https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86626
Bug ID: 86626
Summary: ICE
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86621
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
i686 target is ok on x86-64 host. The problem
is 32 bit host.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86621
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-pc-solaris2.11,|i386-pc-solaris2.11,
|sp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86621
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86624
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86625
Bug ID: 86625
Summary: funroll-loops doesn't unroll, producing >3x assembly
and running 10x slower than manual complete unrolling
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
Status: UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86624
Bug ID: 86624
Summary: [9 Regression] GCC failed to bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64919
--- Comment #36 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #35)
> I am trying to build 4.9.4 with a patched 4.7.4 and am running into the
> following failure:
> /opt/build/china/gcc-4.9.4/.obj/./gcc/xgcc
> -B/opt/build/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86622
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Sorry, I didn't give enough details in the report. As discussed in the
gcc-patches thread referenced in comment #0, the bug is latent on current
trunk. It only manifests itself when the fix for bug 86532 is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86621
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28756
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69224
--- Comment #11 from nightstrike ---
Will this be back ported to 6 and 7?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86622
--- Comment #5 from U.Mutlu ---
I have to correct myself in #2 and #3.
The code is correct, and should return n=6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86622
--- Comment #4 from U.Mutlu ---
gcc version 4.9.2 (Debian 4.9.2-10+deb8u1) gives the same result as v9:
p=123456 n=6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86622
--- Comment #3 from U.Mutlu ---
I just tested it with v9:
#include
static const char a[3][8] = { "1234", "12345", "123456" };
int main ()
{
volatile int i = 1;
const char* p = *(&a[1] + i);
int n = __builtin_strlen (p);
printf("p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86622
U.Mutlu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||um at mutluit dot com
--- Comment #2 from U.Mu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86623
Bug ID: 86623
Summary: constexpr evaluation fails to give an error for
modifying a const object
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86622
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86622
Bug ID: 86622
Summary: incorrect strlen of array of array plus variable
offset
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
t: i386-pc-solaris2.11, sparc-sun-solaris2.11
Build: i386-pc-solaris2.11, sparc-sun-solaris2.11
Between 20180720 (r262899) and 20180721 (r262917), Solaris bootstrap broke like
this:
In file included from /vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/system.h:691,
from /vol/gcc/sr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86620
Bug ID: 86620
Summary: __attribute__((no inline)) gives incorrect warning
with overloaded functions
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86619
Bug ID: 86619
Summary: Missed optimization opportunity with array aliasing
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86617
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71045
--- Comment #6 from U.Mutlu ---
Another difference is:
the passing normal compiler was built with itself (so to say, ie. built with
v9),
whereas the failing cross compiler was built with the default system compiler:
$ gcc -v
Using built-in spe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71045
--- Comment #5 from U.Mutlu ---
I just see a difference:
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Target: x86_64-linux
The pr68264 fails in the latter case (built as a crosscompiler).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71045
--- Comment #4 from U.Mutlu ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3)
> (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #1)
> > > (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #0)
> > > > Kaz, do you know what's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68356
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe ---
by coincidence (triaging Darwin bugs at the moment) I was looking at this last
night.
An alternative, for platforms with math_errhandling and which use
MATH_ERREXCEPT, (Darwin and a couple of others) could be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86618
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
gcc compiler flag -O3 required.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86618
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
29 matches
Mail list logo
