https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65096
Chris karlowatz_chris at hotmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61538
--- Comment #24 from Joshua Kinard kumba at gentoo dot org ---
This might have been inadvertently fixed by this patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02282.html
Which is commit 0d18e650 in the master branch. Can't pin down when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65098
Bug ID: 65098
Summary: ada/gnat_rm.texi:8889: warning: undefined flag:
gnat_version
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65097
Bug ID: 65097
Summary: Common code for mkoffload implementations
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc, openmp
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65090
--- Comment #3 from Dirk Bonne dirk.bo...@inform-ac.com ---
The bug is elusive --- I then hope it is really gone from later versions and
not just hidden...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65099
Bug ID: 65099
Summary: nvptx offloading: hard-coded 64-bit assumptions
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61538
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51017
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51017
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We do already inhibit creating loop-carried dependencies of some kind, but only
when vectorization is enabled (because it can inhibit vectorization). But we
still PRE invariant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65015
--- Comment #23 from conchur at web dot de ---
Awesome :)
Just tested it and it seems to work quite well here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65081
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Feb 18 09:46:59 2015
New Revision: 220784
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220784root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/65081
* ubsan.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65101
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
i.e. __new_finish = pointer() is used as a check-point so the catch-block knows
whether an exception was thrown by _Alloc_traits::construct() or by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62630
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that as far as vectorization is concerned the issue is that the IV used to
perform the memory accesses is not affine:
bb 6:
# graphite_IV.4_34 = PHI 0(5),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65103
Bug ID: 65103
Summary: [i386] GOTOFF relocation is not propagated into
address expression
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #20 from Dominik Vogt vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
runtime_MProf_Malloc() calls runtime_callers() without going through
runtime.Callers():
#0 runtime_callers (skip=skip@entry=1, locbuf=locbuf@entry=0xc2094734b8,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65091
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65081
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65094
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=65100
Bug ID: 65100
Summary: ada/gnat-style.texi:568: warning: @itemize has text
but no @item
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65101
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
cppcheck is wrong. If the std::__uninitialized_move_if_noexcept_a operation
throws an exception then __new_finish doesn't get a new value and is left
value-initialized, which is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65102
Bug ID: 65102
Summary: gnat-style.texi warning from including fdl.texi
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65101
Bug ID: 65101
Summary: cppcheck for vector.tcc: Variable '__new_finish' is
reassigned a value before the old one has been used.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Feb 18 09:48:57 2015
New Revision: 220785
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220785root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-02-18 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64963
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64935
Maxim Kuvyrkov mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34674|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65093
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62630
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mircea Namolaru from comment #7)
Graphite generates MAX/MIN expressions.
I've modified Graphite to use the original types of n and mid in MIN and
MAX, and to not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65087
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 18 11:37:02 2015
New Revision: 220786
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220786root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR ipa/65087
* cgraphclones.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65102
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |trivial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
--- Comment #31
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #32 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
_ZN18eonImageCalculatorC2Ev has an alias, _ZN18eonImageCalculatorC1Ev.
It is only called once in main. _ZN18eonImageCalculatorC1Ev calls
_ZmlRK10ggSpectrumS1_. But
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64983
--- Comment #2 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
I am not seeing identical g++.log's being created here from dejagnu 1.5.1 and
1.5.2 on x86_64-apple-darwin14 with separate runs of...
make -k check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65064
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58910
Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65078
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65064
--- Comment #17 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Feb 18 17:24:20 2015
New Revision: 220792
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220792root=gccview=rev
Log:
Return false for common symbols in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58123
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65008
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65111
Bug ID: 65111
Summary: null checks on pointers created from references not
optimized away
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #33 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
There are many calls to _ZmlRK10ggSpectrumS1_ in LTO IR. Some calls have
parameters with unknown alignment. But they are ignored by IPA-CP, which
applies parameter alignment from calls
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #23 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
Yes, I do mean to change saveg in mprof.goc.
runtime_callers in general returns full file/line information, which is
required for full correctness when using gccgo. When it devolves
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65110
Bug ID: 65110
Summary: Does not accept multi-argument template in member
initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52595
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stanshebs at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65110
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52231
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||froydnj at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64983
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org ---
running with dejaGNU 1.6 also produces the wrong output.
I did a small amount of analysis - and it looks like the content of the
xxx.sum.sep files is not what's expected by the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65111
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52231
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Froyd froydnj at gcc dot gnu.org ---
FWIW, clang (= 3.5) understands how to optimize the original testcase in
comment 0; it even issues a -Wtautological-undefined-compare warning.
This also showed up in the context of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63892
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #23 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #21)
Created attachment 34798 [details]
Full Patch
This patch attempts to do it all. I have not tested the mingw/cygwin side of
it.
Any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #34 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
propagate_alignment_accross_jump_function seems wrong:
if (cur.known)
{
if (!dest_lat-alignment.known)
{
dest_lat-alignment = cur;
return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #35 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
propagate_alignment_accross_jump_function seems wrong:
if (cur.known)
{
if (!dest_lat-alignment.known)
{
dest_lat-alignment = cur;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65008
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #39 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #38)
Created attachment 34803 [details]
ipp
OK. Though I do not directly see how it can solve this wrong code issue.
It doesn't work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #40 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
Do you know why propagate_constants_accross_call skippes the call? Is it
because it is never called on it or is it because it quits on one of the early
exits?
It may be a case that we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #38 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
OK. Though I do not directly see how it can solve this wrong code issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63491
--- Comment #6 from Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #5)
Sorry, I can not reproduce the bug on the today trunk. Probably it was
fixed by numerous changes in LRA since Oct.
This still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52231
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Nathan Froyd from comment #5)
This also showed up in the context of trying to hint to the compiler that
placement new didn't need null checks:
That's only become true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58123
--- Comment #8 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #7)
Putting this aside for a second, my question is, do we really want a
debugging experience where we jump from back from the end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #22 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #21)
Created attachment 34798 [details]
Full Patch
This patch attempts to do it all. I have not tested the mingw/cygwin side of
it.
Any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64983
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to howarth from comment #4)
FYI, I posted this to
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-dejagnu/2015-02/msg1.html and
emailed Ben Elliston the g++.log files generated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #37 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #36)
Hi,
I do not really see the reason for wrong code, but the merging logic seems
weird for me. There is no merging done when we get two
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65107
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Feb 18 20:07:48 2015
New Revision: 220794
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220794root=gccview=rev
Log:
Add missing cleanup in gfortran.dg/read_eof_8.f90
2015-02-18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64983
--- Comment #4 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
FYI, I posted this to
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-dejagnu/2015-02/msg1.html and emailed
Ben Elliston the g++.log files generated under dejagnu 1.5.1 and 1.5.2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63891
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #36 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
Hi,
I do not really see the reason for wrong code, but the merging logic seems
weird for me. There is no merging done when we get two different alignments
and also we seem to immediately
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65112
Bug ID: 65112
Summary: [5 Regression] -fsanitized=thread Fortran program
crashes at startup
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #24 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #22)
count_rate(8),count_max(1) =0 127
OK, but the last line looks strange: lacking documentation,
I'd expect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58123
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #41 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #24)
IPA-CP missed _ZN18eonImageCalculatorC1Ev which calls
_ZmlRK10ggSpectrumS1_ with 8-byte aligned rPrimary.
If I am not mistaken and this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52231
--- Comment #7 from Nathan Froyd froydnj at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
(In reply to Nathan Froyd from comment #5)
This also showed up in the context of trying to hint to the compiler that
placement new
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #42 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #41)
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #24)
IPA-CP missed _ZN18eonImageCalculatorC1Ev which calls
_ZmlRK10ggSpectrumS1_ with 8-byte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64634
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #43 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #42)
Does it skip a jump func when its argument alignment is unknown?
No, I don't think it does. Cur is initialized to unknown alignment
and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64634
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 18 22:02:43 2015
New Revision: 220801
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220801root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR gcov-profile/64634
* tree-eh.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #45 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #43)
I really find it very suspicious that even the jump-function printing
code, which is a an iteration over edges as simple as they get, does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #44 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 34804
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34804action=edit
Dumps from -fdump-ipa-cp-details -fdump-tree-release_ssa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63371
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
See also https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.fortran/N3B4ge5XQ40
- and in particular Richard Main's comments therein.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63371
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
See also PR 63363, which causes this code to be reject now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65115
Bug ID: 65115
Summary: default init_priority attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: web
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64634
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64491
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Stubbs ams at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Just silencing the warning may not be enough. The compiler may optimize away
loop exit conditions based on this analysis. The warning mirrors the logic
rather than shares it (due to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64491
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Stubbs from comment #8)
Just silencing the warning may not be enough. The compiler may optimize away
loop exit conditions based on this analysis. The warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62630
--- Comment #10 from Mircea Namolaru mircea.namolaru at inria dot fr ---
On my Intel x86-64 platform changed in graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c:
- static int graphite_expression_type_precision = 128 = max_mode_int_precision
?
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65092
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65063
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Feb 18 13:08:58 2015
New Revision: 220788
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220788root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-02-18 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56852
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
There is a simple fix, may be too big hammer:
...
The patch in comment 3 fixes the ICE, bur breaks many tests (700+) for error:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/abstract_type_3.f03 -O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65105
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich enkovich.gnu at gmail dot com ---
For this test I see 'plus' and 'minus' ops have DI mode until RA and get GPR
pairs:
(insn 12 35 13 2 (parallel [
(set (reg:DI 0 ax [orig:98 D.1945 ] [98])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65107
Bug ID: 65107
Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/eof_4.f90, runtime error: File
'test.dat' already exists
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65104
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |trivial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65098
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This would fix it:
...
diff --git a/gcc/ada/gnat_rm.texi b/gcc/ada/gnat_rm.texi
index 04f3d0b..1fd0534 100644
--- a/gcc/ada/gnat_rm.texi
+++ b/gcc/ada/gnat_rm.texi
@@ -8886,7 +8886,7 @@ attribute.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65105
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=65063
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65087
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65108
Bug ID: 65108
Summary: Missing DWARF info for static const class members
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65106
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
See the definition of modifiable lvalue (6.3.2.1#1): ... if it is a
structure or union, does not have any member (including, recursively, any
member or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65107
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64935
--- Comment #17 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Maxim Kuvyrkov from comment #16)
Created attachment 34799 [details]
Patch v2
I'm happy with this version of the patch and will post it for review after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65108
--- Comment #1 from Andy Wingo wingo at igalia dot com ---
I mentioned this bug to Dodji Seketeli who said that this was probably an
instance of early constant folding causing Foo::one to appear unused.
On Dodji's suggestion I recompiled with
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
