https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66918
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Could you explain why you don't want to have this warning really. This warning
is telling you that the inline function is not defined just like static
functions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66925
Bug ID: 66925
Summary: [3.9 optimization regression] _mm_cvtsi32_si128
spilling to memory
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52846
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66865
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66926
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64-*-* |aarch64-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66926
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66865
--- Comment #17 from marcus at jet dot franken.de ---
can also confirm this. wine64 built with trunk gcc so far has no crashes and
the wine testsuite so far had no failures
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66925
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66926
Bug ID: 66926
Summary: [6 regression] FAIL:
gfortran.dg/graphite/vect-pr40979.f90 -O (internal
compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66905
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927
Bug ID: 66927
Summary: [6.0 regression] ICE in gfc_conf_procedure_call
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927
--- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter juergen.reuter at desy dot de ---
Forgot: my gcc svn revision is r224763.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66929
Bug ID: 66929
Summary: [6 regression] ICE with iso_varying_string
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #55 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #54)
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #52)
There is another PR that seems related, PR 64986.
Is it? I see no ICE there.
Oh, you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927
--- Comment #3 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
F2008, C633 says:
(R631) If allocate-object is an array either allocate-shape-spec-list shall
appear or source-expr shall appear and have the same rank as allocate-object.
If allocate-object is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927
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=66922
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat Jul 18 11:36:32 2015
New Revision: 225982
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225982root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/66922
* config/i386/i386.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66922
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #53 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #50)
Compiling the original test of pr40440 after revision r225926 gives an ICE:
You can try:
Index: trans-array.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66929
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=66927
--- Comment #4 from Jürgen Reuter juergen.reuter at desy dot de ---
Actually, we are using now
allocate (obj(1:size (func ()))
obj = func ()
as you are saying
allocate (obj, source = func ())
had problems in gfortran 4.7.X.
So the issue is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66928
Bug ID: 66928
Summary: Typos in translatable strings
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component: translation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66922
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat Jul 18 11:17:49 2015
New Revision: 225981
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225981root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/66922
* config/i386/i386.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66930
Bug ID: 66930
Summary: [5 Regression]: gengtype.c is miscompiled during
stage2
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927
--- Comment #6 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This fixes the issue:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c
index 6409f7f..181cbce 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c
@@ -5189,7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66922
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat Jul 18 09:50:37 2015
New Revision: 225980
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225980root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/66922
* config/i386/i386.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48002
--- Comment #5 from yuta tomino demoonlit at panathenaia dot halfmoon.jp ---
This bug seems already being fixed as François-Xavier wrote. (it could be
compiled with gcc-5.1)
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49857
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.3 |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #54 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #50)
Should I file a new PR?
I opened https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66929
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #52)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66917
Mikael Pettersson mikpelinux at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66929
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
... and the patch I posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831#c53
Index: trans-array.c
===
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66918
--- Comment #2 from Eugene Zelenko eugene.zelenko at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
Could you explain why you don't want to have this warning really. This
warning is telling you that the inline function is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66925
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
Some processors moving between the GPR via vmovd is slower than moving via
memory. So that is the reason why using -march=sandybridge or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52966
Yury V. Zaytsev yury at shurup dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yury at shurup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66932
Bug ID: 66932
Summary: Preprocessor includes wrong header file
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66918
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=66790
--- Comment #4 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat derodat at adacore dot com ---
(In reply to Pierre-Marie de Rodat from comment #0)
Given the somelabel code path, I would rather expect DF_REF_CHAIN to hold
a NULL reference to materialize the lack of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66920
--- Comment #1 from Jan Smets jan.sm...@alcatel-lucent.com ---
Likely related/identical to 66931
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50676
--- Comment #6 from Andi Kleen andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org ---
The patch doesn't seem to be checked in yet. Is there a reason for that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66931
Bug ID: 66931
Summary: ICE in convert_move, at expr.c:316
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66885
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #2)
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #1)
The second condition is *not* always false.
After some further thought, agreed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66903
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
You are most likely overflowing the stack. That is the stack is growing and
hitting the stack size. The default stack size for Linux is 8MB, try using
ulimit -s unlimited before
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66886
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
What does the upstream version of boehm-gc have? You might want to report this
upstream if this code is there still.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66921
Anders Granlund anders.granlund.0 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54236
--- Comment #15 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The following shows missed subc cases when there are constants involved. Addc
cases can be constructed in the same way.
int fun (int x)
{
return x - 1 - (x 100);
}
-O2 -m4:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66933
Bug ID: 66933
Summary: [AVR] Shifted multiplication produces suboptimal asm
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66934
Bug ID: 66934
Summary: Compiler accepting ill-formed program with extern
variable declarations and using-declaration
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66888
--- Comment #2 from Anders Granlund anders.granlund.0 at gmail dot com ---
This bug seems to be more general than struct definitions. It also exists for
variable declarations like this:
namespace X { extern int i; }
namespace N { using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66935
Bug ID: 66935
Summary: Compiler rejects well-formed program with local extern
variable declaration and using-declaration
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66932
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Works for me in GCC 4.7.2 and GCC 5.1.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66930
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #0)
As previously discussed in private mail, I am now filing a bug report for
the regression in gcc-5 that was introduced
53 matches
Mail list logo
