https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64244
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Dec 16 08:15:38 2014
New Revision: 218776
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218776root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-12-16 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
PR fortran/64244
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64244
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The bug should be fixed on trunk with r218776.
Ondrej, in case your test code is part of a larger code base, do you have the
possibility to test it with gfortran trunk?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64326
Bug ID: 64326
Summary: ICE at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu in check_probability,
at basic-block.h:581
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64326
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=64327
Bug ID: 64327
Summary: ../../gcc/gcc/rtlanal.c:4881:48: runtime error: shift
exponent 4294967295 is too large for 64-bit type 'long
unsigned int'
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56459
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64309
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On December 15, 2014 10:11:13 PM CET, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64309
--- Comment #12 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64326
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64325
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64323
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64323
--- Comment #1 from christophe.lyon at st dot com ---
Maybe this was fixed by Vladimir's commit r218760?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64326
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Started with r211725.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64322
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=64322
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For VRP I'm thinking of (completely untested):
--- gcc/tree-vrp.c.jj2014-12-01 14:57:30.0 +0100
+++ gcc/tree-vrp.c2014-12-16 10:17:27.543111649 +0100
@@ -2434,6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64319
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||alias,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63568
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64043
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
This breaks ada:
$ gcc/gnatmake --GCC=gcc/xgcc --GNATBIND=gcc/gnatbind --GNATLINK=gcc/gnatlink
-cargs -Bgcc/ -largs '--GCC=gcc/xgcc -Bgcc' -margs
--RTS=ia64-suse-linux/./libada -f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64328
Bug ID: 64328
Summary: addr_equal-1.c fails execution.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64323
--- Comment #2 from Hale Wang Hale.Wang at arm dot com ---
(In reply to christophe.lyon from comment #1)
Maybe this was fixed by Vladimir's commit r218760?
Yes, it's fixed by Vladimir's commit r218760. Thank you very much. This issue
could be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64323
Hale Wang Hale.Wang at arm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64322
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
For VRP I'm thinking of (completely untested):
--- gcc/tree-vrp.c.jj 2014-12-01 14:57:30.0 +0100
+++ gcc/tree-vrp.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64322
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
For VRP I'm thinking of (completely untested):
--- gcc/tree-vrp.c.jj 2014-12-01
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64329
Bug ID: 64329
Summary: Crash when returning reference from lambda with
deduced type
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64265
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64291
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64291
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
Started with r217587.
Oops, sorry for typo, r217588.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64330
Bug ID: 64330
Summary: [ASAN] Bogus AddressSanitizer: odr-violation
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64330
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64331
Bug ID: 64331
Summary: regcprop propagates registers noted as REG_DEAD
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64331
--- Comment #1 from Senthil Kumar Selvaraj senthil_kumar.selvaraj at atmel dot
com ---
Created attachment 34291
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34291action=edit
Assembly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61296
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
See discussions when I've added DATA_ABI_ALIGNMENT.
DATA_ABI_ALIGNMENT was added for PR 56564:
/* Similar to DATA_ALIGNMENT, but for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61296
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
Do you have a testcase to show decreasing DATA_ALIGNMENT would break
backwards compatibility with older gcc versions?
Older GCC versions used
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61296
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
Do you have a testcase to show decreasing DATA_ALIGNMENT would break
backwards compatibility with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64330
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63568
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
FWIW, I used this to check the whether the transformation is correct:
int
main ()
{
for (int i = -1000; i 1000; ++i)
for (int a = -1000; a 1000; ++a)
for (int b =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61296
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If you hit the assumption beyond what ABI mandates on some public symbol issue
in some older GCC version, then sure, if you have that public symbol defined by
ICC, it will misbehave.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63568
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=61296
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
If you hit the assumption beyond what ABI mandates on some public symbol
issue in some older GCC version, then sure, if you have that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61296
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Read the sources? It really depends on many factors.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64330
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63568
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
True. E.g. on my x86_64 i7 Nehalem I see (using ./cc1 -quiet -O2 qq.c -mbmi)
andn%edi, %edx, %edi
andl%edx, %esi
movl%edi, %eax
orl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63568
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63568
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64331
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||avr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64291
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64328
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63473
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64278
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška marxin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Dec 16 14:55:29 2014
New Revision: 218779
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218779root=gccview=rev
Log:
Fix for PR ipa/64278
* sreal.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64278
Martin Liška marxin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64240
--- Comment #6 from fyang at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: fyang
Date: Tue Dec 16 14:58:03 2014
New Revision: 218780
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218780root=gccview=rev
Log:
+ PR rtl-optimization/64240
+ * ddg.c (mark_mem_use):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63473
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here is a slightly compactified test case:
program testprogram
implicit none
type :: mytype_type
integer, allocatable :: i(:)
end type
integer :: n
type(mytype_type), allocatable ::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63473
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #3)
The second message (680 bytes) occurs only with 4.9 upwards (and already in
the first loop execution).
Actually I think this is not a real regression, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64319
--- Comment #2 from Brian Grayson b.grayson at samsung dot com ---
alignd() in m88ksim from SPECint95 is a poster child for this kind of
optimization -- it receives several pointers to portions of FP representations,
and then operates on them via
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63473
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5 Regression] Memory |Memory leak with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64321
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
---
/ -O3 -mavx2 -S a.c
[hjl@gnu-6 pr61296]$ cat a.s
.filea.c
.globlx
.data
.align 64
.typex, @object
.sizex, 128
x:
.byte1
.zero127
.identGCC: (GNU) 5.0.0 20141216 (experimental)
.section.note.GNU-stack,,@progbits
[hjl@gnu-6 pr61296
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64332
Bug ID: 64332
Summary: gcc/g++ handles system_header differently
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64286
--- Comment #1 from Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com ---
Perhaps something like below to restrict ree for such cases?
diff --git a/gcc/ree.c b/gcc/ree.c
index 3376901..92370ea 100644
--- a/gcc/ree.c
+++ b/gcc/ree.c
@@ -1004,6 +1004,11 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64321
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64331
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61189
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64244
--- Comment #9 from Ondřej Čertík ondrej.certik at gmail dot com ---
Janus, thanks a lot for fixing this! Yes, it's part of a large code base. I'll
try the trunk soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64332
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I don't think it is system header which is being handled differently, rather I
think it is warning for attribute is being handled differently.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64244
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Ondřej Čertík from comment #9)
Janus, thanks a lot for fixing this!
You're welcome!
Yes, it's part of a large code base. I'll try the trunk soon.
That would be great. Since this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61189
--- Comment #3 from lh_mouse lh_mouse at 126 dot com ---
Thanks Kai. It seems to be exactly the same reason that causes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62152. Maybe we should merge them?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64332
--- Comment #2 from Azat a3at.mail at gmail dot com ---
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 04:46:28PM +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64332
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61189
--- Comment #4 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 62152 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62152
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64332
--- Comment #3 from Azat a3at.mail at gmail dot com ---
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 07:50:48PM +0300, Azat Khuzhin wrote:
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I don't think it is system header which is being handled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64332
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64332
--- Comment #5 from Azat a3at.mail at gmail dot com ---
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 05:16:41PM +, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
The C FE does not point to __constructor (3:1 vs 3:19), thus it doesn't
realize
this comes from a macro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64244
--- Comment #11 from Ondřej Čertík ondrej.certik at gmail dot com ---
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 9:47 AM, janus at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64244
--- Comment #10 from janus at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63851
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška marxin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, IPA ICF should respect 'restrict' attribute.
May I ask you to rerun test suite with applied:
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-icf-gimple.c b/gcc/ipa-icf-gimple.c
index ec0290a..98f38ee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61591
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Honza, given what you wrote in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg01033.html
do you want to take over this bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61280
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64313
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
In the case of expf, if it's used or known to be available in a linked
library then it can be assumed to have the required semantics (since it's
reserved by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64332
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Azat from comment #5)
Whether the correct behavior is that the system_header applies to the
definition or to the expansion location, I am not sure. However, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63851
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Yes, IPA ICF should respect 'restrict' attribute.
May I ask you to rerun test suite with applied:
My machine is busy regtesting 4.8.4, but a quick test shows that your
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61322
Chris Manghane cmang at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61316
Chris Manghane cmang at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64330
--- Comment #4 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So, maybe the ODR checker in the current form is not that useless.
Sorry, couldn't resist :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64330
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #4)
So, maybe the ODR checker in the current form is not that useless.
Sorry, couldn't resist :)
But it isn't really an ODR checker.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64309
--- Comment #14 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Dec 16 18:29:01 2014
New Revision: 218787
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218787root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/64309
* match.pd: Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61264
Chris Manghane cmang at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64313
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64309
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61273
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Tue Dec 16 18:53:46 2014
New Revision: 218788
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218788root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR go/61273
compiler: Send statements
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64328
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
Indeed, the testcase is meant to be nopic. I will check how to test for that
in dg.
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61264
--- Comment #2 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Tue Dec 16 19:14:54 2014
New Revision: 218789
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218789root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR go/61264
compiler: Fix copying behavior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61296
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
Read the sources? It really depends on many factors.
There are
int max_align_compat
= optimize_size ? BITS_PER_WORD : MIN (256,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54687
--- Comment #6 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Missed the PR number for the commit r218790:
2014-12-16 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
PR fortran/54687
* lang.opt (fsecond-underscore, frecord-marker=8,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64328
--- Comment #3 from Tejas Belagod belagod at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #2)
Indeed, the testcase is meant to be nopic. I will check how to test for
that in dg.
Honza
{ dg-require-effective-target nonpic } ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64320
--- Comment #1 from Rich Townsend townsend at astro dot wisc.edu ---
OK, it seems that this bug comes from building with srcdir == objdir. If I
build in a separate directory, then the problem goes away.
As an aside, I hadn't realized that using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63568
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If you decide not to do the transform at the tree level, please change this to
a target PR and assign it to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64333
Bug ID: 64333
Summary: C++14 constexpr gives wrong results when a looping
constexpr function is evaluated twice
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54687
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Dec 16 20:44:45 2014
New Revision: 218792
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218792root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-12-16 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64244
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Ondřej Čertík from comment #11)
So my system (RHEL6) libstdc++ library might be incompatible with the
trunk, but I don't see why gcc couldn't compile. Any ideas how to fix
this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63568
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #7)
If you decide not to do the transform at the tree level, please change this
to a target PR and assign it to me.
I have a patch that does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
--- Comment #46 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Tue Dec 16 21:28:59 2014
New Revision: 218793
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218793root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/
PR target/53513
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61246
--- Comment #3 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Tue Dec 16 21:36:53 2014
New Revision: 218794
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218794root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR go/61246
compiler: Switch expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #32 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Tue Dec 16 21:37:42 2014
New Revision: 218795
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218795root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/
PR target/54089
*
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
