https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66541
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64130
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #6)
> (In reply to kugan from comment #5)
> > I think it should be in from front-end?
>
> ?
Yes this is really not a good comment to make. This is not even front-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66596
Bug ID: 66596
Summary: Type that is not dependent on the variable template
template parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66518
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Fri Jun 19 07:41:37 2015
New Revision: 224639
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224639&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libgomp: XFAIL two libgomp.oacc-* tests
PR libgomp/66518
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66593
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #0)
> Currently libgccjit uses -mtune=generic; I'm working on enabling
> -mtune=native for libgccjit.
>
> However, on i386/x86_64 with a non-bootstrap build using gcc <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66590
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64130
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse ---
(for cmp1 (eq ne)
cmp2 (lt ge)
(simplify
(cmp1 (trunc_div @0 @1) integer_zerop)
(if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@0))
|| VECTOR_INTEGER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@0)))
(cmp2 (abs @0) (abs @1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64130
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse ---
Forget comment #8, it can introduce abs(INT_MIN) which would be bad.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66588
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> > BTW: x86_64 is missing any form of zero-extended cmove.
>
> ... please see [1] how x86_64 implements it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66578
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #9)
> Unfortunately, this does not appear to fix the bug (at least not completely).
> I still get an invalid free.
Indeed, unfortunately this:
(In reply to Mikael Mor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66578
--- Comment #11 from Mikael Morin ---
In gfc_conv_expr_descriptor, the bounds used to initialize the descriptor are
different from the ones passed to gfc_get_array_type_bounds. That is the heart
of the problem, I think.
What I don't understand i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66596
--- Comment #1 from Ed Catmur ---
Note: error produced is:
prog.cc: In instantiation of 'void g() [with T = int]':
prog.cc:6:21: required from here
prog.cc:5:30: error: 'U::f()' is not a member of 'V'
template void g() { t.f(); }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66578
--- Comment #12 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35806
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35806&action=edit
Incomplete patch
The attached patch addresses some of the issues, but unfortunately does it open
som
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66464
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, it will be in 5.1.1-4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
So, it seems Matthias is right, there is definitely a regression in gcc-4.9 in
the code generation. Packages that were recently build with gcc-4.9_4.9.2-20 or
newer tend to segfault.
I noticed th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #4 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 35807
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35807&action=edit
strace of journalctl_220-6-sh4 during segfault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64130
--- Comment #10 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #6)
> (In reply to kugan from comment #5)
> > I think it should be in from front-end?
>
> ?
Sorry for the confusing terminology.
for the case
int fsigned(i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66592
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66592
--- Comment #4 from Michael Matz ---
Can't reproduce with r224605 and r224647. Can you update and retry?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66253
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #0)
> Created attachment 35792 [details]
> preprocessed source
>
> seen while building the GCC 5 branch using GCC 4.9 SVN 20150531 (r223898):
I can't reproduce the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66597
Bug ID: 66597
Summary: [6 Regression] Bootstrap failure since debug-early
merge
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66549
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Morin ---
Author: mikael
Date: Fri Jun 19 12:50:00 2015
New Revision: 224648
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224648&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix openmp global state fortran regression
PR fortran/66549
gcc/f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #5)
> (In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #0)
> > Created attachment 35792 [details]
> > preprocessed source
> >
> > seen while building the GCC 5 b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66598
Bug ID: 66598
Summary: With -O3 gcc incorrectly assumes aligned SSE
instructions (e.g. movapd) can be used
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #7 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Alright, I did some further tests. I downloaded the source package for "wmfire"
with "apt-get source wmfire" and installed its build dependencies with "apt-get
build-dep wmfire".
Then I just trie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #8 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 35808
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35808&action=edit
strace of gcc segfaulting when compiling wmfire.c on sh4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #9 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 35809
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35809&action=edit
Pre-processed source for wmfire.c test compile (run with strace)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #10 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 35810
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35810&action=edit
Pre-processed source for wmfire.c test compile (run without strace)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #11 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 35811
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35811&action=edit
Same compiler invocation, but this time with strace -f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66581
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Fixed in trunk by r224644.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #12 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
All my 4.9 compilers don't fail for given pre-processed source.
Could you show us segfaultlog with running the following commands?
gcc -E wmfire.c -o wmfire.i
strace -i -f -o segfaultlog /usr/lib/gcc/sh4-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65945
--- Comment #12 from James Y Knight ---
Since this would at least theoretically be a c++11 ABI change -- although it
seems likely not to impact the ABI of most actual software -- it seems like
it'd be a really good idea to fix it ASAP, before too
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #13 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Alright:
glaubitz@tirpitz:~/debian/segfault-test/wmfire-1.2.4/src$ gcc -E wmfire.c -o
wmfire.i $(pkg-config --cflags gdk-2.0) $(pkg-config --cflags libgtop-2.0)
glaubitz@tirpitz:~/debian/segfaul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #14 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 35812
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35812&action=edit
Log for strace -i -f -o segfaultlog /usr/lib/gcc/sh4-linux-gnu/4.9/cc1 wmfire.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65843
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62308
--- Comment #14 from Christophe Lyon ---
Author: clyon
Date: Fri Jun 19 14:41:32 2015
New Revision: 224671
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224671&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-19 Christophe Lyon
PR target/62308
Backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62308
--- Comment #15 from Christophe Lyon ---
Testcase committed to trunk as r224649, to gcc-5-branch as r224670.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62308
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66482
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Proposed patch awaiting review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg00943.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66597
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Is that the actual line number (18034) with current mainline? 18034 does not
look like a place we could ICE in.
Perhaps it's the ICE in 25535, because if it is, then it is a duplicate of
PR66482.
Could yo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #15 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #14)
> Created attachment 35812 [details]
> Log for strace -i -f -o segfaultlog /usr/lib/gcc/sh4-linux-gnu/4.9/cc1
> wmfire.i
30836 [00763a40] --- SIGSE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57600
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66592
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:49:55AM +, matz at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66592
>
> --- Comment #4 from Michael Matz ---
> Can't reproduce with r224605 and r22464
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66599
Bug ID: 66599
Summary: on aarch64, some parameters to memory constraints
causes wrong ASM generation
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64190
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66599
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57600
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to alalaw01 from comment #5)
> Can you give an example where it not only doesn't help, but actually hurts?
I don't remember at all what I was talking about. I can imagine that if we are
in a branch p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66594
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This should be true on all targets which have -mcpu=native (or
> -march=native). Note x86 options are not always the same on x86 vs arm vs
> aarch64 vs ppc.
Tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66594
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Some notes:
The following archs seem to implement a "host_detect_local_cpu" C++ callback,
implementing the spec-language function "local_cpu_detect":
grep -nH -e host_detect_local_cpu */*/*.h
config/aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66594
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > This should be true on all targets which have -mcpu=native (or
> > -march=native). Note x86 options
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66549
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66599
--- Comment #2 from Romain Dolbeau ---
Do you mean "Q" in this case, or always when using ld4/st4 (and probably quite
a few others)?
If I pre-compute a pointer with src+16, I still get the error (I'm guessing an
optimization is propagating the p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66599
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66599
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
You should use "Q" when you want a memory address with only a register
addressing mode (i.e. no offsets), which is what AdvancedSIMD ldn/stn
instructions take.
I used:
void fun(unsigned int *src
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66600
Bug ID: 66600
Summary: sign_mask meets valgrind
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65914
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Looking at the vsx_register_operand predicate in predicates.md, this seems to
need some TLC. Will discuss with Mike Meissner offline.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66592
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66599
Romain Dolbeau changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #5 from Romain Dolbea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66599
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Romain Dolbeau from comment #5)
> OK thank you everyone. Not yet used to the idiosyncrasy of aarch64. Perhaps
> the explanation of the "Q" constraint should mention it's required for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66599
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66602
Bug ID: 66602
Summary: std::tuple bug when constructed with temporary empty
object
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66601
Bug ID: 66601
Summary: RFE: improve diagnostics for failure to deduce
template parameter pack that is not in the last
position in the parameter list
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66594
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 35815
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35815&action=edit
Hacky work-in-progress fix, using hardcoded calls to host_detect_local_cpu
The attached patch is a hack, in tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66594
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #4)
> (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > > This should be true on all targets which have -mcpu=native (or
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563
--- Comment #16 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
I included some more context:
glaubitz@tirpitz:~/debian/segfault-test$ objdump -d
/usr/lib/gcc/sh4-linux-gnu/4.9/cc1 |grep -C20 763a40
763a18: 10 38 cmp/eq r1,r8
763a1a:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66601
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Jonatha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66602
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66603
Bug ID: 66603
Summary: using std::cout causes segfault with unrelated array
declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
C_OPTIONS='-v' '-save-temps' '-c' '-Wno-format-y2k' '-pthread' '-O2'
'-fPIC' '-std=c++11' '-g' '-Wall' '-Wextra' '-Werror'
'-Wpedantic' '-I' '../../../../.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66604
--- Comment #1 from Eric Moyer ---
Created attachment 35817
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35817&action=edit
Preprocessed source (zipped because of attachment length limit)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65843
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jun 19 18:15:24 2015
New Revision: 224676
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224676&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65843
* pt.c (tsubst_copy_and_build): Register a ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66061
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jun 19 18:15:17 2015
New Revision: 224675
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224675&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66061
* g++.dg/cpp1y/var-templ31.C: New.
Added:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65880
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jun 19 18:15:36 2015
New Revision: 224678
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224678&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65880
* decl.c (build_ptrmemfunc_type): Check TYPE_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65973
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jun 19 18:15:30 2015
New Revision: 224677
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224677&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65973
* constexpr.c (build_constexpr_constructor_me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66061
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jun 19 18:24:13 2015
New Revision: 224680
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224680&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66061
* g++.dg/cpp1y/var-templ31.C: New.
Added:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65880
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jun 19 18:24:29 2015
New Revision: 224683
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224683&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65880
* decl.c (build_ptrmemfunc_type): Check TYPE_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65973
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jun 19 18:24:24 2015
New Revision: 224682
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224682&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65973
* constexpr.c (build_constexpr_constructor_me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65843
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jun 19 18:24:18 2015
New Revision: 224681
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224681&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65843
* pt.c (tsubst_copy_and_build): Register a ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66585
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jun 19 18:37:41 2015
New Revision: 224684
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224684&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66585
* pt.c (instantiate_class_template_1): Clear
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66597
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #1)
> Is that the actual line number (18034) with current mainline? 18034 does
> not look like a place we could ICE in.
>
> Perhaps it's the ICE in 25535, because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66482
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66597
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66597
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez ---
On 06/19/2015 11:50 AM, krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66597
>
> --- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel ---
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #1)
>> I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66605
Bug ID: 66605
Summary: -Wunused-parameter causes internal compiler error with
gfortran 5.1.0
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
(tested agains gcc HEAD
6.0.0 20150619 (experimental)) has fixed that problem.
.
||com
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler ---
The segfault also occurs in the current head (tested: gcc HEAD 6.0.0 20150619
(experimental))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66585
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jun 19 19:17:16 2015
New Revision: 224694
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224694&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66585
* pt.c (instantiate_class_template_1): Clear
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66605
--- Comment #1 from Kyle ---
I should note that removing "-Wunused-parameter" allows compilation without
error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66515
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jun 19 19:30:37 2015
New Revision: 224695
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224695&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66515
* call.c (implicit_conversion): Call reshape_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66603
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66603
--- Comment #3 from gunney1 at llnl dot gov ---
Because of the effects of the stream insertion. But maybe I don't understand
very well their relationship.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66603
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to gunney1 from comment #3)
> Because of the effects of the stream insertion. But maybe I don't
> understand very well their relationship.
First, I guess it does not crash with icpc because icpc opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66604
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66603
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
Another detail that might confuse you: if you write
in n=400;
int a[n];
it will probably not crash. The reason is that variables like 'int a[400]'
exist for the whole length of the function, the memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66606
Bug ID: 66606
Summary: missing diagnostic on using function main
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66606
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
One other observation (and actually the reason why I found this problem) is
that the diagnostic GCC issues for the call to main in bar:
int bar () { return main (); }
is misleading. The operand of the retur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66607
Bug ID: 66607
Summary: ICE instantiating a template on a function reference
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66104
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Schweikle ---
ERROR: Failed to check out http://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5-branch
org.tmatesoft.svn.core.SVNException: svn: E175002: Processing REPORT request
response failed: Elementtyp "D:creator-displayname"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66608
Bug ID: 66608
Summary: gnat 5.1 fails with compilation abandoned, minimal
testcase included
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
