size
can use the non-verbose option
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69003
Bug ID: 69003
Summary: Undefined reference with gcc -r incremental linking
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65867
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dj at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65337
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6 Regression]|[5 regression] LTO
|bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65337
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Dec 21 15:15:50 2015
New Revision: 231882
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231882&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/65337
* tree-ssa-pre.c (eliminat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69002
Bug ID: 69002
Summary: C front end should warn about undefined access to
atomic structure or union
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68980
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68990
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
BTW, with -mno-stv -O3 the testcase passes, and while the *.stv pass actually
doesn't do anything at all on this testcase, that switch already changes
expansion in a couple of places so no wonder that the RA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68990
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think the problem is:
** Pseudos coalescing #1: **
Coalescing move 5:r91(91)-r103(103) (freq=1)
Removing move 5 (freq=1)
deleting insn with uid = 5.
Make unique value fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68999
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68990
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68982
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Dec 21 14:16:36 2015
New Revision: 231881
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231881&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Rename test file that had incorrect bug number
PR libstdc++/6898
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68562
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
This happens with glibc trunk. The dynamic linker now uses SSE instructions
internally and as a result segfaults when the stack is misaligned.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67669
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67669
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from TC ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68562
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66808
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 37095
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37095&action=edit
gcc6-pr66808.patch
Untested fix. My understanding is that the tsubst_decl code just in some cases
does not exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68276
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oops, that was meant to be for Bug 68982
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68982
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68276
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Dec 21 13:02:12 2015
New Revision: 231879
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231879&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libstdc++/68276 consistently qualify std::forward
PR libstdc++/6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68995
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Dec 21 13:02:18 2015
New Revision: 231880
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231880&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libstdc++/68995 qualify calls to __callable_functor
PR libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69001
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68761
--- Comment #5 from David Kredba ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Please report that into a separate PR, this one is graphite related, your is
> some C++17 C++ FE bug. What is going on is that cp_genericize_r first
> converts ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69001
Bug ID: 69001
Summary: g++ --std=c++17 -g internal compiler error: in
create_tmp_var, at gimple-expr.c:519
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69000
--- Comment #2 from Roger Orr ---
Thanks: apologies that my bugzilla-fu failed to find the duplicate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68999
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Executing on host:
/space/homedirs/uros/gcc-build-fast/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/../../gfortran
-B/space/homedirs/uros/gcc-build-fast/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/../../
-B/space/homedirs/uros/gcc
-build-fast/alphaev68-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68990
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Note you may need -march=x86-64 to reproduce.
Started with r228231:
commit 3ef16338b7f4970607d1d0b9c8228bfe3aeeca94
Author: ienkovich
Date: Tue Sep 29 09:32:40 2015 +
gcc/
PR target/651
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66808
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66808
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rogero at howzatt dot
demon.co.uk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69000
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68992
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Fixed with:
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231876&root=gcc&view=rev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69000
Bug ID: 69000
Summary: regression: internal compiler error: Segmentation
fault
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68990
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68992
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68999
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66693
--- Comment #3 from ville at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ville
Date: Mon Dec 21 11:22:16 2015
New Revision: 231875
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231875&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/66693.
* include/std/tuple (tuple_element,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68999
Bug ID: 68999
Summary: [6 Regression]: FAIL:
gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/save_1.f90 execution
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68761
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14331
l3x changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tvr.bc.32 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #21 from l3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68994
l3x changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68998
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68761
David Kredba changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nheghathivhistha at gmail dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 66827, which changed state.
Bug 66827 Summary: [6 Regression] left shifts of negative value warnings due to
C++14 switch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66827
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66827
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68963
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Adjusted testcase for testsuite purposes:
static const float a[3] = { 1, 2, 3 };
int b = 3;
__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void
bar (int x)
{
if (x != b++)
__builtin_abort ();
}
void
foo (float *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68998
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68963
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68998
Bug ID: 68998
Summary: Wrong code generated regarding constexpr arrays
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68983
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66827
--- Comment #9 from Nick Clifton ---
Author: nickc
Date: Mon Dec 21 08:23:35 2015
New Revision: 231873
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231873&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 66827
* regex.c (EXTRACT_NUMBER): Cast sign byte to unsi
88 matches
Mail list logo
