https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66424
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66425
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66426
Bug ID: 66426
Summary: ICE: unexpected expression ‘int(Constructible())...’
of kind expr_pack_expansion
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66423
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
ITYM a ((1 b) - 1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66428
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65719
Christian Kandeler christian.kandeler at theqtcompany dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66427
Bug ID: 66427
Summary: The compiler rejects too complex variable templates
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66428
Bug ID: 66428
Summary: [6 regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/aarch64_guard1.C
-std=gnu++98 scan-tree-dump original _ZGVZ3foovE1x
1
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66429
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
ICE still reproduces with command line:
...
$ gcc for-2.c -fopenmp -O2 -S
..
and pruned for-2.c:
...
float b[10][15][10];
__attribute__((noreturn)) void
noreturn (void)
{
for (;;);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66430
Bug ID: 66430
Summary: IPA CP alignment information is not used for
expression simplification
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
Dr. Uwe Meyer-Gruhl gcc_email at congenio dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66421
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66431
Bug ID: 66431
Summary: [go] Unexpected function return value after it is
redefined in closure
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66429
Bug ID: 66429
Summary: ICE in expand_GOMP_SIMD_LAST_LANE
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66421
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=65751
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66427
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66431
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
I should note c and c++ also specify the order. Java does though.
I mean C and C++ does not specify the order while Java does.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66350
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Also, using typename BaseT::name; would usually re-declare a type name in
the derived class' scope, but that's not what's happening here. It's
introducing inheriting constructors,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66431
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Lomov lomov.as at gmail dot com ---
Here is more details about this bug:
https://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=8698thanks=8698ts=1410376474
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66432
Bug ID: 66432
Summary: libgomp.c/appendix-a/a.29.1.c -O2 -g: type mismatch
between an SSA_NAME and its symbol
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66431
Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66431
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I should note c and c++ also specify the order. Java does though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52595
--- Comment #10 from Nathan Sidwell nathan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nathan
Date: Fri Jun 5 13:35:30 2015
New Revision: 224152
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224152root=gccview=rev
Log:
cp/
PR c++/52595
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58616
Bug 58616 depends on bug 52595, which changed state.
Bug 52595 Summary: [DR 325] commas and non-static data member initializers
don't mix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52595
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52595
Nathan Sidwell nathan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66348
--- Comment #7 from Sebastiano Vigna sebastiano.vigna at unimi dot it ---
I tried also with -fsanitize=address. No problems reported. Bug not showing up.
A classical heisenbug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65443
--- Comment #18 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Jun 5 15:57:34 2015
New Revision: 224154
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224154root=gccview=rev
Log:
Add transform_to_exit_first_loop_alt
2015-06-05 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66347
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reduced testcase.
block data
integer n
parameter (n=1)
character*2 s1(n)
character*8 s2(n)
data (s1(i),s2(i),i=1,n)/ab,12345678/
end
% gfc6 -c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66424
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
See C11 6.5.2.2#6 regarding when calls to unprototyped functions involve
undefined behavior. Being able to represent the value is only relevant
where the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66405
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jun 5 19:17:30 2015
New Revision: 224165
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224165root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/66405
* pt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66405
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66424
--- Comment #2 from Zhendong Su su at cs dot ucdavis.edu ---
Jakub, I'm not sure that the code is invalid. First, the type of p in fn1 is
defaulted to int. Second, all the invocations of fn1 from fn2 are with the same
argument 0LL, which int can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66405
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jun 5 19:17:24 2015
New Revision: 224164
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224164root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/66405
* pt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #7 from Aaro Koskinen aaro.koskinen at iki dot fi ---
The issue is also present when compiling kernels for OMAP1/2 platforms. Also
looks like -Os is needed to trigger this. Kernels compiled with -O2 seem to
work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66434
Bug ID: 66434
Summary: cc1plus: internal compiler error: in
gimplify_modify_expr, at gimplify.c:4616
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66434
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66424
--- Comment #4 from Zhendong Su su at cs dot ucdavis.edu ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #3)
See C11 6.5.2.2#6 regarding when calls to unprototyped functions involve
undefined behavior. Being able to represent the value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66405
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jun 5 19:13:56 2015
New Revision: 224162
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224162root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/66405
* pt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66405
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jun 5 19:14:02 2015
New Revision: 224163
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224163root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/66405
* pt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63860
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65942
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jun 5 16:25:26 2015
New Revision: 224157
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224157root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/65942
* decl2.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65942
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65443
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66347
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66347
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40958
--- Comment #19 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Jun 5 16:54:53 2015
New Revision: 224159
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224159root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-06-03 Russell Whitesides russell...@gmail.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66377
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Jun 5 16:54:53 2015
New Revision: 224159
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224159root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-06-03 Russell Whitesides russell...@gmail.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60780
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Jun 5 16:54:53 2015
New Revision: 224159
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224159root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-06-03 Russell Whitesides russell...@gmail.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66030
Jouni Roivas jroivas at iki dot fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35668|0 |1
is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66347
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
(In reply to Walter Brisken from comment #0)
gfortran -save-temps -finit-local-zero -fno-automatic -fno-underscoring -C
-w -g -O2 -c -o crash.o crash3.f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66348
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Sebastiano Vigna from comment #0)
The loop commented as problematic loop is compiled (with -O3) as
xorl%eax, %eax # i
That is, the loop index i is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66387
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66347
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 05:53:24PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66347
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66424
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63434
--- Comment #3 from steve at hearnden dot org.uk ---
How do I get this bug confirmed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32834
Bug 32834 depends on bug 66377, which changed state.
Bug 66377 Summary: [F95] Wrong-code with equivalenced array in module
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66377
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66385
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Jun 5 20:51:08 2015
New Revision: 224172
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224172root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-06-05 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66383
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66436
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66436
Bug ID: 66436
Summary: Don't dump low gimple functions in gimple dump
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66426
--- Comment #1 from James Almer jamrial at gmail dot com ---
FWIW, testcase from Comment 2 of pr66405 unedited:
[jamrial@archVM ~]$ cat pr66405_c2.cpp
template typename struct A;
template bool struct enable_if;
template typename T, T struct B;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66348
--- Comment #9 from Sebastiano Vigna sebastiano.vigna at unimi dot it ---
As I said, I was trying (a bit naively, admittedly) a diagnosis. I agree
fully--I'm no expert in x86 assembly. But it is a fact that the problematic
loop never exits with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66435
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66435
Bug ID: 66435
Summary: Add debug msg to dump_file in add_new_function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66424
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015, su at cs dot ucdavis.edu wrote:
Since int and long long are incompatible, thus the test case's behavior is
undefined. Correct?
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66436
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
FTR, x86_64 bootstrap and reg-test on patch passes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66435
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
FTR, x86_64 bootstrap and reg-test on patch passes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66377
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60780
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Jun 5 20:40:35 2015
New Revision: 224171
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224171root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-06-03 Russell Whitesides russell...@gmail.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66377
--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Jun 5 20:40:35 2015
New Revision: 224171
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224171root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-06-03 Russell Whitesides russell...@gmail.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40958
--- Comment #20 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Jun 5 20:40:35 2015
New Revision: 224171
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224171root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-06-03 Russell Whitesides russell...@gmail.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60780
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66348
Mikhail Maltsev miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66347
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Jun 5 23:16:57 2015
New Revision: 224176
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224176root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-06-05 Steven G. Kargl ka...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66347
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Jun 5 23:01:22 2015
New Revision: 224175
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224175root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-06-05 Steven G. Kargl ka...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66347
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66245
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6641
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Fri Jun 5 23:36:26 2015
New Revision: 224177
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224177root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/6641
* Split Snd constraint into Sid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66429
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
submitted patches for superfluous std and fopenmp options:
- https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg00486.html
- https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg00487.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66347
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66437
Bug ID: 66437
Summary: False Positive warning Variable is not modified in
loop body
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
Joshua Kinard kumba at gentoo dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kumba at gentoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66438
Bug ID: 66438
Summary: libstdc++ 5.1 broke binary compat with old code using
std::error_category
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66410
Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66433
Bug ID: 66433
Summary: Arm NEON postincrement optimization missed
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66433
--- Comment #1 from Usishchev Yury y.usishchev at samsung dot com ---
Created attachment 35702
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35702action=edit
patch with fix
Attached patch that, in my opinion, fixes the issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66433
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
88 matches
Mail list logo
