https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63342
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63369
Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63438
Bug ID: 63438
Summary: conditional operator deducing lvalues incorrectly
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63438
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62128
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Oct 2 07:29:49 2014
New Revision: 215796
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215796root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/62128
* config/i386/i386.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63437
--- Comment #2 from Kohei Takahashi flast at flast dot jp ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
in C++14 (a) means the same as static_casttypeof(a) (a).
So it is a reference at this point which means const is better than .
Or at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63439
Bug ID: 63439
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c scan-tree-dump vect
Alignment of access forced using peeling
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63436
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62056
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #11)
Jonathan, what should we do about this? Is this implementation better than
the one in libstdc++?
I don't know, I haven't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63362
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63437
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=63438
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51317
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eric.niebler at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61736
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=63440
Bug ID: 63440
Summary: -Og does enable -fmerge-constants too
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63438
Bug 63438 depends on bug 34075, which changed state.
Bug 34075 Summary: [DR 587] temporary used in ?: expression tho second and
third expr. lvalues
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34075
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34075
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51317
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||james.kanze at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61877
--- Comment #6 from Michael Hudson-Doyle michael.hudson at linaro dot org ---
Created attachment 33640
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33640action=edit
my test cases
I think the patch works because when the compiler sees a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63441
Bug ID: 63441
Summary: incorrect array subscript is below/above array
bounds diagnostic
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63441
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63247
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62131
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63172
boger at us dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60181
boger at us dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boger at us dot ibm.com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61877
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Shopov lists at kambanaria dot org ---
It also seems the intel case is broken on this test case on mainline. If I
hack it to take the ffi case, it works with my patch. Also 4.9 works, which
Not sure how relevant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63381
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63381
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ugh, ignore Comment 1, that was for PR63380.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63380
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63381
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Actually, Comment 1 applies here as well, so these two could be dups.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63172
boger at us dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63442
Bug ID: 63442
Summary: [AArch64] ICE with ubsan/overflow-int128.c test
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61877
--- Comment #8 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
I see only minor changes to makefuncgo_amd64.go between 4.9 and mainline--are
you sure you are looking at the right files?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63342
--- Comment #6 from Julian Taylor jtaylor.debian at googlemail dot com ---
thanks, head (and branches) work fine now
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60181
--- Comment #6 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
If the last comment is true, does that mean the fold_const.c file in gcc should
be built in a way so that it doesn't use the fma, like using some kind of
option during the build of gcc at least for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60181
David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|ppc64-ibm-linux,|s390x-ibm-linux,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63443
Bug ID: 63443
Summary: copyrename2 introducing bogus profile counts
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60181
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to boger from comment #6)
If the last comment is true, does that mean the fold_const.c file in gcc
should be built in a way so that it doesn't use the fma, like using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63306
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63375
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Oct 2 16:49:14 2014
New Revision: 215804
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215804root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-10-02 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63199
--- Comment #4 from Tim Shen timshen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: timshen
Date: Thu Oct 2 16:50:39 2014
New Revision: 215805
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215805root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/63199
* include/bits/regex.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63375
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Oct 2 17:11:24 2014
New Revision: 215806
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215806root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-10-02 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63375
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Oct 2 17:13:30 2014
New Revision: 215807
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215807root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-10-02 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61880
--- Comment #2 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Oct 2 17:56:50 2014
New Revision: 215810
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215810root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR go/61880
compiler: symbol names should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61880
--- Comment #3 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Oct 2 18:00:01 2014
New Revision: 215812
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215812root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR go/61880
compiler: symbol names should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61880
Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53025
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Oct 2 18:05:55 2014
New Revision: 215813
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215813root=gccview=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-10-02 Paolo Carlini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63444
Bug ID: 63444
Summary: Compilation consumes 2.5G memory
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
--- Comment #16 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 9/29/2014 9:02 AM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
I've started a full build and
check
with 4.9 branch. I'll also test it on hpux starting this evening.
I see no regressions with the
[-Wstrict-overflow]
for (unsigned int i = 0; i n; i++)
^
$ gcc -v 21|tail -2
gcc version 5.0.0 20141002 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63422
--- Comment #7 from tejohnson at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tejohnson
Date: Thu Oct 2 20:30:11 2014
New Revision: 215822
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215822root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-10-01 Teresa Johnson tejohn...@google.com
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57248
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #6)
However, it's true that all the up to
date compilers I have at hand reject it with the same kind of error about
get at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57460
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #1)
But there is no T that would cause check(EXPR,T()) to be valid, so no
valid specialization can be generated for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57460
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com ---
I tried to close the issue as INVALID, but it seems that I cannot do that by
myself.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57460
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57460
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #4)
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #3)
I tried to close the issue as INVALID, but it seems that I cannot do that by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2008-08-16 22:55:22 |2014-10-2
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63435
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
Yes,
good to remind me. The aliases are quite broken on AIX pre 4.9
and becasue some of them are now auto generated, we probably ought
to fix it. One solution would be to disable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63362
Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63362
--- Comment #10 from Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com ---
Reduced:
template bool b
struct bool_
{
};
template typename T, class... Args
struct mytrait : bool___is_trivially_constructible(T, Args...)
{
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63446
Bug ID: 63446
Summary: dangling reference results in confusing diagnostic
from -Wuninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13423
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #3)
Although this is an ABI issue, passing float vector by reference should not
actually suffer from this problem, but it does:
typedef float
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61877
--- Comment #9 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
Thanks for the test case. I wrote a completely different test case that is
more like the existing reflect tests: https://codereview.appspot.com/151280043/
. This test passes with gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63446
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63444
--- Comment #1 from Pranith Kumar bobby.prani at gmail dot com ---
Just FYI, clang compiles the same file using 1G memory.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61877
--- Comment #10 from Michael Hudson-Doyle michael.hudson at linaro dot org ---
I've proposed a fix https://codereview.appspot.com/152840043
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298
--- Comment #9 from Damian Rouson damian at sourceryinstitute dot org ---
Oh boy. I'm guessing that's an indication that there won't be any movement on
this anytime soon. It seems this is one of only two major features missing for
full Fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63422
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298
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=48298
--- Comment #11 from Damian Rouson damian at sourceryinstitute dot org ---
Thanks for the quick response. In recent times, I’ve had the impression that
it’s harder to find developers than to find money (not that it’s all that easy
to find
72 matches
Mail list logo
