https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85898
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85850
Campbell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rlcamp.pdx at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85899
Bug ID: 85899
Summary: ICE in find_fallthru_edge_from, at haifa-sched.c:8059
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85786
--- Comment #12 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Angus Gibson from comment #11)
> Apologies if this is unrelated to the issue at hand (I don't quite
> understand how everything is inter-related yet), but maybe it helps. First
> up, h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85888
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78849
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed May 23 22:33:36 2018
New Revision: 260627
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260627&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/78849
* gcc/tree.c (build_common_tree_nodes): Don
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85837
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85898
Bug ID: 85898
Summary: I receive a segmentation fault due to an "internal
compiler error"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85895
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 07:46:17PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> This patch causes an error message to be generated. Need to
> go find standard language to determine if the reference of
> an arra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85897
Bug ID: 85897
Summary: missing strncmp optimization for bound in known range
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85873
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85883
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84894
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Damian Rouson from comment #6)
> Hopefully the OpenCoarrays version will be a useful starting point.
Certainly!
> The only remaining challenge is to coax the GCC build system into
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85895
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85866
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85864
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85896
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
This variant should not compile :
$ cat z3.f90
program p
character(:) :: max
print *, max('a','b')
end
$ gfortran-9-20180520 z3.f90 -static-libgfortran
$ a.out
b
It's a regression since about 201
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85896
Bug ID: 85896
Summary: ICE in gfc_convert_constant(): Unexpected type
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85895
Bug ID: 85895
Summary: [6/7/8/9 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_array_ref, at
fortran/trans-array.c:3518
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85883
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Works with
auto y = new Bar{3, 4};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84894
--- Comment #6 from Damian Rouson ---
Sounds good. I agree that it would be great for gfortran to provide
ISO_Fortran_binding.h independently. Hopefully the OpenCoarrays version will be
a useful starting point. My understanding is that it's alway
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85894
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85894
Bug ID: 85894
Summary: PPC64LE alloca stack slot allocation allows memset to
destroy the stack
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65816
Casey Carter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Casey at Carter dot net
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65816
--- Comment #4 from Casey Carter ---
*** Bug 85892 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85892
Casey Carter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85892
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85893
Bug ID: 85893
Summary: [regression] Variables promoted to Gimple registers by
aliasing are not getting debug statements (if -flto
used).
Product: gcc
Version: unk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85892
Bug ID: 85892
Summary: value-initialization failure
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85888
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The reason why the powerpc64 target expands the call at a different (later)
point than other targets is because the first attempt to expand it ends up in
the "cmpstrsi" pattern where the expansion fails (as do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85883
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85891
Bug ID: 85891
Summary: [6.4.1 regression] Simple loop is not SLP-vectorized
after r196872
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85836
Bug 85836 depends on bug 84894, which changed state.
Bug 84894 Summary: [F2018] provide ISO_Fortran_binding.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84894
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84894
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85099
Bug 85099 depends on bug 79985, which changed state.
Bug 79985 Summary: ICE in code_motion_path_driver, at sel-sched.c:6580
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79985
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79985
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79985
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Wed May 23 15:01:28 2018
New Revision: 260613
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260613&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
df-scan: remove ad-hoc handling of global regs in asms
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85888
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85890
Bug ID: 85890
Summary: cc1plus runs out of memory in recursive Fibonacci
computation
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85888
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85888
--- Comment #1 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
or maybe it is system specific as I wasn't able to duplicate on an x86 system
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85886
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85887
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79133
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85888
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Component|other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85889
Bug ID: 85889
Summary: lambda expression can capture structured bindings
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85881
Andrey Guskov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrey.y.guskov at intel dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85887
--- Comment #2 from Jason Vas Dias ---
Also affects gcc-5.4.0 and gcc-5.5.0 builds.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85888
Bug ID: 85888
Summary: New test case c-c++-common/attr-nonstring-6.c from
r260541 fails with excess errors
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85712
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85887
--- Comment #1 from Jason Vas Dias ---
No, it looks like the patch
( https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28937 )
is applied to 6.4.1's and 7.3.1's tree-inline.c, only
for some reason it is not working for those compilers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85887
Bug ID: 85887
Summary: [6.4.1 & 7.3.1 Regression] Missing
DW_TAG_lexical_block PC range
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85886
Bug ID: 85886
Summary: std::atomic<> doesn't have value_type and
difference_type
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84882
--- Comment #3 from sudi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sudi
Date: Wed May 23 11:33:09 2018
New Revision: 260604
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260604&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64][PR target/84882] Add mno-strict-align
*** gcc/ChangeLog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85885
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59922
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
Kinda more important now that -Wreturn-type is on by default
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60790
--- Comment #11 from Florian Weimer ---
Author: fw
Date: Wed May 23 11:13:05 2018
New Revision: 260603
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260603&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
x86: libatomic: Do not assume ELF constructors run before IFUNC resolvers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80140
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|missing |missing
|-Wignored-att
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81873
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
-Wreturn-type is on by default now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79996
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
Might want to revisit this now that -Wreturn-type is on by default
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85885
Bug ID: 85885
Summary: internal compiler error, gimplify.c related
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85861
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #7)
> > Does anyone know the history -Wconversion does not already turn on
> > sign-conversion warnings for C++ code?
This is how historically the C++ FE worked
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85853
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Wed May 23 10:32:16 2018
New Revision: 260601
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260601&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix SLP def type when computing masks (PR85853)
In this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85853
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85883
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85884
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stefan.bolus at gmx dot de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85882
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85881
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85880
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85879
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #14)
> (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #13)
> > Remains now:
> >
> > 1) add support for PIC access to the guard
> > 2) finish cleanup of the pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85878
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85874
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 23 09:07:30 2018
New Revision: 260570
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260570&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-23 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/85874
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85874
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85874
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 23 09:06:01 2018
New Revision: 260569
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260569&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-23 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/85874
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85874
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85873
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83606
--- Comment #12 from Damian Rouson ---
Thank you, Andre!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85872
--- Comment #2 from jakub.leszczak at nokia dot com ---
> The dependence on TEST is beacause we limit the compile-time it takes to emit
> those warnings.
But compilation fails when TEST=1 that is when there is more code to compile.
So if there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85556
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85556
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed May 23 08:26:10 2018
New Revision: 260567
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260567&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Subject: Backport r260154
2018-05-23 Martin Liska
Backport fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed May 23 08:27:14 2018
New Revision: 260568
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260568&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Subject: Backport r260566
2018-05-23 Martin Liska
Backport f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Yuri Gribov from comment #9)
> Thanks for commiting this. Review on gcc-patches went stale...
Sure, no problem. I've also tested the commit in GCC-8 branch, where I'll
install that soon. Note it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85881
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|rsa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822
--- Comment #9 from Yuri Gribov ---
Thanks for commiting this. Review on gcc-patches went stale...
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:41 AM, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822
>
> --- Comment #8 from Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed May 23 07:40:43 2018
New Revision: 260566
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260566&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/85822
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85881
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85884
Bug ID: 85884
Summary: On --enable-vtable-verify --enable-libvtv libstdc++.so
contains insecure runpath after install:
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
91 matches
Mail list logo
