https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86987
Bug ID: 86987
Summary: ICE in simplify_binary_operation_1, at
simplify-rtx.c:3515 on ppc64le
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-vali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86988
Bug ID: 86988
Summary: [7/9 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected
integer_cst, have var_decl in get_len, at tree.h:5563
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86989
Bug ID: 86989
Summary: ICE in rs6000_output_addr_const_extra, at
config/rs6000/rs6000.c:20994
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-val
-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.0 20180817 (experimental) [trunk revision 263611] (GCC)
$
$ gcctk -Os -w small.c; ./a.out
5
$ gcc-8.1.0 -O2 -w small.c; ./a.out
5
$
$ gcctk -O2 -w small.c; ./a.out
7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86991
Bug ID: 86991
Summary: internal compiler error: in vectorizable_reduction, at
tree-vect-loop.c:6919
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86505
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[6/7/8/9 Regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86505
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Aug 17 08:48:58 2018
New Revision: 263613
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263613&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-08-17 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/86505
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86505
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54710
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #11)
> Created attachment 41894 [details]
> result of compiling with -ftime-report -ftime-report-details -fstats
>
> (In reply to Larry Evans from comment #10)
> > C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86841
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86841
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Aug 17 09:26:53 2018
New Revision: 263615
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263615&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-08-17 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/86841
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86992
Bug ID: 86992
Summary: [8 Regression] gcc: error: unrecognized command line
option ‘-fcilkplus’
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86841
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59859
Bug 59859 depends on bug 86841, which changed state.
Bug 86841 Summary: ICE in gcc/gcc/tree-vrp.c:1325 with graphite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86841
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86864
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57510
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57510
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The example from PR 57930 isn't fixed either:
extern "C" int printf(const char *,...);
struct B {
B(int,int) { printf("CB %p\n",this); }
B(const B&) { printf("const CB %pn\n",this); }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86992
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86986
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86986
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86980
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86094
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, because the same code is generated for -fabi-version=12 and
-fabi-version=13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41565
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
It should happen everywhere, no explicit lto1 invocation should be necessary.
> ./xgcc -B. t.c -flto -c
> ./xgcc -B. t.o -m32
/usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-suse-linux/4.8/../../../../x86_64-suse-linux/bin/ld:
skip
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86865
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86884
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86993
Bug ID: 86993
Summary: assignment of read-only variable error reported at
wrong location
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86889
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80334
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #12)
> Created attachment 44527 [details]
> candidate patch to fix the error noted in comment 11
>
> This patch fixes the unaligned accesses in the testcase in com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86963
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86927
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86993
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86992
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Aug 17 11:33:25 2018
New Revision: 263616
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263616&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix wrong option declaration of fcilkplus (PR other/86992).
2018-08-17 M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86992
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86763
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Aug 17 11:51:48 2018
New Revision: 263617
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263617&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-08-17 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ro at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: ubizjak at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Target: i?86-*-*, x86-*-*
Between 20180816 (r263590) and 20180817 (r263613), gcc.target/i386
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86994
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77488
Piotr Henryk Dabrowski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||phd at phd dot re
--- Comment #
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ro at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: i?86-*-*, x86_64-*-*, powerpc64-*-*
Between 20180816 (r263590) and 20180817 (r263613
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86995
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
: *-*-solaris2.*
Between 20180816 (r263590) and 20180817 (r263613), a test started to FAIL on
Solaris/SPARC and x86, both 32 and 64-bit:
+FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c (test for warnings, line 1563)
+FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c (test for excess errors)
Excess
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86996
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86996
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86997
Bug ID: 86997
Summary: error: call of overloaded
‘NoDestructor()’ is
ambiguous
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86997
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86996
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger ---
> is this a target where wchar_t is 16-bit wide?
No, wchar_t is always 32-bit. Cf. gcc/config/sol2.h:
/* wchar_t is called differently in for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86997
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Looks like a dup of PR 59389
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77488
--- Comment #7 from R. Diez ---
(In reply to Piotr Henryk Dabrowski from comment #6)
> You can use:
>
> #line 2 "FileName.cpp"
>
> at the very top (!) of all your files
> to change the content of __FILE__.
> This also affects compiler messages.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86998
Bug ID: 86998
Summary: Improve diagnostic for missing comma in
template-parameter-list
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86996
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86998
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86996
--- Comment #4 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 44553
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44553&action=edit
i386-pc-solaris2.11 -m32 builtin-sprintf-warn-1.i
Sure, here's the 32-bit Solaris 11.5/x86 version.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86942
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82036
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86763
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Aug 17 14:17:10 2018
New Revision: 263621
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263621&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-08-17 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86763
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86970
ensadc at mailnesia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ensadc at mailnesia dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86999
Bug ID: 86999
Summary: Incorrect code generation and missing optimization
with -fno-signed-zeros.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71625
--- Comment #19 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nsz
Date: Fri Aug 17 17:26:11 2018
New Revision: 263624
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263624&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix poly types after PR tree-optimization/71625 strlen optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87000
Bug ID: 87000
Summary: LBOUND and UBOUND give unexpected result for arrays
without 1-based indices if in subprogram
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87000
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=86999
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86963
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Aug 17 17:52:49 2018
New Revision: 263625
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263625&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/86963 Implement LWG 2729 constraints on tuple assignment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87000
--- Comment #2 from Gavin Ridley ---
OK, I see, thank you. I believe you're right on that. When I tried to make this
example, I cut out an important part that seems to cause the difference between
gcc compiler versions. This code:
program asdf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87000
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 06:34:01PM +, gavin.keith.ridley at gmail dot com
wrote:
> OK, I see, thank you. I believe you're right on that. When I
> tried to make this example, I cut out an important part that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86996
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86998
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> I don't know why all of GCC, Clang and EDG say something about a
> nested-name-specifier or qualified name for the first template-parameter. I
> don't think t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86963
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81033
--- Comment #44 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #43)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #42)
> > (In reply to Elliot Saba from comment #41)
> > > Has there been any progress on this? We are running into this whi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80931
--- Comment #7 from snowfed ---
Wow! Read your book with great pleasure! (the Russian translation of it)
(In reply to Arjen Markus from comment #6)
> Yes, I am :).
>
> Regards,
>
> Arjen
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87001
Bug ID: 87001
Summary: False error "expansion pattern 'x' contains no
argument packs"
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86996
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86996
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Aug 17 21:58:27 2018
New Revision: 263636
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263636&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/86996
gcc/testsuite/CHangeLog:
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/bui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87002
Bug ID: 87002
Summary: allow integers larger than "long"
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: jit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87003
Bug ID: 87003
Summary: use nonnull attribute in libgccjit.h
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: jit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87004
Bug ID: 87004
Summary: no way to mark a function as noreturn
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: jit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87005
Bug ID: 87005
Summary: gcc_jit_context_get_builtin_function not documented
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87006
Bug ID: 87006
Summary: Stack Protection with Large File support
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87006
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
78 matches
Mail list logo
