https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63814
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Igor Zamyatin from comment #7)
> So, is this compile time failure or runtime failure (or both for two tests)?
You can run the testsuite with "-m32 -fpic" on linux using:
make -j 4 -k check RUNTES
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63775
--- Comment #2 from Tim Shen ---
Author: timshen
Date: Thu Nov 13 07:40:01 2014
New Revision: 217461
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217461&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/63775
* include/bits/regex_compiler.h (_Compiler<>::_M_e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63814
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> So, is this compile time failure or runtime failure (or both for two tests)?
If gcc is configured without --enable-checking=release (default checking for
trunk), it is a compile problem. If gcc is c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63814
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||evstupac at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63844
Bug ID: 63844
Summary: open mp parallelization prevents vectorization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63843
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33911
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I've fixed most of the tests but I think the remaining ones reveal that the
warning is a bit too eager:
template
struct B
{
B(T t) { }
} __attribute__ ((__deprecated__));
template
B b(T t)
{
return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63837
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Sounds like GCC_COMPARE_DEBUG is adding the option in the wrong place and
causing the makefile not use the correct options.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63837
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63814
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61971
--- Comment #3 from kaijun ---
In Arch Linux & use [gcc 4.9.2]
The same problem happened again.
//This bug could be reproduced as following code on gcc 4.9.2
// g++ -Werror -Wall -O2 t.cpp -o t
class B {
public:
virtual ~B(){};
};
class A {
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mednafen at gmail dot com
Created attachment 33955
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33955&action=edit
Testcase, good output is 8181.
trunk revision 217451
gcc (GCC) 5.0.0 20141112 (experimental)
Linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63840
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I thought this looked familiar, I already fixed the function(F) constructor for
PR 55320 but stupidly didn't check the copy constructor.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56846
--- Comment #13 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Yvan Roux from comment #12)
> Hi Thomas,
>
> > Any chance you could backport for 4.8 Yvan? Do you want me to do it? Or are
> > the release manager against a 4.8 backport?
>
> Do y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57250
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63837
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Please provide a testcase as described here: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#need
Just to be sure, have you tried with a clean build from r217390 (using
contrib/gcc_update)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57250
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Nov 12 23:55:11 2014
New Revision: 217452
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217452&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
std::shared_ptr atomic operations
PR libstdc++/57250
* config/ab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63840
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63842
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
The proper code sequence should be
pushq %r15
load GOT base into %r15
load address of puts PLT entry into %rdx
call *(%rdx)
popq %r15
That is similar to 32-bit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63842
Bug ID: 63842
Summary: x86-64 large PIC model may load the GOT base into the
wrong register
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63838
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63838
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Nov 12 23:25:47 2014
New Revision: 217451
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217451&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/63838
* ipa-pure-const.c (propagate_nothrow): Walk w->indir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63783
Michael Karcher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc-bugzilla at mkarcher dot
dialu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63838
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Nov 12 23:18:47 2014
New Revision: 217450
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217450&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/63838
* ipa-pure-const.c (propagate_nothrow): Walk w->indir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63839
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63838
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Nov 12 23:09:15 2014
New Revision: 217449
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217449&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/63838
* ipa-pure-const.c (propagate_nothrow): Walk w->indir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63610
--- Comment #14 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #13)
> Fixed on trunk. I don't see the need to back port to 4.9, since I don't see
> many test suite failures on that branch. If you have ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63610
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63841
--- Comment #1 from Teresa Johnson ---
Google ref b/18344370
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63841
Bug ID: 63841
Summary: Incorrect strlen optimization after complete unroll
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63815
--- Comment #15 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Nov 12 21:16:14 2014
New Revision: 217445
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217445&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Initialize PIC register for large PIC model C++ thunk
gcc/
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63840
Bug ID: 63840
Summary: std::function copy constructor deletes an
uninitialized pointer if new fails
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60420
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|paolo.carlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60420
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Nov 12 20:43:09 2014
New Revision: 217444
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217444&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-11-12 Paolo Carlini
DR 1510
PR c++/60420
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63815
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #11)
>
> Currently, this test crashes, and when fixed, there is little chance that
> the (allocatable) PIC register from main equals r11 in the thunk.
Well, g++ 4.8 and 4.9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63815
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #12)
> if there's a guard for mcmodel=large support, that should be added
> [since we have not had time to implement mcmodel=large for Darwin, I would
> expect the test to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63827
howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63815
--- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe ---
if there's a guard for mcmodel=large support, that should be added
[since we have not had time to implement mcmodel=large for Darwin, I would
expect the test to fail there anyway]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63815
--- Comment #11 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10)
> But I am having a hard time to add it to gcc testsuite.
IMO, the following should be sufficient:
--cut here--
Index: g++.dg/other/pr63815.C
=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63671
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
With early VRP (but also without) the inliner seems to now suffer from extreme
roundoff errors at badness. With VRP the first uninlined function still has
badness 0:
Considering std::_Bit_reference& std::_Bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831
--- Comment #8 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thank you.
I'll formalize this in a bit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63740
--- Comment #8 from Aaro Koskinen ---
ICE backtrace seems to be same as in Bug 61430. The fix for that has not been
backported to 4.9 branch. I tested it and it seems to fix the issue at hand.
The fix: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revisi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to emsr from comment #6)
> Created attachment 33952 [details]
> Just remove the define of the __has_attribute macro entirely.
>
> Just remove the define of the __has_attribute macro entirely.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831
--- Comment #6 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33952
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33952&action=edit
Just remove the define of the __has_attribute macro entirely.
Just remove the define of the __has_attr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63834
--- Comment #4 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
__has_include, as opposed to __has_cpp_include may predate my patch. I know
clang has it. That might explain it showing up in darwin sys headers.
I might have to back off of __has_attribute at lea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63839
Bug ID: 63839
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name, have var_decl in
simplify_builtin_call, at tree-ssa-forwprop.c:1441
with -fsanitize=unreachable
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to emsr from comment #4)
> Can someone quick try that?
Yes. It doesn't work.
trippels@gcc2-power8 test % /home/trippels/gcc_test/usr/local/bin/g++ -I ./ -MM
test.cpp
./1.h:5:6: error: missi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63835
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Nov 12 18:56:50 2014
New Revision: 217441
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217441&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add a testcase for PR tree-optimization/63835
PR tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63834
--- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I posted a patch on https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831 if here
anyone wants to test it before I can.
I'm away from my main machine ATM.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63838
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 33950
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33950&action=edit
gcc5-pr63838.patch
Untested fix. For 4.9/4.8, perhaps just the
s/node->indirect_calls/w->indirect_calls/ can b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63838
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63836
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63821
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #11 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63838
Bug ID: 63838
Summary: [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] ipa-pure-const miscomputes
can_throw
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831
--- Comment #4 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can someone quick try that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831
--- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33949
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33949&action=edit
Quick patch.
I'm not on a box I can easily build and test.
Here is a quick one leaving aside the ques
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56846
--- Comment #12 from Yvan Roux ---
Hi Thomas,
> Any chance you could backport for 4.8 Yvan? Do you want me to do it? Or are
> the release manager against a 4.8 backport?
Do you mean Linaro 4.8 branch ? if it is the case I'll not be able to do i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63836
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
A simple testcase:
[hjl@gnu-mic-2 delta-fortran]$ cat foo.f90
SUBROUTINE DTRSM ( NN, NB)
DO 50 J = NN, 1, -NB
50CONTINUE
end
[hjl@gnu-mic-2 delta-fortran]$
/export/project/git/gcc-regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63835
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63821
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
--- Comment #10 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56846
--- Comment #11 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Yvan Roux from comment #9)
> Author: yroux
> Date: Mon Oct 6 12:25:14 2014
> New Revision: 215929
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215929&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> /libst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63837
Bug ID: 63837
Summary: [5 Regression] r217391 causes kernel build errors with
GCC_COMPARE_DEBUG=1
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63836
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63836
Bug ID: 63836
Summary: [5 Regression] r217349 caused segfault building
178.galgel from cpu2000
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63835
Bug ID: 63835
Summary: ICE on valid code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63828
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 33948
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33948&action=edit
A patch
Tested on Linux/32.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63834
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63834
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63834
Bug ID: 63834
Summary: [5 Regression] unrecognised __has_attribute() test
causes segv (prevents bootstrap on darwin12).
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60420
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63827
--- Comment #13 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #12)
> (In reply to howarth from comment #11)
>
> If you are using --enable-checking=release, perhaps you are seeing:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63832
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63827
--- Comment #12 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to howarth from comment #11)
> I am rerunning my tests. I can definitely say the bootstrap is broken
> post-r217814 in the libjava parallel make. Retesting if r217813 is in play.
> Also tryin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62184
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58972
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ville.voutilainen at
gmail do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49053
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52961
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Missing warning on empty if |Make -Wempty-body less
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63833
Bug ID: 63833
Summary: REAL_PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM is wrong for x86-64
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63832
Bug ID: 63832
Summary: [5.0 Regression] crtstuff.c:400:19: warning: array
subscript is above array bounds [-Warray-bounds]
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63761
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63815
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #9)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #8)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> > > Created attachment 33942 [details]
> > > A patch
> >
> > Please also add a tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63827
--- Comment #11 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to dmalcolm from comment #10)
> (In reply to howarth from comment #9)
> > Now I see why I accidentally cc'd Manu. This breakage occurred in the commit
> > just prior to the jit com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63827
--- Comment #10 from dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to howarth from comment #9)
> Now I see why I accidentally cc'd Manu. This breakage occurred in the commit
> just prior to the jit commit which, as a fortune commit, indeed doesn't mak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63827
--- Comment #9 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
Now I see why I accidentally cc'd Manu. This breakage occurred in the commit
just prior to the jit commit which, as a fortune commit, indeed doesn't make
much sense.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59298
--- Comment #5 from Adam Hirst ---
I decided to check on the status of this bug in 4.9.2, as it's been a little
while, and the segmentation fault still occurs.
Interestingly, the test case that Janus posted on 2013-01-03 can be made to
compile a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63814
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Dominique, if you could pinpoint exactly the revision causing this, it
> would be great. Most of us do not have access to a darwin machine.
> Thanks.
It was what I tried to do, but I finally found
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63827
--- Comment #8 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #7)
> (In reply to howarth from comment #5)
> > It looks like the failure occurs when the java classes are being compiled.
> > Can we revert r217
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63830
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63830
--- Comment #1 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Nov 12 12:54:00 2014
New Revision: 217417
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217417&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Avoid tail call in c-c++-common/asan/strlen-overflow-1.c
PR te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63827
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to howarth from comment #5)
> It looks like the failure occurs when the java classes are being compiled.
> Can we revert r217383 until the flaw in its handling of the parallel make is
> resolv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63827
--- Comment #6 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
> I haven't tried to reproduce this yet, but I don't see how that patch could
> lead to this. What is actually the error that triggers that f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63814
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Dominique, if you could pinpoint exactly the revision causing this, it
would be great. Most of us do not have access to a darwin machine.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63827
--- Comment #5 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
This is extremely reproducible at r217383 on darwin and no other breakage in
the parallel make has been seen this week prior to this commit. The accumulated
error messages in the failing buil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59708
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Nov 12 12:28:06 2014
New Revision: 217415
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217415&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/59708
* builtin-attrs.def (ATTR_NOTHROW_TYPEGENERIC_LEAF): N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63827
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
I haven't tried to reproduce this yet, but I don't see how that patch could
lead to this. What is actually the error that triggers that failure in make?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60420
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini ---
Ah, thanks, that explains everything!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60420
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #2)
> I'm looking into this, and I don't see how we can accept this kind of code
> given 8.3.2: "Cv-qualified references are ill-formed except when the
> cv-qualifiers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60420
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
In case a correct reduced reproducer would be:
struct MyIter
{
int& operator*();
};
template
void foo(Iterator begin)
{
auto x = [](const decltype(*begin)) { };
}
template void foo(MyIter);
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
