https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84531
Siddhesh Poyarekar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81589
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84015
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84015
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Feb 26 06:09:01 2018
New Revision: 257980
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257980&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84015 - ICE with class deduction and auto template parm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81589
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Feb 26 06:09:07 2018
New Revision: 257981
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257981&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/81589 - error with is_trivially_constructible.
* m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70490
Ruslan Nikolaev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nruslan_devel at yahoo dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84461
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84563
Bug ID: 84563
Summary: GCC interpretation of C11 atomics (DR 459)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84015
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Feb 26 05:05:15 2018
New Revision: 257979
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257979&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84015 - ICE with class deduction and auto template parm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51434
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84015
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84468
--- Comment #13 from Romain Geissler ---
Hi,
It looks like that the code in #comment 11 works when you build just with -O2,
but not when you add debug symbols: -O2 -g. Do we have a way to ignore debug
statements when looking for the next stateme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84562
Bug ID: 84562
Summary: -faggressive-loop-optimizations makes decisions based
on weak data structures
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83496
--- Comment #30 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Just a note. I'm tracking a separate problem with delay slot filling that
looks like it's related to handling of debug insns. I doubt it's the same
problem, but if you stumble over it, be aware I'm testin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84561
--- Comment #1 from Romain Geissler ---
Note: I am testing with gcc snapshot from 24th February + patch from PR 84468
manually applied (at least I think I did).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55881
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||romain.geissler at amadeus dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84555
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84561
Bug ID: 84561
Summary: -Wstrinop-truncation with -O2 depends on strncpy's
size type
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84555
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84560
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84559
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84558
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84468
--- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, all the relevant tests pass with the patch. There is no warning for
either the test case in comment #0 or the one in comment #11. The change from
v1 of the patch is just the addition of test for null t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84560
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Zaitsev ---
On GCC 7.3.1 for this code I have:
internal compiler error: в expand_expr_real_1, в expr.c:9908
memset(d[n - 1], 0, sizeof(int));
^
Please submit a full bug report,
with preproc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84560
Bug ID: 84560
Summary: Internal error in std::function with std::memset
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84559
Bug ID: 84559
Summary: [6/7/8 Regression] ICE with constexpr and
variable-sized array
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84558
Bug ID: 84558
Summary: [6/7/8 Regression] ICE with invalid constexpr
constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68289
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84557
Bug ID: 84557
Summary: ICE with invalid firstprivate variable
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code, openmp
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83917
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Patch posted: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg01294.html
My apologies on dropping the ball here and thanks for picking it up! :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84556
Bug ID: 84556
Summary: C++17, lambda, OpenMP simd: sorry, unimplemented:
unexpected AST
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32770
--- Comment #37 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 43500
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43500&action=edit
Failures with -fdefault-integer-8 at revision r257969
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32770
--- Comment #36 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
New summaries of failures with -fdefault-integer-8 at revision r257969
=== gfortran Summary for unix/-m32/-fdefault-integer-8 ===
# of expected passes41549
# of unexpecte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84555
--- Comment #1 from Romain Geissler ---
This example emits:
error: ‘char* __builtin_strncpy(char*, const char*, long unsigned int)’ output
truncated before terminating nul copying 3 bytes from a string of the same
length [-Werror=stringop-trunca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84555
Bug ID: 84555
Summary: strncpy warnings (and friends) are not ignorable with
pragmas when inlined
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84554
Bug ID: 84554
Summary: make check: FAIL: tversion: ERROR! The versions of
gmp.h (5.0.5) and libgmp (4.3.1) do not match.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84553
Bug ID: 84553
Summary: -rdynamic generates TEXTREL relocations on ia64
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84468
--- Comment #11 from Romain Geissler ---
Hi,
Indeed this version of the patch doesn't have any segv. However it seems that
it doesn't fix anymore the initial bug report. Does it actually passes the new
tests you introduced in your patch ?
Unles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83496
--- Comment #29 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Never mind, it seems that gcc 5.5 is doing that as hazard_nowell. I will run
> some more tests.
Yes, the nops are preexisting and counter-measures for pipeline hazards, but I
don't know the MIPS port enou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68289
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
From pr64273:
Tobias Burnus 2014-12-11 16:29:56 UTC
Follow up to PR44054 and PR53552. See also related bugs PR28662, PR62226,
PR53934.
There are two possibilities, either to use a real
#pragma wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64273
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68289
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84548
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84546
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> > This is a rather old regression, r247548 already has it.
>
> The change occurred between revisions r241509 (2016-10-25,OK) and r241635
> (2016-10-27, ST
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83496
--- Comment #28 from Felix Fietkau ---
Never mind, it seems that gcc 5.5 is doing that as well. I will run some more
tests.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83496
--- Comment #27 from Felix Fietkau ---
On the original test case, it generates this code:
00400690 :
400690: 8c830008lw v1,8(a0)
400694: 24020001li v0,1
400698: 10620011beq v1,v0,4006
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84461
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84522
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80878
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nruslan_devel at yahoo dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83496
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #43497|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84547
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84552
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45996
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Most targets check if -falign-* is already set before messing with it at -Os.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83496
--- Comment #25 from Eric Botcazou ---
> /var/nbd/lede/build_dir/toolchain-mipsel_24kc_gcc-7.3.0_musl/gcc-7.3.0/gcc/
> reorg.c:3895
>
> Line 1787 in reorg.c is this piece of code:
> if (REG_NOTE_KIND (link) != REG_DEAD
> || !REG_P (X
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84552
Bug ID: 84552
Summary: [8 Regression] Compile time hog w/ -O2
-floop-nest-optimize -fno-tree-copy-prop -fno-tree-fre
-fno-tree-loop-ivcanon
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83496
--- Comment #24 from Felix Fietkau ---
Created attachment 43498
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43498&action=edit
Test case for internal compiler error (musl source file)´
When I test it with a patched gcc 7.3.x, I get this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83633
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83633
--- Comment #13 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #11)
> > *** Bug 69420 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
>
> Yes, but what about pr69419?
What about it? It is unrelated.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83633
--- Comment #12 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Feb 25 17:32:36 2018
New Revision: 257974
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257974&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-02-25 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/83633
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83633
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> *** Bug 69420 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Yes, but what about pr69419?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69420
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83633
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerhard.steinmetz.fortran@t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83633
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Feb 25 17:08:51 2018
New Revision: 257972
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257972&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-02-25 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/83633
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83496
--- Comment #23 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 43497
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43497&action=edit
Tentative fix
To be tested.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83633
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sun Feb 25 16:50:50 2018
New Revision: 257971
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257971&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-02-25 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/83633
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84434
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84523
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
For the record:
> Caused by revision r257065.
> Quite why this testcase worked before revision r257065 I cannot for the life
> of me understand.
Actually I think this was exposed by r257065 but caus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70713
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84546
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84548
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
r257859 build w/o --enable-checking=extra FAIL too
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70516
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84551
Bug ID: 84551
Summary: [8 Regression] [concepts] Compiler options "-O -g"
cause valid code to be rejected
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84523
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84523
--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Feb 25 12:41:26 2018
New Revision: 257970
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257970&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-02-25 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/84523
* trans-intrinsi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28564
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> The request sound eligible for me.
> What others think about it?
Nice to have for me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84531
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Also these look like more like invalid casts than bogus warnings:
../Python-3.6.1/Objects/frameobject.c:586:5: Warnung: cast between incompatible
function types from »void (*)(PyFrameObject *)« {alias »void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70713
--- Comment #5 from Joe Seymour ---
Thanks for chasing.
>From my point of view, yes the committed patch makes all the changes required
for this bug to be considered resolved, however I don't have permission to make
those changes myself.
https:/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84546
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
This is a rather old regression, r247548 already has it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84546
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84550
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84550
Bug ID: 84550
Summary: [8 Regression] stepping through gcc does not work with
gdb 8.0.1
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78238
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78238
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Feb 25 09:30:04 2018
New Revision: 257969
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257969&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-02-25 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/78238
Backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84546
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78238
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Feb 25 09:02:32 2018
New Revision: 257968
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257968&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-02-25 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/78238
* gfortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84548
Bug ID: 84548
Summary: [8 regression] gcov ICE in process_file, at
gcov.c:1154
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84531
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Actually the warning on PyCFunctionWithoutArgs
is _not_ a false positive:
I am looking at Python-3.6.1 right now.
What I see is that functions with no arguments
have the signature "PyObject * (*)(PyObject *
87 matches
Mail list logo
