https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79399
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41557
Andris Pavenis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andris at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79301
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79418
Andrew Waterman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew at sifive dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79314
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79345
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79414
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79415
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79399
--- Comment #11 from Dmitry Babokin ---
With new patch it compiled successfully. It took 41G of memory and 5:25 hours
to complete.
/local/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/7.0.1/lto-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 7.0.1 20170207 (experimental) [trunk revision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79416
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79419
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41001
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79419
Bug ID: 79419
Summary: Explicit specialization of constrained member
template: ICE in set_constraints
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79418
Bug ID: 79418
Summary: ERROR: gcc.dg/torture/stackalign/builtin-apply-2.c
-O0 : syntax error in targe t selector "target
arm_hf_eabi || avr-*-* || riscv*-*-*" for "
Produ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41014
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41091
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79282
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #6)
> I think changing pattern
>
> &r(1) = 0(2), r(3)
>
> to
>
> r(1) = 0(2), r(3)
>
> would be a right solution on the target side. The operand 1 can not
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41098
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70795
--- Comment #13 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2017-02-05, at 1:12 PM, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I would aprechiate if someone could bootstrap®test this
> Index: cgraphunit.c
> ==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41142
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21485
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #62 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41150
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41179
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79417
Bug ID: 79417
Summary: -Wconversion warns wrongly of real(16) to real(8)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41203
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41272
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41339
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79399
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 7 21:51:21 2017
New Revision: 245256
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245256&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/79399
* ira-int.h (struct target_ira_int):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41540
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation, patch
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68163
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 40691
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40691&action=edit
Proposed patch to fix the problem.
I believe this patch fixes the problem.
Note, I am going on vacation, an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #53 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 40690
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40690&action=edit
reduced testcase with rtl dumps and assembly
Ughh, that was painful. The attached .tar.gz file has a reduced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79416
Bug ID: 79416
Summary: Internal compiler error for recursive template
expansion
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79410
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79282
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Here is my analysis of the problem.
The test was successful as LRA actually did not work for the test.
LRA just checked that all insn constraints were satisfied. If LRA did
any transformation, the test
jusjud/local/gcc-bin
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.1 20170207 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41346
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41373
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41517
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
onfigured) ../gcc/configure --enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-libmpx
--prefix=/home/ejusjud/local/gcc-bin : (reconfigured) ../gcc/configure
--enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-libmpx --prefix=/home/ejusjud/local/gcc-bin
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.1 20170207 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41671
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41596
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41590
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation, patch
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79411
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
There is just a single SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI check in
tree-ssa-reassoc.c in the range handling code, I'd say that is significantly
less than what really is needed. Unless we want to add code to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41557
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79411
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems it is reassoc1 that transforms:
@@ -48,7 +69,6 @@ foo (struct C * x, const int * y, unsign
;; basic block 5, loop depth 0
;;pred: 3
- _2 = d_1(ab) + 1;
_3 = x_25(D)->c1;
if (_3 !=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41575
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41644
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41667
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41671
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41727
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79412
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems the C FE on such redeclarations doesn't merge the decls (correct), but
overwrites the type in pop_scope:
1345 I_SYMBOL_BINDING (b->id) = b->shadowed;
1346 if (b->shadow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 41817, which changed state.
Bug 41817 Summary: bogus "may be uninitialized" (huge testcase, inlining?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41817
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41744
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41817
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41820
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79412
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79369
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Tue Feb 7 18:02:05 2017
New Revision: 245252
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245252&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79369 inline namespaces
gcc/cp
* cp-tree.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79369
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
r245252 on c++-modules has a patch (for when stage 1 opens)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41838
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 41847, which changed state.
Bug 41847 Summary: warning: array subscript is above array bounds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41847
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41847
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79411
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79413
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41880
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79396
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 40689
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40689&action=edit
preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68606
Timo Sirainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tss at iki dot fi
--- Comment #4 from Ti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79386
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 7 17:45:57 2017
New Revision: 245251
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245251&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/79386
* cprop.c (bypass_conditional_ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79412
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Likely started with r193882.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79412
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42000
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42176
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Bug 30915 is similar, and the problem was related to gentoo-specific patches to
glibc. Possibly caused by A mismatched combination of libstdc++ and glibc.
I've never been able to reproduce it, and I don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79413
Bug ID: 79413
Summary: ICE in make_ssa_name_fn, at tree-ssanames.c:265
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79412
Bug ID: 79412
Summary: ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2239
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79411
Bug ID: 79411
Summary: ICE: SSA corruption (fail_abnormal_edge_coalesce)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61342
Gerhard Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerhard.steinmetz.fortran@t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43374
Gerhard Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerhard.steinmetz.fortran@t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30552
--- Comment #2 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Other test cases :
$ cat z1.c
void f()
{
void g()
void a[( {void b} )];
}
$ cat z2.c
int f()
{
int g()
int a[( {int b} )];
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30552
Gerhard Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerhard.steinmetz.fortran@t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #52 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #50)
> Though at this
> point, I'd rather we figure out why the erroneous code is being generated in
> comment 45.
If you can send me the output (.s and .c.*) w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42014
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79410
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79143
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79410
Bug ID: 79410
Summary: [6 Regression] internal compiler error: in
gimplify_init_ctor_preeval, at gimplify.c:3489
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42065
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UN
--target=rx-elf --without-headers
Thread model: single
gcc version 7.0.1 20170207 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-B' '/build/rx-elf/gcc-trunk/gcc' '-S' '-O2' '-v'
/build/rx-elf/gcc-trunk/gcc/cc1 -quiet -v -iprefix
/home/msebor/build/rx-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42106
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42176
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79409
Bug ID: 79409
Summary: [7 Regression] [graphite] ICE in
outermost_loop_in_sese, at sese.c:300 w/
-fgraphite-identity -ftree-loop-distribution -O1 (or
above)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79143
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79143
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah, found the same in the mean time.
Following works, I bet in the #c0 CLASSTYPE_NON_AGGREGATE isn't set on derived
for some reason.
struct base {
base(int, int) {}
};
template
struct derived : base {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79143
Casey Carter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Casey at Carter dot net
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42125
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79143
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79149
--- Comment #13 from Arnd Bergmann ---
(In reply to wilco from comment #12)
> Does wp512 use 64-bit types? If so, this is likely PR77308.
Yes, as seen in the attachment it uses lots of 64-bit operations. However, it
sounds like PR77308 is ARM sp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #51 from David Edelsohn ---
If you use /scratch for source, build and TMPDIR, as well as
SHELL=/usr/bin/bash CONFIG_SHELL=/usr/bin/bash
it should build faster on AIX.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #50 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #48)
> Based on Comment #45, is this a problem in the Stage 1 compilers? Note that
> Alan and Segher adjusted the doloop patterns in this release cycle. Does
> bac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79299
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79299
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 7 15:42:42 2017
New Revision: 245248
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245248&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79299
* config/i386/sse.md (xtg_mode, gatherq_mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79149
wilco at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo