https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70614
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69066
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69066
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sun Apr 10 09:32:46 2016
New Revision: 234869
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234869&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-10 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/69066
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69066
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64519
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58000
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Patch I am planning to submit
--- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi 2016-01-04 19:51:09.0 +0100
+++ gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi 2016-04-10 14:00:11.0 +0200
@@ -2148,6 +2148,7 @@ code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68401
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #9 from Domin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68600
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #11)
> I was experimenting some more here a few days ago. I really think that
> inlineing shold be disabled above some threshold. On larger arrays, the
> runtime li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69807
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin15 |x86_64-apple-darwin15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416
--- Comment #30 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #28)
> Fixed for GCC 6 and GCC 5.
Ok, great. Matthias just imported r234858 for gcc-5 yesterday. I'll report back
in case the issue persists.
Thanks for your
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70617
Bug ID: 70617
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69095
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70617
--- Comment #1 from Jan Smets ---
with checking=all
../pchip_code/vfp_combined_c.cpp:85:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation
fault
0xd42735 crash_signal
.././gcc-5.3.1/gcc/toplev.c:383
0x732f37 c_tree_chain_next
.././gcc-5.3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70617
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36159
--- Comment #18 from Martin Sebor ---
The link works for me. An older version of the paper is here:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3396.htm
If that doesn't work for you either try searching for the paper titled Dynamic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70617
--- Comment #3 from Jan Smets ---
output is the same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70617
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah, but with the always collect options presumably it might be easier to
reduce the testcase more, so creduce and/or delta might be successful on it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70618
Bug ID: 70618
Summary: better error messages for missing/too many arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70619
Bug ID: 70619
Summary: Wrong warning with VLA, comma and sizeof
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70610
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka ---
The problem is that during template processing we think the operand to the
unary + is an lvalue (because it's wrapped in a NON_DEPENDENT_EXPR node) and so
during overload resolution we select the non-const ov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70610
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
This general issue about the unconditional lvalue-ness of NON_DEPENDENT_EXPR
existed before my patch for PR c++/21802 though. For example, ere's a test
case that should compile cleanly but doesn't since at l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70610
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
Not limited to operator overloads either:
void bar (const int &, int &);
void bar (int &, const int &);
void bar (const int &, const int &);
int a, b;
template
void
foo ()
{
bar (a + 1, b + 2);
}
-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160410 (experimental) [trunk revision 234869] (GCC)
$
$ g++-trunk -O1 small.cpp; ./a.out; echo $?
0
$ g++-4.9 -Os small.cpp; ./a.out; echo $?
0
$
$ g++-trunk
-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160410 (experimental) [trunk revision 234869] (GCC)
$
$ g++-trunk -O0 -c small.cpp
small.cpp:30:12: error: conflicting declaration ‘const B D::e’
const B D::e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58000
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51820
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
--- Comment #18 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #17)
> Note that the extra comma is used in the following tests:
>
> gfortran.dg/array_constructor_49.f90
> gfortran.dg/integer_exponentiation_6.F90
> gfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67039
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
0, *y = &x;
}
```
GCC 6 20160410: http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/kBVR4JiKMCMnfWe6
GCC 5.3.0: http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/61qqamq6MeInqgXF
clang 3.8.0: http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/qdw2lwZE17Rf4Ioz
[dcl.spec.auto]/4 indicates that code should be well-formed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52884
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65479
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt ---
I wonder if this is just support that hasn't been updated in the GCC copy of
libsanitizer. I recall fixing this bug (or one very similar to it) on the
Clang side in 2015. There is some Power-specific logic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70623
Bug ID: 70623
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE in compute_antic at -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68600
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #12)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #11)
---snip--
>
> May I suggest reading the docs? ;-)
>
--- snip ---
> The default value for N is the value sp
33 matches
Mail list logo
