https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69258
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69254
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64411
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69032
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69102
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67145
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67323
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69254
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69254
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8
--- Comment #5 from Dominik Vogt ---
The linked page from comment #2 mentions a discussion about this issue which
I'm unable to find. Any hints where it is?
Anyway, we've looked into it, and it seems that this bit of code generated a
duplicate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68961
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> Confirmed on powerpc64le:
>
> $ /build/gcc-trunk/gcc/xgcc -B /build/gcc-trunk/gcc -O3 -S -Wall -Wextra
> -Wpedantic -mcpu=power8 -o/dev/stdout
> /src/gcc/trunk/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8
--- Comment #6 from Dominik Vogt ---
There are several approaches to fix the problem:
1) An "Intermediate" DIE is generated if the corresponding type has not yet
been recorded. When creating the DIE also generate the type. This may lead to
unu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46555
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
The idea is to add forwarder blocks here. Of course doing this too
aggressively may be bad, not sure (extra jumps instead of extra copies).
Eventually the
targets want some control on this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69264
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |5.3.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69263
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67415
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69160
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68060
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68060
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
It's a bogus detected double reduction.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54896
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69268
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69263
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68385
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68404
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68473
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.0 |---
Summary|[6 Regression] I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69261
--- Comment #4 from Jens Auer ---
It produces the correct results if you change foo to not use constexpr:
void foo()
{
auto const s1 = s( "bla" );
auto const s2 = s( "blu" );
string_constexpr<7> const s1s2 = concat(s1,s2);
auto cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68560
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68585
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68586
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67373
Jonas Jelten changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jj at stusta dot net
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68648
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68662
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68670
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68672
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68679
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68698
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67373
--- Comment #4 from Jonas Jelten ---
It should be noted that my issue occurs on Gentoo with gcc 5.3.0, avr-libc
1.8.1 and avr binutils 2.25.1-r1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68730
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra, wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68763
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69194
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69194
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #3)
> The patch checked in fixes this PR.
I think this still needs a backport to GCC 5 though
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69271
Bug ID: 69271
Summary: LTO drops weak binding from aliases
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68767
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68789
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68782
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69194
--- Comment #5 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for the reminder. I will commit the back-port today. I wanted leave few
days in the trunk before doing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68810
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #33 from Joshua Kinard ---
The problem may be tied to a particular CFLAG on glibc-n32 MIPS. I ran our
(Gentoo's) stage-building script, and forgot to block gcc-5.3.0 from building,
and it ended up completing. Difference between that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68798
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68820
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68847
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #34 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016, kumba at gentoo dot org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
>
> --- Comment #33 from Joshua Kinard ---
> The problem may be tied to a particular CFL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68862
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Component|tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68881
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-solaris
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68887
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68890
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68899
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68926
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68936
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68955
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68961
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69155
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37335|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68963
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68419
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
Hi,
(In reply to Lauri Kasanen from comment #6)
> Here's more details on my system.
>
> Host gcc: 4.2.2
> Host binutils: 2.25.1
> m68k binutils: 2.24
>
> I used make -j13, but a parallel build shouldn't af
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69272
Bug ID: 69272
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: in c_builtin_function, at
c/c-decl.c:4020 with -fgnu-tm
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68965
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68964
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64*, aarch64-linux
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> Thanks for your help! I can confirm that the first patch fixes the problem
> in the test cases on powerpc64le. (I haven't done any other testing with
> it.)
Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68973
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68990
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69003
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69009
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69014
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69030
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Target|x86_64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69257
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69272
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69272
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
I'd think that this started with r232330 but haven't verified.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68404
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68881
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Tom, what target did you reproduce on?
...
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=./install/bin/gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/scratch/vries/b3/gcc_vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69042
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69098
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69116
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68862
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69124
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69117
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69271
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|6.0 |5.3.1
--- Comment #1 from nsz at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69126
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69133
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69135
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68419
--- Comment #8 from Lauri Kasanen ---
Today's gcc 5 branch, git 4e07f8a1b79f5e or svn r232358, still fails.
/tmp/gccbuild/./gcc/xgcc -B/tmp/gccbuild/./gcc/ -B/tmp/tmpgcc/m68k-elf/bin/
-B/tmp/tmpgcc/m68k-elf/lib/ -isystem /tmp/tmpgcc/m68k-elf/inc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69136
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69137
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69139
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68419
--- Comment #9 from Lauri Kasanen ---
Your command line from comment #5 fails similarly, on my original attachment.
./gcc/cc1 -O2 unwind-dw2.i -g -auxbase-strip unwind-dw2.o -g -O2
-fbuilding-libgcc -fno-stack-protector -fexceptions -fvisibility
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68698
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69198
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
*** Bug 68698 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68881
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
I can confirm this PR on CentOS 5.11 which has:
GNU ld version 2.17.50.0.5-26.el5 20061020
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68419
--- Comment #10 from Lauri Kasanen ---
When using gcc 5.2 as the host compiler, there is no crash.
The gcc docs state that any version of gcc above 3.4 is supported, so this is
still a bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68820
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=950
W E Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||webrown.cpp at gmail dot com
--- Comment #16 f
_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/sbergman/gcc/trunk/inst/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/6.0.0/lto-wrapper
> Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
> Configured with: ../src/trunk/configure
> --prefix=/home/sbergman/gcc/trunk/inst --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
> Thread model: posix
> gcc version 6.0.0 2
1 - 100 of 284 matches
Mail list logo