https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61729
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This testcase uses a 2-byte scoped enum, which doesn't get the integer
promotions if I read the C++ standard correctly -- but it is passed via
varargs, and the target code expects that to be promoted alw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79093
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
We don't seem to have warning_at_n (only inform_n, warning_at_rich_loc_n,
warning_n, error_n) but it could easily be added to handle this properly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68887
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78768
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
This testcase fails on aarch64-linux-gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79093
Bug ID: 79093
Summary: Hard coded plural in builtins.c:3203
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: translation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70583
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|ipa |testsuite
--- Comment #9 from John D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78304
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56973
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2013-04-24 00:00:00 |2017-1-14
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79090
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79092
Bug ID: 79092
Summary: template: type ignored if value already
instantiated
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37022
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33562
--- Comment #31 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #29)
> It's still a regression for 5/6, so it should stay open until those releases
> are no longer supported. Note the "7" in the regression marker is gone.
Sorry,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48555
Frederic Marchal changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fmarchal at perso dot be
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64934
Frederic Marchal changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fmarchal at perso dot be
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78727
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78626
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78626
--- Comment #15 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Sat Jan 14 16:52:18 2017
New Revision: 244467
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244467&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/78626
PR rtl-optimization/78727
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78727
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Sat Jan 14 16:52:18 2017
New Revision: 244467
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244467&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/78626
PR rtl-optimization/78727
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72749
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I have a patch bootstrapping, let's not close this yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79089
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78994
--- Comment #6 from PeteVine ---
It's possible I already had that patch included in my build, but
in case I didn't, here's a quick addition to the previous result:
http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1701143-TA-GCCCOMPAR66
The c-ray thunderx re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79091
Bug ID: 79091
Summary: [7 regression] ICE in write_unnamed_type
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79027
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2017-01-11, at 8:18 AM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> The error doesn't occur if I add
> "--disable-lto --without-cloog
> --without-ppl" to the configure command. I would suspect ppl.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72749
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|amodra at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #12 from Alan Modra --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72749
--- Comment #11 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Sat Jan 14 13:29:29 2017
New Revision: 244466
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244466&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Testcase from pr72749
PR target/72749
* gcc.c-torture/comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72749
--- Comment #10 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Sat Jan 14 13:24:46 2017
New Revision: 244465
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244465&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Avoid PR72749 by not using unspecs
Rather than using unspecs in doloop ins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79089
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79088
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78660
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The key (I think) is that the following sequence of 3 instructions ends up
> being combined into 1 but the resulting instruction leaves the upper 32-bits
> of reg 316 entirely undefined. Eventually this le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79090
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
Summary|[7 regression] DS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79090
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79090
Bug ID: 79090
Summary: [7 regression] DSE wrongly removing store at variable
offset
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79089
Bug ID: 79089
Summary: error: incorrect sharing of tree nodes
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77484
--- Comment #26 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hello, did the Gap scores on arm too? Both Itanium and PPC testers seems to
show improved gap scores, so hope arm and the other ppc tester too.
34 matches
Mail list logo