https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67172
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68933
--- Comment #1 from Zaak ---
I have confirmed this is a problem on OS X as well, although perhaps the
diagnostics are slightly different?
$ /usr/local/bin/gfortran -I/usr/local/homebrew/Cellar/mpich/3.2/include
-fcoarray=lib -fprofile-arcs -ftes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68933
--- Comment #2 from Zaak ---
I have confirmed this is a problem on OS X as well, although perhaps the
diagnostics are slightly different?
$ /usr/local/bin/gfortran -I/usr/local/homebrew/Cellar/mpich/3.2/include
-fcoarray=lib -fprofile-arcs -ftes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69659
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I have run
make -k -j8 check-gfortran
RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix'{-m32/-frepack-arrays,-m64/-frepack-arrays,-m32,-m64}'"
Before the patch, the number of FAILs is 1123, 234 of them being relate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35587
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Gildos at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57367
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68845
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70522
Bug ID: 70522
Summary: Hidden friend functions block qualified name lookup
into nested unnamed namespace
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70521
Bug ID: 70521
Summary: [C++14] nonempty constexpr noexcept constructor
rejected
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65403
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #6 from Manuel L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #26 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #23)
> I guess the proper solution for this issue would be running an
> address-mode-selection optimization pass after reload to fix up the reload
> choices.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69659
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
Assignee|una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67538
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
Assignee|una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66911
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
Assignee|una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54700
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
This was missing a simple testcase, but now we can write one (in C++):
typedef int vec __attribute__((vector_size(32)));
vec f(vec x){
return x<0?2:1;
}
vpxor %xmm1, %xmm1, %xmm1
vpcmpgtd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70457
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
Jakub, thanks, I've verified that works and makes for a much better patch.
Will post shortly on gcc-patches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65795
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
Assignee|una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70520
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Also see:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27191
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70520
Bug ID: 70520
Summary: Incorrect child stack alignment in
c-c++-common/asan/clone-test-1.c
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70519
--- Comment #2 from Jason Vas Dias ---
In fact, it happens for EVERY executable produced by stage2 compiler!
Why is this - do I need to add '-lstdc++' to LDFLAGS or to
--with-stage1-ldflags / --with-boot-ldflags in order to build gcc-5.3.0 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70519
--- Comment #1 from Jason Vas Dias ---
And it happens for gcov also:
/usr/build/linux/gcc-5.3.0/./prev-gcc/xg++
-B/usr/build/linux/gcc-5.3.0/./prev-gcc/ -B/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin/
-nostdinc++
-B/usr/build/linux/gcc-5.3.0/prev-x86_64-pc-lin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70336
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70519
Bug ID: 70519
Summary: genmatch fails to compile under gcc-5.2.0 - missing
'-lstdc++' .
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44949
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70173
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #25 from Oleg Endo ---
Tests on sh-elf looked good. I'll wait for the nightly sh4-linux test results
and backport the patch to GCC 5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391
--- Comment #35 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sun Apr 3 12:50:54 2016
New Revision: 234702
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234702&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/70416
PR target/67391
* config/sh/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #24 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sun Apr 3 12:50:54 2016
New Revision: 234702
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234702&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/70416
PR target/67391
* config/sh/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70514
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Chris Warrick from comment #5)
> Thanks for debugging my code, and sorry for wasting time.
No problem. It is a pity that GCC static analysis capabilities are not powerful
enough to catch t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70518
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70514
--- Comment #5 from Chris Warrick ---
Thanks for debugging my code, and sorry for wasting time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70514
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70509
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70509
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #5)
> It also fixes several wrong-code testcases that I failed to reduce to a
> reasonable size, thus were unreported.
Nice. While you are looking at those values that do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70509
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #4)
> x86_64 bootstrap finished (the code is likely not triggered), regtest
> running.
It also fixes several wrong-code testcases that I failed to reduce to a
reasonable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70509
--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #3)
> Rereading this a few years later, I have no idea why I used that type.
> bitsize_int would make more sense...
I've already tried this:
--- gcc/tree-ssa-forwprop.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64393
Kirill Yukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70510
Kirill Yukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70514
--- Comment #3 from Chris Warrick ---
Well, that is a typo. But would writing past the limits really have such
unusual effects? And why does clang++ not crash?
39 matches
Mail list logo
