https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66986
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |target
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66986
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Also have you tried adding -march=native ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66988
Bug ID: 66988
Summary: [concepts] concept with template template parameter
satisfied erroneously
Product: gcc
Version: c++-concepts
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66984
Bug ID: 66984
Summary: ICE: fold_binary changes type of operand, causing
failure in verify_gimple_assign_binary
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66986
Bug ID: 66986
Summary: poor performance of __builtin_isinf on x64
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66985
Bug ID: 66985
Summary: [concept] template introduction with template template
parameter and template parameter pack causes ICE
Product: gcc
Version: c++-concepts
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66986
--- Comment #1 from Ondrej Bilka neleai at seznam dot cz ---
Created attachment 36047
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36047action=edit
testing script
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I just tried a build of today's (20150724) trunk code with valgrind
and got this
/home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/
-B/home/dcb/gcc/results/x86_64-unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66986
--- Comment #4 from Ondrej Bilka neleai at seznam dot cz ---
Ok added updated benchmark with adding -mtune=native and tests for core2,
haswell and fx10. It stays pretty consistent.
don't inline
conditional add
branched
real0m0.698s
user
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66986
Ondrej Bilka neleai at seznam dot cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #36047|0 |1
is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66989
Bug ID: 66989
Summary: poor performance of builtin_isfinite on x64
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66989
--- Comment #2 from Ondrej Bilka neleai at seznam dot cz ---
Created attachment 36050
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36050action=edit
testing script
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66989
--- Comment #1 from Ondrej Bilka neleai at seznam dot cz ---
Created attachment 36049
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36049action=edit
benchmark
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63521
--- Comment #5 from Jiong Wang jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jiwang
Date: Fri Jul 24 09:06:53 2015
New Revision: 226141
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226141root=gccview=rev
Log:
[AArch64] Revert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66752
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Confirmed by our testers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66987
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64079
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Thanks Jason.
Note that '+' eventually boils down to location_of, which does quite a bit more
than DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION. Thus either we should be very, very careful in this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66990
Bug ID: 66990
Summary: Wrong diagnostics when template being specialized is
ambiguous
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66983
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66984
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63854
Bug 63854 depends on bug 64003, which changed state.
Bug 64003 Summary: valgrind complains about get_attr_length_nobnd in
insn-attrtab.c from i386.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66990
TC rs2740 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66962
--- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here is a somewhat reduced testcase:
markus@x4 tmp % cat foo.ii
namespace std {
template typename struct remove_cv;
template typename struct is_reference;
template typename
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66984
--- Comment #2 from Jay jay.krell at cornell dot edu ---
1 please be sure that dividing the most negative number by -1 works.
Perhaps just don't optimize anything with negstive numbers.
2 I suggest that gcc's C/C++ frontends expose these other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64079
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #7)
Thanks Jason.
Note that '+' eventually boils down to location_of, which does quite a bit
more than DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION. Thus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64079
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Agreed. For now I mean to do a first pass on the warnings, no errors, seems
more urgent given the issue involving the pragmas.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66734
Ilya Enkovich ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66737
Ilya Enkovich ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66734
Bug 66734 depends on bug 66737, which changed state.
Bug 66737 Summary: ld: warning: -z bndplt ignored
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66737
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug 65530 depends on bug 66734, which changed state.
Bug 66734 Summary: Many MPX tests are skipped
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66734
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #44 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
This breaks gcc.dg/pr43300.c on aarch64.
$ gcc/xgcc -B gcc/ ../gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr43300.c
../gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr43300.c: In function ‘foo’:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #45 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
It also breaks a lot of tests on m68k, eg:
$ gcc/xgcc -B gcc/ ../gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr17957.c
../gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr17957.c: In function ‘vadd’:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66991
--- Comment #2 from Basile Starynkevitch basile at starynkevitch dot net ---
It looks like this bug is corrected in GCC 5.2 (I'm compiling the FSF tree).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66991
--- Comment #3 from Basile Starynkevitch basile at starynkevitch dot net ---
It is Debian specific, very probably. I reported a Debian bug (but did not get
any ack yet)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66990
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46193
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
pinged patch 2015-07-22:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg01883.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66992
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66992
Bug ID: 66992
Summary: [4.9/5/6 Regression] Incorrect array subscript is
above bounds warning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug 65530 depends on bug 66737, which changed state.
Bug 66737 Summary: ld: warning: -z bndplt ignored
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66737
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66846
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
updated patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg02032.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66851
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
pinged: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg02034.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66991
Bug ID: 66991
Summary: GCCPLUGIN_VERSION_MAJOR == 5 GCCPLUGIN_VERSION_MINOR
== 5 for GCC 5.5.1
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66991
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I don't see this in a 5.1.1 build with FSF sources from last month:
#include configargs.h
#define GCCPLUGIN_VERSION_MAJOR 5
#define GCCPLUGIN_VERSION_MINOR 1
#define
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66994
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #2)
Is this caused by r226113?
Maybe.
With r226113 I get: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
With r226112 I get: internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Vittorio Zecca from comment #8)
Created attachment 36052 [details]
To be compiled with -O2
This compiles fine for me (with -O2) both with the current trunk and
the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66984
--- Comment #4 from Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com ---
(In reply to Jay from comment #2)
1 please be sure that dividing the most negative number by -1 works.
Perhaps just don't optimize anything with negstive numbers.
- Checking for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714
--- Comment #24 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cesar
Date: Fri Jul 24 14:38:43 2015
New Revision: 226160
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226160root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR 66714
gcc/
* tree-cfg.c (struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
--- Comment #15 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mikael
Date: Fri Jul 24 14:44:59 2015
New Revision: 226162
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226162root=gccview=rev
Log:
Fix gfortran.dg/class_to_type_4.f90 deallocation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66995
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66996
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66984
--- Comment #6 from gfunck at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gfunck
Date: Fri Jul 24 16:10:39 2015
New Revision: 226168
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226168root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-07-24 Gary Funck g...@intrepid.com
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66988
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Sutton andrew.n.sutton at gmail dot com ---
I don't know if that's strictly a concepts issue. My guess is that the template
argument coersion of this argument:
template typename class
to this parameter:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66984
--- Comment #5 from Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com ---
(In reply to Jay from comment #2)
2 I suggest that gcc's C/C++ frontends expose these other forms of division,
for the sake of testability.
Perhaps defining a builtin for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66997
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
loop nest at parloops:
...
parloop (int N)
{
_Bool Cross_BB_scalar_dependence.11_I_lsm.23;
unsigned int Cross_BB_scalar_dependence.11_I_lsm.22;
_Bool Cross_BB_scalar_dependence.13_I_lsm.21;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66996
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65711
--- Comment #10 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nsz
Date: Fri Jul 24 16:12:58 2015
New Revision: 226169
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226169root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline r226158.
2015-07-24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65711
--- Comment #9 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nsz
Date: Fri Jul 24 16:00:26 2015
New Revision: 226165
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226165root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline r226158.
2015-07-24 Szabolcs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66998
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66978
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
A patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg02066.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66994
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
Is this caused by r226113?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63854
Bug 63854 depends on bug 64003, which changed state.
Bug 64003 Summary: valgrind complains about get_attr_length_nobnd in
insn-attrtab.c from i386.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65711
--- Comment #8 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nsz
Date: Fri Jul 24 14:27:55 2015
New Revision: 226158
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226158root=gccview=rev
Log:
[AArch64] Fix LINUX_TARGET_LINK_SPEC to be consistent with ARM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66996
Bug ID: 66996
Summary: [6 Regression] defined but not used
[-Wunused-function]
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66997
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Using this patch, we don't bail out immediately when graphite didn't set
loop-can_be_parallel, but try a bit harder:
...
diff --git a/gcc/tree-parloops.c b/gcc/tree-parloops.c
index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64079
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66984
--- Comment #3 from Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
The usual fix in fold-const.c is to make sure to convert operands to the
required type when building the final expression. Thus instead of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64079
--- Comment #10 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Jul 24 20:20:13 2015
New Revision: 226191
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226191root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-07-24 Manuel López-Ibáñez
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36587
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kaz Kylheku from comment #11)
The bug database has an enhancement type, so obviously, it is to be used
for submitting enhancements.
No, it's for submitting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
--- Comment #11 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
I have a version of gcc 5.2.0 compiled with the -fsanitize=undefined option.
This sanitized version gave me a runtime error due to dereferencing
the pointer dst_ctx
which was NULL.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67000
Bug ID: 67000
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE in split_complex_args, at
function.c:2325 on ppc64le
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66873
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|patch |
--- Comment #10 from vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Steve Ellcey sje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66999
Bug ID: 66999
Summary: Missing comma in lambda capture causes internal
compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66988
--- Comment #2 from Eric Niebler eric.niebler at gmail dot com ---
I thought that, too. But this program has the same problem:
#include type_traits
template template class class T, class U
concept bool _Valid = requires { typename TU; };
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66259
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law law at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Jul 24 18:20:44 2015
New Revision: 226183
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226183root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR other/66259
* config-ml.in:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66997
Bug ID: 66997
Summary: outer loop reduction fails to parallelize with
graphite
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66998
Bug ID: 66998
Summary: not_fn invocation is not SFINAE friendly
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #32 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Jul 24 16:25:56 2015
New Revision: 226173
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226173root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/64003
* config/i386/i386.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66998
--- Comment #2 from Tomasz Kamiński tomaszkam at gmail dot com ---
Sorry for missing using declaration.
It's certainly a nice QoI improvement. I was basically lazy when I
implemented it and used decltype(auto) because it's convenient.
Yes,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66981
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Is this related to PR61000?
Yes. Also related to PR14741.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66962
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Sutton andrew.n.sutton at gmail dot com ---
There are a couple of other problems in the minimized example (concept int
shows up a couple of times, there's a variable template whose initializer is a
requires
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35587
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xinliangli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52954
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ops, wrong PR. Try again: Duplicate.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 35587 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36587
--- Comment #13 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kaz Kylheku from comment #11)
I deployed that change to large team of developers, and the toolchain with
that change went to customers also. The warning caught
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64079
--- Comment #12 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #11)
Fixed.
Should we have a meta-bug for all uses of %+ that can potentially cause
problems or should we leave open this one as a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66868
--- Comment #10 from Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org ---
rechecked with a 5.2.0 release tarball, fails with -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65995
Daniel Starke daniel.f.starke at freenet dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||5.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
--- Comment #14 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com from comment #13)
A good principle in general is to assume cock-up, rather than
conspiracy :-) The reason for this spreading between two
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66994
Bug ID: 66994
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault during PGO
bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
--- Comment #8 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 36052
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36052action=edit
To be compiled with -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
--- Comment #9 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
At line 2473 of ipa-prop.c I have
if (!ctx.useless_p ())
I changed it into
if (!ctx.useless_p () || !dst_ctx)
Now the sanitizer runtime error message disappears.
I am attaching
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66994
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6 Regression] ICE: |[6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66995
Bug ID: 66995
Summary: First declaration as inline after definition of
function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36587
--- Comment #11 from Kaz Kylheku kkylheku at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #10)
(In reply to Kaz Kylheku from comment #1)
Created attachment 15798 [details]
Implements -Wunused-objects warning for C++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55035
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
