https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56183
Bug 56183 depends on bug 71627, which changed state.
Bug 71627 Summary: AVR error: unable to find a register to spill in class
'POINTER_X_REGS'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71627
What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71627
Senthil Kumar Selvaraj changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78088
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78088
Bug ID: 78088
Summary: [7 Regression] error: non-trivial conversion in unary
operation
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78087
--- Comment #2 from Jack Howarth ---
Note that these tests on linux used binutils-2.27.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78087
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth ---
Interestingly, the stock build of gcc 6.2.0 on x86_64 linux (with LTO plugin
linker plugin support) runs into a different set of failures when building
emacs 25.1 using '-O0 -flto'...
CCLD etags
/tmp/cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77763
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77916
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77916
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Oct 24 02:41:12 2016
New Revision: 241462
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241462&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-10-23 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77916
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Oct 24 02:36:40 2016
New Revision: 241461
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241461&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-10-23 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78084
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71767
--- Comment #42 from Jack Howarth ---
Filed Bug lto/78087 for the linkage failure of temacs in the emacs 25.1 build
when '-O0 -flto' is used on x86_64 darwin and x86_64 linux (for a build without
the LTO linker plugin).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78087
Bug ID: 78087
Summary: gcc 6.2.0 fails to link temacs from emacs-25.1 with
-O0 -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71767
--- Comment #41 from Jack Howarth ---
(In reply to Jack Howarth from comment #40)
> (In reply to Jack Howarth from comment #39)
> > (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #38)
> >
> > Your issue of undefined symbols under FSF gcc is orthogonal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77837
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77837
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Sun Oct 23 22:38:24 2016
New Revision: 241457
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241457&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/77837 - missing -Wformat-length warning for %p with null argumen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77763
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Oct 23 22:19:36 2016
New Revision: 241456
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241456&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-23 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/77763
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78013
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Oct 23 21:48:32 2016
New Revision: 241455
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241455&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-23 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/61420
PR fortran/78013
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61420
--- Comment #12 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Oct 23 21:48:32 2016
New Revision: 241455
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241455&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-23 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/61420
PR fortran/7801
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78086
Bug ID: 78086
Summary: FAIL: gcc.misc-tests/gcov-1.c, etc
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-profile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77763
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Oct 23 21:26:44 2016
New Revision: 241454
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241454&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-23 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/77763
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71767
--- Comment #40 from Jack Howarth ---
(In reply to Jack Howarth from comment #39)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #38)
>
> Your issue of undefined symbols under FSF gcc is orthogonal to the problem
> discussed in this PR. As I mentione
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63436
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71767
--- Comment #39 from Jack Howarth ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #38)
Your issue of undefined symbols under FSF gcc is orthogonal to the problem
discussed in this PR. As I mentioned before, the same issue is observed for a
build of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71767
--- Comment #38 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #34)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #33)
> > I'm not sure if this is due to the patches from this bug report, or if it's
> > due to some other change made to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78033
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78033
--- Comment #12 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Oct 23 18:12:28 2016
New Revision: 241451
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241451&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-23 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/54730
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54730
--- Comment #15 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Oct 23 18:12:28 2016
New Revision: 241451
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241451&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-23 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/54730
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69834
--- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Oct 23 18:09:14 2016
New Revision: 241450
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241450&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-23 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/69834
* class.c (gfc_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78021
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Oct 23 17:32:40 2016
New Revision: 241449
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241449&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-23 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78085
Bug ID: 78085
Summary: Unexpected cltq instruction on Linux x86-64 for
conversion of positive int to long
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78084
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78084
Bug ID: 78084
Summary: gcc miscompiles vec_vsx_ld on -O3
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72832
--- Comment #13 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Sun Oct 23 11:55:44 2016
New Revision: 241448
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241448&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
2016-10-23 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72832
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|WAITING
Resolution|FIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72832
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78076
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66732
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 41499, which changed state.
Bug 41499 Summary: Scalar evolution analysis prevents vectorization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41499
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41499
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40337
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49916
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45516
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63486
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78082
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77992
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||josh at joshtriplett dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63479
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63519
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
There was some recent changes in this area.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63518
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC uninit warning for decls whos address has been taken is weak which is the
first one GCC does not warn. The second one should not be warned due to C++17
order of execution rules changes (there is no reaso
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63518
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>Ideally, both should.
IIRC C++17 defines the order of execution now so one of them is well defined
now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71343
--- Comment #2 from SztfG at yandex dot ru ---
This also not optimized by gcc:
unsigned int test3(unsigned int a , unsigned int b)
{
return (a << 2) + (b << 2) == (a + b) << 2;
}
but this works:
unsigned int test4(unsigned int a , unsigned i
51 matches
Mail list logo
