https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65168
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66432
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
At fnsplit, we split off f.part.0 from f.
That introduces a debug_insn and ssa-name that references param B in f:
...
# DEBUG D#4ptD.0 = B_3(D)
..
And a debug_insn that references param B in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59975
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51048
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
*** Bug 59975 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66530
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jennifer Yao from comment #0)
My hypothesis (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that the libstdc++
that is being loaded at runtime is the preexisting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51048
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66514
Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||y.gribov at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66541
Bug ID: 66541
Summary: r224314 causes ICE in gcc.dg/torture/pr52429.c
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66542
Bug ID: 66542
Summary: [C++11] Can create static variable of type that has
deleted destructor
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44672
--- Comment #9 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Mon Jun 15 10:08:04 2015
New Revision: 224477
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224477root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2015-06-15 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57307
--- Comment #3 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Mon Jun 15 10:08:04 2015
New Revision: 224477
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224477root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2015-06-15 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45440
--- Comment #12 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Mon Jun 15 10:08:04 2015
New Revision: 224477
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224477root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2015-06-15 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66542
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66514
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška marxin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
There is some minimal support in -fsanitize=vptr, but that catches only
destructed objects with virtual methods (by disabling the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66483
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch can be backported without any changes and fixes the issue. I'll launch
regression testing tomorrow and ask for it to be committed on 4.9 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66358
--- Comment #11 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Any news on this issue? The sh4 buildds in Debian are currently building a
snapshot as of 2015-06-13 (r224454), let's see how far it gets.
Adrian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66537
--- Comment #3 from Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com ---
Oh well, I guess CWG 1518 as referenced in the other bug should solve this.
I'm fine either way, if explicit default constructors are decided to
work with the example,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66534
HEMMI, Shigeru textdirected at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66473
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66540
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66512
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In that case I'd like to contribute a documentation patch to make that clear in
the pure/const attribute information, but I need more explanation. I see that
int p(void)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #5 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Hello!
Just as a heads up: This particular problem did not occur with the snapshot as
of 2014-12-20 (r218987) and we actually always built gdc in Debian. So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66358
--- Comment #12 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #11)
Any news on this issue? The sh4 buildds in Debian are currently building a
snapshot as of 2015-06-13 (r224454), let's see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66432
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35783
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35783action=edit
tentative patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #5)
Just as a heads up: This particular problem did not occur with the snapshot
as of 2014-12-20 (r218987) and we actually always
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #7 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #6)
Please try to find out which revision/patch caused the regression as
mentioned above. That would be really helpful.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64589
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66543
Bug ID: 66543
Summary: False positive warning variable set but not used
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66030
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Jun 15 12:31:15 2015
New Revision: 224478
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224478root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2015-06-09 Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66030
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66429
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66541
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66473
Andrew Senkevich andrew.n.senkevich at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65168
Patrick Palka ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66523
kassafari at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kassafari at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65767
--- Comment #9 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It's been more than a month without any activity to fix this. There's now also
PR testsuite/65944 about the same issue.
Please fix.
Rainer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66523
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kassafari from comment #2)
status check
you can use the patch in the short-term, but I want to check for other
solutions too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54835
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|SUSPENDED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66537
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60417
Bug 60417 depends on bug 54835, which changed state.
Bug 54835 Summary: [C++11][DR 1518] Explicit default constructors not respected
during copy-list-initialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54835
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54835
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
-unknown-linux-gnu/6.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150615 (experimental) (GCC)
$ gfortran -c test2.F90 -O2 -fopenmp
test2.F90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
Gubbins dave.gittins at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave.gittins at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58583
Nathan Sidwell nathan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58616
Bug 58616 depends on bug 58583, which changed state.
Bug 58583 Summary: [c++11] ICE with invalid non-static data member
initialization in template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58583
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66068
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66550
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58583
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell nathan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nathan
Date: Tue Jun 16 01:59:55 2015
New Revision: 224502
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224502root=gccview=rev
Log:
cp/
PR c++/58583
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66550
Bug ID: 66550
Summary: [6 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_type
failed
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Andrew and all,
as i explained, i already marked the global variable as volatile to get it work.
my (and other Open MPI folks) question is more about gcc :
- is this a bug ? (and it will be fixed, and volatile will not be
needed in the future)
- is this a known feature and it will not be fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66535
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66535
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Mon Jun 15 16:34:53 2015
New Revision: 224486
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224486root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR debug/66535
* dwarf2out.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66244
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz gerhard.steinmetz.fort...@t-online.de
---
Perhaps it's better to make the target array a bit larger.
And to provide a not so minimalistic version :
program p
integer, target :: a(4)
integer,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66535
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for the quick fix!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66514
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66544
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz gerhard.steinmetz.fort...@t-online.de
---
Originally not the above z0.f90, but this code was thought as test case :
$ cat z0.f90
module m
contains
function f() result(z)
procedure(f),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66545
--- Comment #2 from Gerhard Steinmetz gerhard.steinmetz.fort...@t-online.de
---
FYI, it's astonishing, but this code compiles without an ICE
and prints some reasonable error messages :
$ cat z2_type.f90
program p
type t
integer :: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54013
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66544
Bug ID: 66544
Summary: ICE on function with pointer result in combination
with implicit none
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66535
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66542
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66545
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz gerhard.steinmetz.fort...@t-online.de
---
Trivially, the following cases behave similar :
$ cat z1_real.f90
program p
real, parameter :: c1 = (c1)
real, parameter :: c2 = c2
real :: c3 = (c3)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64589
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Works with current trunk as of r224477. Please cross check!
Not for me at r224485 (clean):
[Book15] f90/bug% gfc pr64589.f90
Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66545
Bug ID: 66545
Summary: ICE on using undefined parameter/variable values
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66545
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66542
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #1)
This seems to be a regression versus gcc 4.8.2
That's why I changed the title to say [4.9/5/6 Regression] :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51048
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Jun 15 19:26:27 2015
New Revision: 224492
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224492root=gccview=rev
Log:
/cp
2015-06-15 Paolo Carlini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51048
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66545
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66530
--- Comment #2 from Jennifer Yao jy38 at zips dot uakron.edu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
Does the
/cygdrive/c/Users/yaoj3/Code/gcc/build/trunk/x86_64-pc-cygwin/./libstdc++-v3/
src/.libs directory in the LD_LIBRAY_PATH
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66546
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #0)
instructions, so it should make it easier for client code if they can have a
jit client code, that is, i.e. interpreters linking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66545
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:19:45PM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
I have
if (!sym-value)
goto error;
which leads to the same error.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66545
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66546
Bug ID: 66546
Summary: No way to disable check for unreachable blocks
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: jit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66546
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #0)
Currently libgccjit always issues a hard error about unconditional blocks.
unreachable, that should say
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66540
Bug ID: 66540
Summary: [5/6 Regression] glibc testsuite: error:
unrecognizable insn with -mavx512f
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66540
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60407
Eugene Zelenko eugene.zelenko at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66516
Martin Sebor msebor at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66547
Bug ID: 66547
Summary: arm-none-eabi-gcc - stack misaligned when calling
va_arg function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66547
--- Comment #1 from Matthew Peters matt at hpamotorsport dot com ---
Adding some notes.
The stack is a local stack generated with static WORK_AREA(...) from ChibiOS.
I've checked and the stack is aligned at the beginning of
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following code is accepted by GCC 5.1 and 6.0.0 20150615 (experimental),
even though it is plainly invalid:
struct Meow {};
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66548
--- Comment #1 from TC rs2740 at gmail dot com ---
See also http://stackoverflow.com/q/30856911/2756719
83 matches
Mail list logo
