https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71372
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71372
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71372
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71372
>
> --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2016, jakub at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71372
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #8)
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2016, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> Actually it's not a bug of those but of the callers (given fold_binary
> doesn't get to see that flag).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71372
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71372
>
> --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71261
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71374
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71372
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
On the C++ cp_fold side, I think
--- cp-gimplify.c.jj1 2016-05-26 10:38:01.0 +0200
+++ cp-gimplify.c 2016-06-02 10:21:33.903655321 +0200
@@ -2035,7 +2035,16 @@ cp_fold (tree x)
if (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64946
Shiva Chen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||shiva0217 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70830
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Jun 2 08:54:15 2016
New Revision: 237027
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237027&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix fallout from: [ARM] PR target/70830: Avoid POP-{reglis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71379
Bug ID: 71379
Summary: [7 regression] Bootstrap fail on S/390 32 bit starting
with r236831
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71372
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 38623
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38623&action=edit
gcc7-pr71372.patch
Patch I'm going to bootstrap/regtest.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71380
Bug ID: 71380
Summary: [7 Regression] internal compiler error: in
copy_cond_phi_nodes, at
graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c:2498
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71380
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.1.0
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71378
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2016-6-2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64946
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016, shiva0217 at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64946
>
> Shiva Chen changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71379
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71298
lh_mouse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lh_mouse at 126 dot com
--- Comment #1 from l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71381
Bug ID: 71381
Summary: C/C++ OpenACC cache directive rejects valid syntax
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc, rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71382
Bug ID: 71382
Summary: Unary plus doesn't works with pointers to
instantiations of function templates
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70972
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jun 2 11:30:44 2016
New Revision: 237032
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237032&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2016-06-02 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/70972
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70972
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71151
--- Comment #12 from Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
---
Yes, tiny also has .rodata in .data
I'd totally missed PR 63323, so just removing the target hook and turning on
JUMP_TABLES_IN_TEXT_SECTION does the trick, like you said. Wrote a basic test
to ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71374
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70936
İsmail Dönmez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ismail at i10z dot com
--- Comment #8 fr
PA passes.
My compiler is GCC: (GNU) 7.0.0 20160602 (experimental) [trunk revision 14336].
I can also reproduce this issue on our port of gcc 6.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71295
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Jun 2 12:26:42 2016
New Revision: 237034
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237034&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[rtlanal] Fix rtl-optimization/71295
PR rtl-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71384
Bug ID: 71384
Summary: Global constructors (init_array) emitted for trivial
initialisation depending on source code ordering
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71383
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71383
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71385
Bug ID: 71385
Summary: Internal compiler error when using concept as
placeholder
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71386
Bug ID: 71386
Summary: Wrong code on c++14 (GCC trunk)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71387
Bug ID: 71387
Summary: [6/7 Regression] ICE in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3418
with -Og
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71387
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
class EPoint {
public:
inline EPoint();
inline EPoint( const EPoint &p );
};
class EPointIteratorBase {
public:
explicit EPointIteratorBase( unsigned long size )
: m_index(0), m_sourceIsPrimitiv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71378
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71378
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Reduced test-case:
$ cat tc.ii
class A {
public:
int GetLen();
};
class B {
A s_MDSPartIDStr;
void FillLoadPartitionInfo();
};
void B::FillLoadPartitionInfo() { char a[s_MDSPartIDStr.GetLen()] = ""; }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71387
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.3.1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71388
Bug ID: 71388
Summary: [6/7 regression] wrong code, DSE removes memset in TBB
allocate_scheduler (causes run-time crashes)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71388
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71388
--- Comment #2 from David Abdurachmanov
---
Doesn't std::memset apply here? They allocate storage, set it to 0x0 and then
place construct the object.
At first look I wouldn't expect GCC to remove std::memset.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71388
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Gcc considers the memset as being dead as nothing validly can assume anything
about the memory after the inplacement new.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71389
Bug ID: 71389
Summary: ICE on trunk gcc on ivybridge target (df_refs_verify)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71388
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab ---
You should initialize the object in the constructor.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71388
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71387
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71388
--- Comment #6 from David Abdurachmanov
---
Agreed. As usual, thanks for verifying this. Will cook and send a patch to TBB.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70957
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, I've traced this down to its sordid origins. The problem arises when the
test case is run on a machine using an old target assembler. If the assembler
doesn't support POWER8 instructions, this causes TA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71388
--- Comment #7 from David Abdurachmanov
---
Just for reference (if someone reads this PR):
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-02/msg00205.html
It contains a reference to C++ standard.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71377
Johannes Schaub changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||schaub.johannes@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71372
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jun 2 16:36:04 2016
New Revision: 237041
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237041&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71372
* cp-gimplify.c (cp_fold): For INDIRECT_REF,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71372
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jun 2 16:43:04 2016
New Revision: 237042
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237042&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71372
* cp-gimplify.c (cp_fold): For INDIRECT_REF,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71390
Bug ID: 71390
Summary: PowerPC GCC should warn if use does -mcpu=, and
an old assembler was used
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71390
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71391
Bug ID: 71391
Summary: error on aggregate initialization with side-effects in
a constexpr function
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71362
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59511
Peter Cordes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot ca
--- Comment #6 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59511
--- Comment #7 from Peter Cordes ---
I'm seeing the same symptom, affecting gcc4.9 through 5.3. Not present in 6.1.
IDK if the cause is the same.
(code from an improvement to the horizontal_add functions in Agner Fog's vector
class library)
#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70350
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Thu Jun 2 17:44:59 2016
New Revision: 237043
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237043&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-02 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/70350
Backport from tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70350
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71392
Bug ID: 71392
Summary: SEGV calling integer overflow built-ins with a null
pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71393
Bug ID: 71393
Summary: [6.1 Regression] Compilation hang
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71393
--- Comment #1 from M Welinder ---
Created attachment 38631
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38631&action=edit
Preprocessed version of MyClass.C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71377
--- Comment #2 from Michele Caini ---
Right, got it.
Actually it's more like a complex way of writing a static assert.
Should it be considered a bug anyway? I mean, it's correct for GCC to accept it
or it should reject the code?
I'm not skilled e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71393
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71392
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71393
--- Comment #3 from M Welinder ---
Bug 70847 claims "virtual" is necessary, so that is probably unrelated.
This bug is "virtual"-free.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71394
Bug ID: 71394
Summary: -Werror=conversion-null identifies incorrect data
member of member initializer list
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71395
Bug ID: 71395
Summary: PowerPC vec_init of 4 SFmode values could be improved
on Power8
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71390
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71392
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg00236.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52393
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Jun 3 01:25:31 2016
New Revision: 237051
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237051&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-02 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/52393
* gfort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52393
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71378
--- Comment #3 from asankau at millenniumit dot com ---
Hi,
Is there a workaround to this problem ? (I mean is there anything that I can do
to the source code of FGConfig.cpp to get rid of this error.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71328
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Jun 3 05:20:16 2016
New Revision: 237052
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237052&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/71328
* tree-ssa-threadupdate.c (dupli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71328
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71341
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71328
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
*** Bug 71341 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63748
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 63748, which changed state.
Bug 63748 Summary: [4.9 Regression] wrong may be used uninitialized warning
(abnormal edges)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63748
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67618
roc at ocallahan dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roc at ocallahan dot org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67618
--- Comment #14 from roc at ocallahan dot org ---
Argh, I see this was already mentioned, sorry for the noise.
80 matches
Mail list logo
