https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44265
--- Comment #10 from Ian Harvey ---
The patch discussed in #5 applies changes to the wrong location in
trans-decl.c. Corrected patch attached.
With this latest patch I see no variation in check-fortran test results.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44265
--- Comment #9 from Ian Harvey ---
Created attachment 38708
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38708&action=edit
Updated patch against r23740
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71534
--- Comment #2 from Michele Caini ---
The fact that it compiles it is misleading at least.
Consider the following code:
#include
template
using void_t = void;
template>
struct has_foo: std::false_type { };
template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71460
--- Comment #27 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
On 06/12/2016 01:09 AM, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
>>> C11 does not
>>> consider sNaNs, and TS 18661 is explicitly stating otherwise for them.
>>
>> You are talking about C11 + TS 18661 whi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71532
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra ---
*** Bug 71531 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71531
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48925
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 38707
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38707&action=edit
A preliminary patch
This patch does a major reorganization of the code for writing formatted real
numbers.
Act
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71547
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71545
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
gcc version 7.0.0 20160615 (experimental) [trunk revision 237485] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 small.c; ./a.out
$ gcc-6.1 -O3 small.c; ./a.out
$
$ gcc-trunk -O3 small.c
$ ./a.out
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
$
---
int a = 3, b, c, f, g, h;
unsigned d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Sergio Martins from comment #11)
> Did the patch for [warn_unused] get in ?
Yes: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/C_002b_002b-Attributes.html
-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20160615 (experimental) [trunk revision 237485] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -m64 -Os -g small.c
$ gcc-6.1 -m64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66313
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse ---
Does the patch still exist? Did it fail testing?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71548
Bug ID: 71548
Summary: Invalid declaration involving template template param
causes crash
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71547
Bug ID: 71547
Summary: Error in std::result_of - fail if function returns
pointer to function
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71546
Bug ID: 71546
Summary: lambda capture fails with "was not declared in this
scope"
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71545
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71534
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67353
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Version|5.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71527
--- Comment #1 from Benjamin Buch ---
I simplified the example code:
// Example ==
// A compile time int-type
template < int I >
struct size{};
// The problem:
template < typename T, int N >
void f(size< N >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71544
--- Comment #4 from noamb ---
(In reply to noamb from comment #3)
> However, presence of options that are invalid for
> 4.9.3 in that list makes me think that perhaps the correct list of options
> in that (moderately old) version is just differe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71545
Bug ID: 71545
Summary: Incorrect irreflexive comparison debug check in
std::lower_bound
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71544
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I do not observe correct behavior with the options that the previous comment
> list s as being turned on by -O1 (this is on OS X 10.10, macports gfortran
> 4.9.3):
gfortran-fsf-5: error: unrecognize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71544
--- Comment #3 from noamb ---
(In reply to noamb from comment #2)
> I do not observe correct behavior with the options that the previous comment
> list s as being turned on by -O1 (this is on OS X 10.10, macports gfortran
> 4.9.3):
Sorry - this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71281
Anton Mitrokhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71544
noamb changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||noamb at bollweevil dot
gdbg.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71538
--- Comment #4 from sasho648 at gmail dot com ---
More *shocking* example will be:
struct tx { int a[6], b[6]; } *f();
void (main)()
{
int *p = f()->b;
if(p == NULL)
printf("What?");
}
Compiling with "gcc -Of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71412
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71544
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71544
Bug ID: 71544
Summary: gfortran compiler optimization bug when dealing with
c-style pointers
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67353
--- Comment #3 from denisc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: denisc
Date: Wed Jun 15 16:43:35 2016
New Revision: 237487
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237487&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Correct Changelog entry:
PR target/67353
* con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67353
--- Comment #2 from denisc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: denisc
Date: Wed Jun 15 16:40:07 2016
New Revision: 237486
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237486&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/67353
* config/avr/avr.c (avr_set_current_fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71438
alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71439
alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71529
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Wed Jun 15 15:49:40 2016
New Revision: 237484
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237484&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR middle-end/71529
* ipa-chkp.c (chkp_build_ins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71483
alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71483
--- Comment #3 from alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: alahay01
Date: Wed Jun 15 15:45:47 2016
New Revision: 237483
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237483&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-15 Alan Hayward
gcc/
PR tree-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71435
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #9)
> > Created attachment 38699 [details]
> > Tentative fix.
>
> It successfully passed a full bootstrap/test cycle on SPARC/Solaris.
I can test it on SPARC/Lin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70202
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70202
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Jun 15 15:23:40 2016
New Revision: 237482
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237482&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2016-06-15 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/70202
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71543
Bug ID: 71543
Summary: [concepts] ICE on ill-formed declaration of a
parameter with a constrained-type-specifier in a
requires expression
Product: gcc
Version: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71536
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71532
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71535
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71435
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Created attachment 38699 [details]
> Tentative fix.
It successfully passed a full bootstrap/test cycle on SPARC/Solaris.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71532
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Simpler testcase:
int foo (int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int)
__attribute__((pure));
int bar (int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int)
__attribute__((pure));
int
test (void)
{
int a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71488
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71488
>
> --- Comment #9 from Ilya Enkovich ---
> Created attachment 38704
> --> https:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71403
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71403
>
> Jan Hubicka changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71542
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71488
--- Comment #9 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Created attachment 38704
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38704&action=edit
Enable masks comparison with no new patterns
Here is a version without additional patterns (mask conversion pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71403
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment #10 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71542
Bug ID: 71542
Summary: unhelpfull error for wrong initializer of initializer
list
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71538
--- Comment #3 from sasho648 at gmail dot com ---
But if it's NULL for the cast it'll invoke UB I believe. Shouldn't the
optimizer assume that UB never occur?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71541
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You need to link to libpthread to use std::condition_variable_any.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71488
--- Comment #8 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Created attachment 38703
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38703&action=edit
Enable masks comparison using patterns
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #7)
>
> Sounds reasonable th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71541
--- Comment #2 from gcc_bugzilla at haphi dot de ---
Created attachment 38702
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38702&action=edit
preprocessed file of trivial repro case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71439
alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71439
--- Comment #3 from alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: alahay01
Date: Wed Jun 15 10:53:01 2016
New Revision: 237476
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237476&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-15 Alan Hayward
gcc/
PR tree-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71541
--- Comment #1 from gcc_bugzilla at haphi dot de ---
compiled with:
> gcc -static -o trivial_repro_case trivial_repro_case.cpp
> ./trivial_repro_case
> Segmentation fault (core dumped)
output of gcc -v:
> Using built-in specs.
> COLLECT_GCC=gcc
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71541
Bug ID: 71541
Summary: destructor of condition_variable_any crashes with
static linkage
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37780
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71532
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71531
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71533
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71540
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71538
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I don't think the C standard says that p cannot be a NULL pointer for this
cast.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71540
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71540
Bug ID: 71540
Summary: Issue to building gcc-4.8.3 on ppc64le-redhat-linux
platform
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71509
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, segher at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71509
>
> --- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71488
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71488
>
> --- Comment #6 from Ilya Enkovich ---
> I think we should disable vectorization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71475
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
On 2016-06-12 00:59, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
>> Ok, what about this:
>
> This bug is closed as INVALID. No-one will pay any attention to comments
> on a closed bug proposing different ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71475
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
Here is a more clear illustration that gcc treats this representation as
a trap representation. The previous example could be explained by this
representation being an alternative representation for
72 matches
Mail list logo
