https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66985
Bug ID: 66985
Summary: [concept] template introduction with template template
parameter and template parameter pack causes ICE
Product: gcc
Version: c++-concepts
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66986
Bug ID: 66986
Summary: poor performance of __builtin_isinf on x64
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: midd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66986
--- Comment #1 from Ondrej Bilka ---
Created attachment 36047
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36047&action=edit
testing script
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66986
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66986
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also have you tried adding -march=native ?
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I just tried a build of today's (20150724) trunk code with valgrind
and got this
/home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/
-B/home/dcb/gcc/results/x86_64-un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66988
Bug ID: 66988
Summary: [concepts] concept with template template parameter
satisfied erroneously
Product: gcc
Version: c++-concepts
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66986
--- Comment #4 from Ondrej Bilka ---
Ok added updated benchmark with adding -mtune=native and tests for core2,
haswell and fx10. It stays pretty consistent.
don't inline
conditional add
branched
real0m0.698s
user0m0.698s
sys 0m0.000
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66986
Ondrej Bilka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #36047|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66752
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Confirmed by our testers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66987
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66989
Bug ID: 66989
Summary: poor performance of builtin_isfinite on x64
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: mid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63854
Bug 63854 depends on bug 64003, which changed state.
Bug 64003 Summary: valgrind complains about get_attr_length_nobnd in
insn-attrtab.c from i386.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66989
--- Comment #2 from Ondrej Bilka ---
Created attachment 36050
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36050&action=edit
testing script
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66989
--- Comment #1 from Ondrej Bilka ---
Created attachment 36049
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36049&action=edit
benchmark
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64079
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini ---
Thanks Jason.
Note that '+' eventually boils down to location_of, which does quite a bit more
than DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION. Thus either we should be very, very careful in this
work or in some cases use location
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66990
Bug ID: 66990
Summary: Wrong diagnostics when template being specialized is
ambiguous
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63521
--- Comment #5 from Jiong Wang ---
Author: jiwang
Date: Fri Jul 24 09:06:53 2015
New Revision: 226141
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226141&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] Revert REG_ALLOC_ORDER/HONOR_REG_ALLOC_ORDER
2015-07-24 Jiong Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66990
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from TC ---
I meant, "(w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66983
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66984
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66962
--- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Here is a somewhat reduced testcase:
markus@x4 tmp % cat foo.ii
namespace std {
template struct remove_cv;
template struct is_reference;
template void declval();
template struct is_constructible;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66984
--- Comment #2 from Jay ---
1 please be sure that dividing the most negative number by -1 "works".
Perhaps just don't optimize anything with negstive numbers.
2 I suggest that gcc's C/C++ frontends expose these other forms of division,
for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug 65530 depends on bug 66737, which changed state.
Bug 66737 Summary: ld: warning: -z bndplt ignored
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66737
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66734
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66737
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66734
Bug 66734 depends on bug 66737, which changed state.
Bug 66737 Summary: ld: warning: -z bndplt ignored
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66737
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug 65530 depends on bug 66734, which changed state.
Bug 66734 Summary: Many MPX tests are skipped
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66734
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66990
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66846
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
updated patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg02032.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66851
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
pinged: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg02034.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #44 from Andreas Schwab ---
This breaks gcc.dg/pr43300.c on aarch64.
$ gcc/xgcc -B gcc/ ../gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr43300.c
../gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr43300.c: In function ‘foo’:
../gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr43300.c:8:1: internal compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66991
Bug ID: 66991
Summary: GCCPLUGIN_VERSION_MAJOR == 5 & GCCPLUGIN_VERSION_MINOR
== 5 for GCC 5.5.1
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66991
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't see this in a 5.1.1 build with FSF sources from last month:
#include "configargs.h"
#define GCCPLUGIN_VERSION_MAJOR 5
#define GCCPLUGIN_VERSION_MINOR 1
#define GCCPLUGIN_VERSION_PATCHLEVEL 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #45 from Andreas Schwab ---
It also breaks a lot of tests on m68k, eg:
$ gcc/xgcc -B gcc/ ../gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr17957.c
../gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr17957.c: In function ‘vadd’:
../gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr17957.c:6:1: internal compi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
Assignee|enkovich.gnu a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66991
--- Comment #2 from Basile Starynkevitch ---
It looks like this bug is corrected in GCC 5.2 (I'm compiling the FSF tree).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46193
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
pinged patch 2015-07-22:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg01883.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66991
--- Comment #3 from Basile Starynkevitch ---
It is Debian specific, very probably. I reported a Debian bug (but did not get
any ack yet)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66992
Bug ID: 66992
Summary: [4.9/5/6 Regression] Incorrect array subscript is
above bounds warning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66992
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66991
--- Comment #4 from Basile Starynkevitch ---
Known to Debian thru https://lists.debian.org/debian-gcc/2015/07/msg00167.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66991
--- Comment #5 from Basile Starynkevitch ---
Now Debian bug#793478; sorry for the noise here...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66991
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66992
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I think we have some dups that are similar.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66978
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Jul 24 12:08:00 2015
New Revision: 226150
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226150&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add a testcase for PR bootstrap/66978
PR bootstrap/66978
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66993
Bug ID: 66993
Summary: Spurious ambiguous symbol error with submodules
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66978
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
A small testcase:
[hjl@gnu-6 pr66978]$ cat x.i
extern int foo (int *);
int
bar (int *p)
{
__attribute__ ((noinline, noclone))
int hack_digit (void)
{
return foo (p);
}
return hack_digit ();
}
[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64079
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #7)
> Thanks Jason.
>
> Note that '+' eventually boils down to location_of, which does quite a bit
> more than DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION. Thus either we should be ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64079
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini ---
Agreed. For now I mean to do a first pass on the warnings, no errors, seems
more urgent given the issue involving the pragmas.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66978
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
I am testing this patch:
diff --git a/gcc/function.c b/gcc/function.c
index c3d00cd..f63c9be 100644
--- a/gcc/function.c
+++ b/gcc/function.c
@@ -5207,6 +5207,10 @@ expand_function_start (tree subr)
SET_DEC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66566
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Fri Jul 24 13:15:49 2015
New Revision: 226155
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226155&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR ipa/66566
* ipa-inline-analysis.c (estimate_c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66566
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Fri Jul 24 13:25:06 2015
New Revision: 226156
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226156&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline r226155.
2015-07-24 Ilya
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66566
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66581
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug 65530 depends on bug 66581, which changed state.
Bug 66581 Summary: [CHKP] internal compiler error: SSA corruption
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66581
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug 65530 depends on bug 66566, which changed state.
Bug 66566 Summary: [CHKP] ICE in early_inliner: internal compiler error: in
operator[], at vec.h:714
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66566
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66930
--- Comment #15 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #13)
> This would be OK for hardregs (which are clobbered by calls). When working
> on pseudos, it's actually OK to ignore calls. Maybe it'd be a good idea to
> extend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66930
--- Comment #14 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #12)
> The toplevel "make -k check" on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu is running.
> I'll report back when it completes.
I've confirmed that there are no new failures with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
--- Comment #14 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com from comment #13)
> A good principle in general is to assume cock-up, rather than
> conspiracy :-) The reason for this spreading between two functions is
> increment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66994
Bug ID: 66994
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault during PGO
bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
--- Comment #8 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Created attachment 36052
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36052&action=edit
To be compiled with -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
--- Comment #9 from Vittorio Zecca ---
At line 2473 of ipa-prop.c I have
if (!ctx.useless_p ())
I changed it into
if (!ctx.useless_p () || !dst_ctx)
Now the sanitizer runtime error message disappears.
I am attaching another source, gccerr20-b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66994
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6 Regression] ICE: |[6 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66995
Bug ID: 66995
Summary: First declaration as inline after definition of
function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65711
--- Comment #8 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nsz
Date: Fri Jul 24 14:27:55 2015
New Revision: 226158
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226158&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] Fix LINUX_TARGET_LINK_SPEC to be consistent with ARM
2015
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66984
--- Comment #3 from Gary Funck ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> The usual fix in fold-const.c is to make sure to convert operands to the
> required type when building the final expression. Thus instead of
>
> 10828 r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66984
--- Comment #4 from Gary Funck ---
(In reply to Jay from comment #2)
> 1 please be sure that dividing the most negative number by -1 "works".
> Perhaps just don't optimize anything with negstive numbers.
- Checking for negative numbers at compi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714
--- Comment #24 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cesar
Date: Fri Jul 24 14:38:43 2015
New Revision: 226160
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226160&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 66714
gcc/
* tree-cfg.c (struct rep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66984
--- Comment #5 from Gary Funck ---
(In reply to Jay from comment #2)
> 2 I suggest that gcc's C/C++ frontends expose these other forms of division,
> for the sake of testability.
Perhaps defining a builtin for CEIL_DIV_EXPR and FLOOR_DIV_EXPR mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
--- Comment #15 from Mikael Morin ---
Author: mikael
Date: Fri Jul 24 14:44:59 2015
New Revision: 226162
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226162&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix gfortran.dg/class_to_type_4.f90 deallocation code misordering failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66978
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg02066.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66994
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Is this caused by r226113?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66995
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66994
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #2)
> Is this caused by r226113?
Maybe.
With r226113 I get: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
With r226112 I get: internal compiler error: output_operand: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66996
Bug ID: 66996
Summary: [6 Regression] defined but not used
[-Wunused-function]
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66997
Bug ID: 66997
Summary: outer loop reduction fails to parallelize with
graphite
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66997
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
loop nest at parloops:
...
parloop (int N)
{
_Bool Cross_BB_scalar_dependence.11_I_lsm.23;
unsigned int Cross_BB_scalar_dependence.11_I_lsm.22;
_Bool Cross_BB_scalar_dependence.13_I_lsm.21;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66997
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Using this patch, we don't bail out immediately when graphite didn't set
loop->can_be_parallel, but try a bit harder:
...
diff --git a/gcc/tree-parloops.c b/gcc/tree-parloops.c
index 88f22e8..51f157
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66996
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66996
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65711
--- Comment #9 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nsz
Date: Fri Jul 24 16:00:26 2015
New Revision: 226165
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226165&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline r226158.
2015-07-24 Szabolcs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Vittorio Zecca from comment #8)
> Created attachment 36052 [details]
> To be compiled with -O2
This compiles fine for me (with -O2) both with the current trunk and
the current gcc 5 branch.
(I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66984
--- Comment #6 from gfunck at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gfunck
Date: Fri Jul 24 16:10:39 2015
New Revision: 226168
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226168&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-07-24 Gary Funck
PR middle-end/66984
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65711
--- Comment #10 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nsz
Date: Fri Jul 24 16:12:58 2015
New Revision: 226169
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226169&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline r226158.
2015-07-24 Szabo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66998
Bug ID: 66998
Summary: not_fn invocation is not SFINAE friendly
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66988
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Sutton ---
I don't know if that's strictly a concepts issue. My guess is that the template
argument coersion of this argument:
template class
to this parameter:
template class
is not succeeding.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #32 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Jul 24 16:25:56 2015
New Revision: 226173
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226173&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/64003
* config/i386/i386.h (ADJUST_INSN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66998
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63854
Bug 63854 depends on bug 64003, which changed state.
Bug 64003 Summary: valgrind complains about get_attr_length_nobnd in
insn-attrtab.c from i386.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66998
--- Comment #2 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
Sorry for missing using declaration.
> It's certainly a nice QoI improvement. I was basically lazy when I
> implemented it and used decltype(auto) because it's convenient.
Yes, the decltype(auto) is con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66998
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Tomasz Kamiński from comment #2)
> Should I create separate issue?
Oops, no we can deal with both under this PR.
If I commit my invoke() implementation then we can just use that, and it will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66873
--- Comment #9 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #7)
> Created attachment 35986 [details]
> Updated tentative patch
>
> I found that always doing graphite before parloops resulted in failures to
> parallelize reduc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66873
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|patch |
--- Comment #10 from vries at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #46 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66988
--- Comment #2 from Eric Niebler ---
I thought that, too. But this program has the same problem:
#include
template class T, class U>
concept bool _Valid = requires { typename T; };
template
using __t = typename T::type;
template
struct __
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
