https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66534
--- Comment #4 from HEMMI, Shigeru ---
Thanks for the reply.
After my posting, i switched gfortran-5.1.0 to gfortran-5.2.0
expecting something improved. But the same bug has generated
at the same place.
Then i removed two blocks of libgfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67406
--- Comment #4 from vincenzo Innocente ---
#pragma omp declare simd notinbranch
float __attribute__ ((__target__ ("default")))
fma(float x,float y, float z) {
return x+y*z;
}
#pragma omp declare simd notinbranch
float __attribute__ ((__target_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67467
Bug ID: 67467
Summary: Using "-Wall -Wextra -Wno-unused-dummy-argument"
causes error
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66910
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63921
--- Comment #5 from mirco ---
Thank you Paul,
I was trying to follow the Dominique's suggestion and to fix the problem by
myself but it was the first time I examined the gfortran's code, and I was
still trying to understand its structure. I'm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67467
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41387
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239
Bug ID: 67239
Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL:
23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc
execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67215
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5)
> Created attachment 36190 [details]
> A patch
>
> For x86, -fno-plt should be handled by ix86_expand_call to
> generate indirect call via GOT, not by forcing the function
> a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66158
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66189
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> IMO the matmul inlining should be restricted to small matrices, thus I am
> not convinced that this worth the work.
For large matrix sizes, an external op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66762
--- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
We need to get an lto expert to take a look.
Cheers
Paul
On 6 September 2015 at 03:13, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66762
>
> Domi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31016
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|tkoenig at gcc do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67406
--- Comment #5 from vincenzo Innocente ---
does not work...
pragma omp declare simd notinbranch
float __attribute__ ((__target__ ("default")))
fma(float x,float y, float z);
#pragma omp declare simd notinbranch
float __attribute__ ((__target__ (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67467
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51013
Ross Martin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ross.martin at ieee dot org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51013
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ross Martin from comment #14)
> This change to not be able to pull out a reference to the real or imaginary
> parts has messed me up. The assumption being made by this new complex class
> is
ew-gcc/i-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/6.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../s-trunk/configure --prefix=/home/craig/new-gcc/i-trunk
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150906 (experimental) (GCC)
-- and --
g++-5 (Ubuntu 5.1.0-0ubuntu11~14.04.1) 5.1.0
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67469
Bug ID: 67469
Summary: "-pie -fpie" result in BSS instead of undefined
symbols
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150906 (experimental) [trunk revision 227511] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 small.c; ./a.out
$ gcc-4.9 -O3 small.c; ./a.out
$
$ gcc-trunk -O3 small.c
small.c: In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67469
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
It was done on purpose by:
commit 130f233477ed03a7bdffb832e7eb9f0a366e0d6b
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Dec 4 19:40:50 2014 +
x86-64: Optimize access to globals in PIE with copy reloc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67471
Bug ID: 67471
Summary: Finalizer not invoked for assignment to array section
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67472
Bug ID: 67472
Summary: Finalizer not invoked for undefined and unreferenced
local variable
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67473
Bug ID: 67473
Summary: init.c undefined behaviour referencing misaligned
pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66681
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67378
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67378
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
27 matches
Mail list logo
