https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
--- Comment #22 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #21)
> I believe the bug you are pointing out was reported in
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22442 and fixed in Glibc
> 2.27. Please see the discus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83230
--- Comment #6 from Jürgen Reuter ---
So shall I commit this as an independent C/C++ bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83125
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
in r255225 stack differ
during IPA pass: inline
x.ii:43:10: internal compiler error: in edge_badness, at ipa-inline.c:993
t::~t() {}
^
0x9c13cf edge_badness
/home/dimhen/src/gcc_curr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83262
Bug ID: 83262
Summary: SELECT CASE slower than IF/ELSE
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
--- Comment #11 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #10)
> > FYI this issue is currently a regression that prevents building Linux with
> > gcc7, since gcc7 introduced an optimization that transforms x/0 to
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
--- Comment #12 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #11)
> >
> > It's OK to add __builtin_trap to GCC 7.
> > Could you have a look and try the patch in Comment 6? I don't have so much
> > time for SH stuff the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
--- Comment #13 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #12)
> I don't think the patch will be immediately useful for a linux config. It
> will require more work.
What about glibc which originally resulted in this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
--- Comment #14 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #13)
>
> What about glibc which originally resulted in this bug report?
I have no idea about it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83262
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
What version of gcc, and what platform? With gcc-8 on x86_64 (skylake), I get
GOTO costs totally 0.904 (s)
SELECT CASE costs totally 0.704 (s)
IF-Goto costs totally 0.706 (s)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
--- Comment #15 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #14)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #13)
> >
> > What about glibc which originally resulted in this bug report?
>
> I have no idea abo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83252
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
With newer SDE bisected fix to r255258.
I'll commit the testcase and mark as fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83252
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started r249450, was likely latent before that.
Slightly adjusted testcase (needs C++ though, for some reason with C it doesn't
FAIL). The difference between r255257 and r255258 is:
--- pr83252.s.r255257 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83262
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
ig25@linux-d6cw:~> gfortran -v
Es werden eingebaute Spezifikationen verwendet.
COLLECT_GCC=gfortran
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/ig25/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/8.0.0/lto-wrapper
Ziel: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Konfi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83225
--- Comment #6 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Thanks for the very quick fix. This solves the problems in our code, and we
also don't see any new regressions. Fine from our side.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83262
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83263
Bug ID: 83263
Summary: [8.0 regression] segmentation fault in alloc_traits
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81117
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83225
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83262
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The speed depends on the optimization level, SELECT CASE being the fastest with
-O1
-O0
GOTO costs totally 4.667 (s)
SELECT CASE costs totally 4.578 (s)
IF-Goto costs t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83191
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Dec 3 16:47:12 2017
New Revision: 255365
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255365&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-03 Jerry DeLisle
Dominique d'Humieres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
--- Comment #16 from Rich Felker ---
The kernel build regression is just a gratuitous unresolved symbol; the code
path where is happens should not be reachable or the kernel would crash. So I
think the patch as-is is fine for fixing that issue. T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69331
--- Comment #19 from John David Anglin ---
On hppa64-hp-hpux11.11, the tests currently fail on gcc-8 trunk with a link
error:
spawn /test/gnu/gcc/objdir/./gcc/xg++ -shared-libgcc
-B/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/./gc
c -nostdinc++ -L/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36313
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Dec 3 20:14:05 2017
New Revision: 255367
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255367&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-03 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/36313
* check.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
--- Comment #17 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Rich Felker from comment #16)
> The kernel build regression is just a gratuitous unresolved symbol; the code
> path where is happens should not be reachable or the kernel would crash
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83264
Bug ID: 83264
Summary: std::initializer_list with a single element selects
the wrong overload
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83265
Bug ID: 83265
Summary: [8 Regression] Bootstrap failure on powerpc64
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83191
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sun Dec 3 20:43:59 2017
New Revision: 255368
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255368&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-03 Jerry DeLisle
Dominique d'Humieres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83265
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Miles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83191
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83168
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Should this be backported?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83265
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36313
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig ---
Fixed on trunk, closing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20585
Bug 20585 depends on bug 36313, which changed state.
Bug 36313 Summary: [F03] {MIN,MAX}{LOC,VAL} should accept character arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36313
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36313
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83168
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Should this be backported?
No strong opinion, but it fixes a latent bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83252
--- Comment #5 from Dmitry Babokin ---
The original test case is also fixed. Thanks for investigation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83252
--- Comment #6 from Dmitry Babokin ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Option bisection is rarely useful for GCC, debugging issues with -Ox -fthat
> -fno-this -fwhatever is usually not beneficial over just -Ox or whatever
> minimal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
--- Comment #18 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #17)
> I'm testing the patch right now. Already rebuild gcc with the patch and I'm
> now building the kernel with that gcc.
I can confirm that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83076
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
With the patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2017-11/msg00171.html the
number of
internal compiler error: in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2368
in my test suite went from 5 without the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83262
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Compiling the test with '-O3 -fno-align-jumps' gives
GOTO costs totally 1.242 (s)
SELECT CASE costs totally 1.253 (s)
IF-Goto costs totally 1.507 (s)
IF-noGoto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83266
Bug ID: 83266
Summary: [GCOV] A True if statement is wrongly marked as not
executed in gcov
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83266
--- Comment #1 from Yibiao Yang ---
I am not very sure whether this is a bug or it is only the default behavior in
gcov.
(In reply to Yibiao Yang from comment #0)
> $ gcc -v
> Using built-in specs.
> COLLECT_GCC=gcc
> COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83168
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Dec 4 03:51:28 2017
New Revision: 255373
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255373&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-03 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from trunk
PR li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83168
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83262
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83206
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Roberts ---
It looks like I was right about this all along, its just that armv6l isn't
working. armv7l seems ok:
On RaspberryPi B - ARM1176 rev 7 (0x4100b760)
cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
model name : ARM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82751
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83160
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sylvestre at debian dot org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83160
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81697
--- Comment #5 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Fixed on trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83252
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pi
51 matches
Mail list logo
