https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70122
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
ping^2: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00754.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69607
--- Comment #25 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
ping^3: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00753.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67728
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Andrew Roberts from comment #8)
> The initial bug report was for cross compiling. Bug 70211 is for native
> builds on ARM. Given the huge growth in ARM development boards, this needs
> at least
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67728
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Roberts ---
The initial bug report was for cross compiling. Bug 70211 is for native builds
on ARM. Given the huge growth in ARM development boards, this needs at least
documenting. As with the original reporter I spent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
--- Comment #2 from Wink Saville ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
> (In reply to Wink Saville from comment #0)
> > I have identified one possible problem and with this scheme, what if the
> > compiler needs to setup a stack frame by push
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41437
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69951
Chengnian Sun changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chengniansun at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70220
Bug ID: 70220
Summary: [x86] interrupt attribute optionally needs to provide
read, write and control the set of saved registers
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70205
--- Comment #2 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Confirmed, it ICEs with checking turned on.
>
> Note this might be invalid code as what GCC is iceing on is an error_mark
> node.
Andrew, this should be valid cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45076
--- Comment #9 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Sun Mar 13 23:22:15 2016
New Revision: 234172
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234172&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-13 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/45076
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70211
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67728
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrewm.roberts at sky dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70212
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69284
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 70207 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70207
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70205
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70204
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70217
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey Walton ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> dup of PR 70176 ?
>
> My guess is Cygwin uses a new version of newlib which has stricter C headers
> that don't define the C99 functions for __cplusplus < 201
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70202
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70199
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70199
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.4.5, 4.8.2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70214
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually it is not a glibc bug either:
Note that leaf functions might invoke signals and signal handlers might be
defined in the current compilation unit and use static variables. The only
compliant way to wr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70188
--- Comment #6 from deller at gmx dot de ---
Hi Dave,
On 13.03.2016 21:58, danglin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Try to find 4.9 regression. So far, range has been reduced to r220635 to
> r221480.
So, it compiles correctly with r220635 ?
Is that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70214
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70214
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
extern int pthread_kill (pthread_t __threadid, int __signo) __attribute__
((__nothrow__ , __leaf__));
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70188
--- Comment #5 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 37952
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37952&action=edit
blk-merge.c preprocessed source
I've added the preprocessed for blk-merge.c. Although the wrong code appea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70214
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.4.5
Summary|[6 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70214
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70188
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70194
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69524
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69953
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70040
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70121
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70096
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69782
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69739
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69728
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69603
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70208
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70049
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70219
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70218
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
Summary|Illegal access to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70218
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70219
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 37951
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37951&action=edit
testcase that needs only -O1 to reproduce
$ gcc -O testcase.c
testcase.c: In function 'foo':
testcase.c:9:1: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70219
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 37950
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37950&action=edit
reduced testcase
le-languages=c,c++
--enable-checking=yes,rtl,df --without-cloog --without-ppl --without-isl
--disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-234167-checking-yes-rtl-df-nographite
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160313 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69043
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70035
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #9)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> > Fixed for g++ 6+ so far.
>
> no. this creates a new problem.
> I see now crashes in valid code that uses the st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70217
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We can probably do something in os_defines.h like:
#if __cplusplus < 201103L && __STRICT_ANSI__
#undef _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_STDIO
// etc.
#endif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69043
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Mar 13 17:38:07 2016
New Revision: 234169
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234169&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-13 Jerry DeLisle
Jim MacArthur
PR fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70217
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
dup of PR 70176 ?
My guess is Cygwin uses a new version of newlib which has stricter C headers
that don't define the C99 functions for __cplusplus < 201103L &&
__STRICT_ANSI__
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70035
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70218
Bug ID: 70218
Summary: Illegal access to private fields succeeds with 5/6
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #2)
>
> I think that # less than 0x20 are reserved by kernel, gdb uses 0x20
> and 0xc3 and gcc uses 0x33 for profiling. Perhaps 0x54 (ascii 'T')
> or something?
If the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
--- Comment #2 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #1)
> For sh4-linux this option should be enabled by default with some useful trap
> number value. Which trap number should be used in this case?
I think that # less th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70211
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Roberts ---
Looking at the toplevel Makefile.in the gmp targets (maybe-configure-gmp,
configure-gmp etc)
use:
--build=${build_alias} --host=none-${host_vendor}-${host_os}
--target=none-${host_vendor}-${host_os}
where a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45076
--- Comment #8 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Sun Mar 13 09:48:20 2016
New Revision: 234168
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234168&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-03-13 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/45076
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70217
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey Walton ---
Cygwin bug https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19817.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70217
Bug ID: 70217
Summary: Cygwin 2.4.1 x86_64/GCC 5.3.0 can no longer compile a
program with std=c++03
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70217
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey Walton ---
Cygwin bug https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19817.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70214
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28901
--- Comment #37 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note this change also introduces some warnings when compiling the arm64 kernel:
In file included from arch/arm64/crypto/aes-glue.c:17:0:
include/linux/cpufeature.h:48:33: warning: ‘cpu_feature_match_AES’ de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50221
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||brad.finney at humboldt dot edu
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68241
Bug 68241 depends on bug 70215, which changed state.
Bug 70215 Summary: segmentation fault with allocate on assign; 32 bit version,
not 64 bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70215
What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70215
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
68 matches
Mail list logo
