[Bug c/70400] GCC compiles a return statement with an expression in a void function (illegal under C90 6.6.6.4) with -std=c90 -pedantic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70400 --- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Thu, 24 Mar 2016, ryao at gentoo dot org wrote: > How would GCC "reject all programs" without emitting an error? If there is > some By emitting a warning. That's a rejection. The stan

[Bug fortran/70235] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Incorrect output with PF format

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235 --- Comment #15 from Jerry DeLisle --- Created attachment 38091 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38091&action=edit A more exhaustive testing program This test allows at least visual inspection of the patterns. The test omits

[Bug fortran/68441] ICE on using transfer with character parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68441 Harald Anlauf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gmx dot de --- Comment #2 from

[Bug target/70359] [6 Regression] Code size increase for ARM compared to gcc-5.3.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359 --- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > CCing authors of the other commits. That said, complaining about size > regressions generally should be only if it (significantly) increases sizes > of some

[Bug target/70319] [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/sso/q2.c -O1 -fno-inline execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70319 --- Comment #12 from John David Anglin --- Author: danglin Date: Fri Mar 25 00:59:02 2016 New Revision: 234475 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234475&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/70319 * config/pa/pa.md (bswapdi2): Use a

[Bug target/70319] [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/sso/q2.c -O1 -fno-inline execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70319 --- Comment #13 from John David Anglin --- Author: danglin Date: Fri Mar 25 01:00:40 2016 New Revision: 234476 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234476&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/70319 * config/pa/pa.md (bswapdi2): Use a

[Bug c/70407] New: alignment of array elements is greater than element size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70407 Bug ID: 70407 Summary: alignment of array elements is greater than element size Product: gcc Version: 4.8.4 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prior

[Bug c/70407] alignment of array elements is greater than element size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70407 Dehuan Xin changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |minor

[Bug fortran/70235] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Incorrect output with PF format

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235 --- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Created attachment 38090 [details] > Updated patch correcting problem found by Dominique With this updated patch and y = 643.125 and d=2, I get -8pf18.2 y= 1.00 -7pf18.2 y=

[Bug target/70216] [SH] Implement __builtin_trap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216 --- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo --- (In reply to Rich Felker from comment #7) > Is there a reason we don't use an undefined instruction that will trap? > 0xfffd is mentioned as permanently undefined here on page 85: > > http://documentation.renesa

[Bug c++/69564] [5/6 Regression] lto and/or C++ make scimark2 LU slower

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564 --- Comment #17 from Patrick Palka --- The following patch by itself closes the gap between the C++ and C FEs, to make compilation with the C++ FE at least as good as with the C FE: diff --git a/gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c b/gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c index

[Bug c++/69564] [5/6 Regression] lto and/or C++ make scimark2 LU slower

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564 --- Comment #18 from Patrick Palka --- So with the patch, g++ -flto -Ofast is on par with gcc -flto -Ofast and better than g++ -Ofast. Could anyone confirm?

<    1   2