https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67317
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you provide the full preprocessed source?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67317
Bug ID: 67317
Summary: [x86] Silly code generation for
_addcarry_u32/_addcarry_u64
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67316
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67316
Bug ID: 67316
Summary: Address local variable returned as 0x0
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67314
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67314
--- Comment #2 from Chengnian Sun ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This warning is only useful for c++. C defines the full range of the
> underlying type of the enum for the enum while c++ has different rules.
>
> Also I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67315
Bug ID: 67315
Summary: Strange 'this' pointer behavior when calling virtual
function with different optimization attributes.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67314
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This warning is only useful for c++. C defines the full range of the underlying
type of the enum for the enum while c++ has different rules.
Also I think this warning would be too noisy for c code and clang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67314
Bug ID: 67314
Summary: No warning on assigning an out-of-range integer to an
enum
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67309
--- Comment #6 from Dave Flogeras ---
Created attachment 36237
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36237&action=edit
Patch for random.tcc
This patch made the test case presented compile cleanly for myself. It is from
GCC-4.8.4'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67309
--- Comment #5 from Dave Flogeras ---
Definitely, this project is my testbed for playing with new C++ features on a
STM32F4 micro. I also checked the ChibiOS (the RTOS I use) and it has always
had -fsingle-precision-constant defined (well for al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67309
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Are you site you were always using -std=c++11?
The algorithm header won't include the random header without that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67035
Bug 67035 depends on bug 67227, which changed state.
Bug 67227 Summary: [6 regression] comparison failure in ada/par.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67227
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67034
Bug 67034 depends on bug 67227, which changed state.
Bug 67227 Summary: [6 regression] comparison failure in ada/par.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67227
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67000
Bug 67000 depends on bug 67227, which changed state.
Bug 67227 Summary: [6 regression] comparison failure in ada/par.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67227
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66983
Bug 66983 depends on bug 67227, which changed state.
Bug 67227 Summary: [6 regression] comparison failure in ada/par.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67227
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Bug 64164 depends on bug 67227, which changed state.
Bug 67227 Summary: [6 regression] comparison failure in ada/par.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67227
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67227
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66978
Bug 66978 depends on bug 67227, which changed state.
Bug 67227 Summary: [6 regression] comparison failure in ada/par.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67227
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #53 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Aug 21 20:03:14 2015
New Revision: 227085
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227085&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
fix sched compare regression
for gcc/ChangeLog
PR rtl-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67227
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Aug 21 20:03:14 2015
New Revision: 227085
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227085&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
fix sched compare regression
for gcc/ChangeLog
PR rtl-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67309
--- Comment #3 from Dave Flogeras ---
That is what is weird to me, it definitely used to compile for me with GCC
4.7.3 and 4.8.3 (with the same build system flags).
Is there anything that is conditional when compiling GCC that maybe the Gentoo
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67295
--- Comment #1 from Alexandre Oliva ---
I get exactly the same code with r226900, before the copyrename patch:
cmp r1, #0
rev16ne r0, r0
uxthne r0, r0
.L2:
sxthr0, r0
b foos16
Did you use a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67313
Bug ID: 67313
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: in vague_linkage_p, at
cp/decl2.c:1878 with -fno-weak and variadic template
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67312
Bug ID: 67312
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in expand_expr_real_1
(expr.c:9561) with -ftree-coalesce-vars
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67311
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67240
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Aug 21 18:33:07 2015
New Revision: 227081
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227081&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67240
* constraint.cc (satisfy_implicit_conversion_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67240
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67309
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. it fails for me even before GCC 4.7.3, possibly since was first
added and included by .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67309
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67311
Bug ID: 67311
Summary: ICE calling subroutine with derived type as argument
within OpenMP parallel region
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61657
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 61657, which changed state.
Bug 61657 Summary: Undefined behavior in loop-iv.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61657
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61657
--- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Author: trippels
Date: Fri Aug 21 16:44:30 2015
New Revision: 227075
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227075&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR61657 (undefined behavior in loop-iv.c)
bootstrap-ubsan s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67310
Bug ID: 67310
Summary: [PATCH] gcc 4.8.4 fails to compile with -march=native
on VIA nano CPU
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhanceme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67309
Bug ID: 67309
Summary: Error compiling with -std=c++11 and
-fsingle-precision-constant
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58972
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 58972, which changed state.
Bug 58972 Summary: Lambda can't access private members
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58972
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64816
--- Comment #4 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Sorry for the noise, I managed to drop out that last line, bummer. So no, this
hasn't been fixed yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64816
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
Hi Ville. Unfortunately it still fails for me, in the same way. Are you using
the complete testcase, including the line outside namespace std?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67308
Bug ID: 67308
Summary: FATAL: ThreadSanitizer: unexpected memory mapping
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67304
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #1)
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org wrote:
>
> > -D generate documentation
>
> The driver needs to know what's an option and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61657
--- Comment #9 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Patch posted: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-08/msg01308.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61657
--- Comment #8 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Maybe the easiest way to reproduce the issue is as in the following;
gdb ~/local/gcc-5.2.0-sanitized/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/5.2.0/cc1
GNU gdb (GDB) Fedora 7.8.2-39.fc21
Copyright (C) 2014 Free
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67306
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 36233
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36233&action=edit
patch
Patch I am testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67306
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67304
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67307
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I don't see an obvious reason to disregard limits here, but haven't
checked the history of the code. C99 inline functions must always have an
extern version provided somewhere in the progr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67307
Bug ID: 67307
Summary: FE considers 'inline int foo ()' as always-inline,
inlining not disabled via -fno-early-inlining
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61657
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61657
--- Comment #6 from Vittorio Zecca ---
A shorter source file displaying the same bug:
// from pr42049.c
// gcc -funroll-loops -O
// ../../gcc-5.2.0/gcc/loop-iv.c:2670:14: runtime error:
// signed integer overflow: 7 - -9223372036854775808 canno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64816
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58972
--- Comment #13 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Looks like the fix for https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66957
may have fixed this one, too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67304
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org wrote:
> -D generate documentation
The driver needs to know what's an option and what's an option argument,
so that it can id
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66957
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67302
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67306
Bug ID: 67306
Summary: Patterns ICEs when moved using "simplify and match"
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67302
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67305
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67305
Bug ID: 67305
Summary: [6 Regression] gcc.c-torture/compile/20121027-1.c ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67304
Bug ID: 67304
Summary: Allow front-ends to share command-line options with
different behaviours
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67295
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67298
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67301
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67284
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67284
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Looks like
--- a/gcc/gimple-ssa-isolate-paths.c
+++ b/gcc/gimple-ssa-isolate-paths.c
@@ -115,7 +115,8 @@ insert_trap (gimple_stmt_iterator *si_p, tree op)
else
gsi_insert_before (si_p, seq, GSI_NEW_S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67227
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67285
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Aug 21 08:06:20 2015
New Revision: 227053
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227053&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-21 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/67285
* gim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67285
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67303
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is a partly false negative. In the sense the load from ws->start just
needs to be __atomic_load(&ws->start, RELAX) to be correct. This in it of
itself is the same as what it is correctly doing. Just r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67284
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64le-linux-gnu, |powerpc64le-linux-gnu,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67303
Bug ID: 67303
Summary: libgomp: ThreadSanitizer: data race in libgomp
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67302
Bug ID: 67302
Summary: copy elision in return (expression)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c++
73 matches
Mail list logo
