The function runtime.Caller() returns infinitely deep stack frames on s390x
when we increase the argument 'skip'.
Attached sample program does not terminate when we ran with GCCGO on s390x:
[inagaki@inagaki caller]$ go version
go version go1.4.2 gccgo (GCC) 5.1.1 20150527 linux/s390x
[inagaki
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #33 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #32)
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #28)
I should have been more clear about these comparison
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46032
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #16)
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
(In reply to vries from comment #11)
The ipa-pta solution no longer works. In 4.6, we had:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66300
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=66304
Bug ID: 66304
Summary: Can't bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu with gcc 4.3.4
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66302
Bug ID: 66302
Summary: Wrong output sequence of double precision uniform C++
RNG distribution
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66276
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66101
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46032
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 27 May 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46032
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66299
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=65419
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66301
--- Comment #1 from JD t at sharklasers dot com ---
german@prometheus ~/test $ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=local/gcc5.1/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/5.1.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46032
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The *.omp_fn.* functions indeed, while they necessarily have to be addressable,
because that is how they are passed to the libgomp entrypoints, are never
called by anything but the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66296
Haitao Wang wanght at tsinghua dot org.cn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66276
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can't reproduce on (only slightly modified) trunk, might be latent there now.
Investigating on the branch instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66305
Bug ID: 66305
Summary: -ffat-lto-objects create unreproducible objects
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66017
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed May 27 11:18:37 2015
New Revision: 223745
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223745root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/66017
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66300
Bug ID: 66300
Summary: GCC_ENABLE_PLUGINS references undefined variables,
breaking configure
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66301
Bug ID: 66301
Summary: internal compiler error when using -fopt-info
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54351
--- Comment #14 from TC rs2740 at gmail dot com ---
Well, I would have argued that if the specification doesn't say that a function
does X, then it doesn't do X. NullablePointer/CopyAssignable only means that
the assignment operation must be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66302
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrey Kolesov from comment #0)
Double precision uniform distribution of C++ random number generators from
libstdc++ produces sequence which is significantly different
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
When removing the fn spec from GOACC_data_start, we run into the problem that
this example doesn't get parallelized anymore:
...
#include stdlib.h
#define N (1024 * 512)
#define COUNTERTYPE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66306
Bug ID: 66306
Summary: ICE in reload
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66101
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 27 14:05:37 2015
New Revision: 223757
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223757root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-05-27 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #34 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #33)
It looks that the log for 4.8.4-2 includes
gcc/d/ctfeexpr.dmd.o differs
line just after its 'Bootstrap comparison
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66304
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|5.1.0 |6.0
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66101
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66303
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
The one valid entry in the backtrace is in the function kickoff in proc.c.
That function is supposed to stop the trace. Search for kickoff in
libgo/runtime/go-callers.c. The question
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66304
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #25 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This should be fixed on trunk for GCC 6.
I'll keep this open for a few days to make sure there are no glaring complaints
about the patch as it gets through the auto-testers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66305
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66304
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška marxin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
I suppose you are reporting this against trunk.
Yeah, sorry, it's really against trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66304
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66307
Bug ID: 66307
Summary: Partial argument overlapping with itself should try to
reuse infrastructure in calls.c
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #24 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Wed May 27 13:25:01 2015
New Revision: 223753
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223753root=gccview=rev
Log:
[expr.c] PR target/65358 Avoid clobbering partial argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66302
--- Comment #2 from Andrey Kolesov andrey.kolesov at intel dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
(In reply to Andrey Kolesov from comment #0)
Double precision uniform distribution of C++ random number generators from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66276
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sjölund martin.sjolund at liu dot se ---
Thank you. I can confirm our compiler again bootstraps using gcc 5 branch using
-O2. Sadly, -O2 gives different behaviour than -O1, so I will need to
investigate and possibly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #35 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #34)
If 4.8.something doesn't bootstrap, it would be a 4.8 Regression type of
bug. I'd move it to a new PR.
Already.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66305
--- Comment #3 from lunar at debian dot org ---
Richard Biener:
I think they become deterministic with -frandom-seed=0 for example.
They are not deterministic to support partial linking of LTO objects as far
as I know.
They are indeed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
Bug ID: 66312
Summary: [SH] Regression: Bootstrap failure
gcc/d/ctfeexpr.dmd.o differs with gcc-4.8/4.9
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66313
Bug ID: 66313
Summary: Unsafe factorization of a*b+a*c
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
As Kaz mentioned in PR 65979 #c8, first revert all the SH specific patches.
The SVN revisions are r221686, r221305, r221166, r220957, r220917, r219258.
Thus you can pull the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #9 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
IMNSHO it is much better to accurately describe the builtins to the aliasing
code etc. over adding ugly hacks like the tailcall one, or postponing
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 35637
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35637action=edit
C source code
For trunk gcc dated 20150527
crypto/asymmetric_keys/pkcs7_trust.c: In function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66305
--- Comment #4 from andi at firstfloor dot org ---
--- Comment #3 from lunar at debian dot org ---
Richard Biener:
I think they become deterministic with -frandom-seed=0 for example.
They are not deterministic to support partial linking of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66310
Bug ID: 66310
Summary: Problems with intrinsic repeat for large number of
copies
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Christopher Torres redflames1003 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66309
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This patch fixes it, but it's a bit of a hack:
...
diff --git a/gcc/tree-tailcall.c b/gcc/tree-tailcall.c
index 013972d..0cb73a7 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-tailcall.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-tailcall.c
@@ -499,6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66308
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
When accessing the member of the derived type (which is actually misaligned):
struct node_base {
char c;
};
struct node : node_base {
long long l;
};
int main()
{
unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz gerhard.steinmetz.fort...@t-online.de
---
Of course, some computations are wrong, too.
For example :
program p
integer(8), parameter :: z = huge(1_8)
print *, 2_16 * z
print *, 2 *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64159
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #6 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Isn't GOACC_parallel likely to have the same problem because hostaddrs may be
written to?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66308
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
Only the upcast is really a bug. Downcasting is not a problem here.
The other way round, but I agree.
However, if the two casts happen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66304
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed May 27 16:09:18 2015
New Revision: 223763
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223763root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/66304
config/
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66309
Bug ID: 66309
Summary: difference of 5.1.0 tarball and 4.9.2 tarball +
4.9.2-5.1.0 patch
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
Bug ID: 66311
Summary: [5 Regression] Problems with some integer(16) values
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66302
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Does it make sense?
So you expect the random generator for float to throw away half of the random
bits it is getting from the engine, just for this questionable benefit? And
actually
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66308
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Only the upcast is really a bug. Downcasting is not a problem here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66305
--- Comment #2 from andi at firstfloor dot org ---
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:21:04PM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think they become deterministic with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66030
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=62031
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 27 14:20:48 2015
New Revision: 223759
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223759root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-05-27 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66272
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66272
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 27 14:20:48 2015
New Revision: 223759
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223759root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-05-27 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66302
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'll just note that the libc++ implementation has the same behaviour. The
precise numbers are different (probably due to a slightly different
implementation of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66308
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
When the char member is accessed:
struct node_base {
char c;
};
struct node : node_base {
long long l;
};
int main()
{
unsigned char buf[sizeof(node_base)+1];
node_base* n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66308
Bug ID: 66308
Summary: -fsanitize=alignment is missing downcast of
misaligned address checks
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35636
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35636action=edit
gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/goacc/kernels-parallel-loop-data-enter-exit-2.c
(In reply to cesar from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
IMNSHO it is much better to accurately describe the builtins to the aliasing
code etc. over adding ugly hacks like the tailcall one, or postponing expansion
till later etc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66181
--- Comment #14 from Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com ---
*** Bug 66283 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66283
Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #30 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Christopher Torres from comment #29)
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220974root=gccview=rev
Is there any status updates on this issue? Does this effectively do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66315
Bug ID: 66315
Summary: internal compiler error (segfault) when assigning
nested initializer list
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39726
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66270
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell nathan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nathan
Date: Wed May 27 20:36:14 2015
New Revision: 223773
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223773root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/66270
* tree.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66270
Nathan Sidwell nathan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39726
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law law at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: law
Date: Wed May 27 21:13:25 2015
New Revision: 223781
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223781root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/39726
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66297
Bug ID: 66297
Summary: constexpr non-static member functions of non-literal
types
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66214
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm, today, I see it again. I wonder why it (seemed to) work(ed) yesterday.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66148
--- Comment #6 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: danglin
Date: Thu May 28 01:09:59 2015
New Revision: 223791
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223791root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/66148
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66316
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Alexander Trufanov from comment #0)
Application has two .cpp modules. Let's say 1.cpp and 2.cpp.
In each module there is a definition of struct N. Name N is the same for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41227
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66316
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66321
Bug ID: 66321
Summary: [4.9.2/5.1.0/6.0.0] errors allocating allocatable
array component of pointer object component
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66148
--- Comment #7 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: danglin
Date: Thu May 28 01:12:59 2015
New Revision: 223792
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223792root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/66148
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66318
--- Comment #2 from Keith Thompson Keith.S.Thompson at gmail dot com ---
Martin:
Good point. I don't suggest altering the string to which the __FILE__
macro expands, merely sanitizing file names to be displayed in error
messages.
I see my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66148
--- Comment #8 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: danglin
Date: Thu May 28 01:15:46 2015
New Revision: 223793
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223793root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/66148
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66310
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66318
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor msebor at gcc dot gnu.org ---
You're right that the text of diagnostics is outside the scope of the C
standard. But as you note, even diagnostics are relied on by tools to
manipulate the referenced files, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66319
Bug ID: 66319
Summary: [6 Regression] gcov-tool.c:84:65: error: invalid
conversion from 'int (*)(const c har*, const stat*,
int, FTW*)' to 'int (*)(const char*, const stat*, int,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66320
Bug ID: 66320
Summary: internal compiler error: in
cxx_eval_constant_expression, at cp/constexpr.c:3524
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66148
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66148
--- Comment #9 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: danglin
Date: Thu May 28 01:17:52 2015
New Revision: 223794
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223794root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/66148
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66303
--- Comment #3 from Tatsushi Inagaki e29253 at jp dot ibm.com ---
Created attachment 35641
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35641action=edit
gdb session of callback() called from runtime.Caller(skip==3)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66303
--- Comment #2 from Tatsushi Inagaki e29253 at jp dot ibm.com ---
The first invocation of runtime.Caller() with skip==2 successfully detects
kickoff() in callback(), and thus returns ok==true.
The problem is that the succeeding invocations of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #26 from Honggyu Kim hong.gyu.kim at lge dot com ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #25)
This should be fixed on trunk for GCC 6.
I'll keep this open for a few days to make sure there are no glaring
complaints about the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66318
Martin Sebor msebor at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66148
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to John David Anglin from comment #10)
Thanks Thomas for your analysis.
You're welcome. I'm glad you fixed the issue so quickly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66316
Bug ID: 66316
Summary: Usage of wrong template function for classes in
different modules but having the same name
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
