https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68371
Bug ID: 68371
Summary: complex number will be initialized a NAN
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66214
--- Comment #23 from Magnus Fromreide ---
One more question - you are using the command
g++ -g file_that_include_ssl_h.cpp
right? Building it as C works for me as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #38 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 36724
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36724&action=edit
An updated patch to add empty_record_p
I am testing it now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68362
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68370
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
// text++;
Can't this be computed as:
text = text POINTER_PLUS 1;
?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #37 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #35)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #34)
> >
> > So no FIELD_DECL as part of fields; only var or type or method_decl?
>
> struct dummy { };
> struct true_type {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68370
Bug ID: 68370
Summary: Pointer arithmetic in libgccjit seems to require an
extra cast
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #36721|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #35 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #34)
>
> So no FIELD_DECL as part of fields; only var or type or method_decl?
struct dummy { };
struct true_type { struct dummy i; };
gave:
(gdb) cal debug_tree (type)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68369
Bug ID: 68369
Summary: Unnecessary copying esp to ebp with regparm={1,2,3} on
x86 at -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66214
--- Comment #22 from Guille ---
For what it's worth, I just checked again openssl-1.0.2d builds fine with 'gcc
6.0.0 20151108' on OSX 10.9.5.
Checked it is running the right gcc (both with and without '-g'), configured
with 'darwin-i386-cc' and '
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #34 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #33)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #32)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #31)
> > > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #30)
> > > >
> > > > Isn't an e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68366
--- Comment #1 from tbsaunde at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tbsaunde
Date: Mon Nov 16 02:28:15 2015
New Revision: 230402
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230402&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 68366 - include emit-rtl.h in sdbout.c
Some of the pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #33 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #32)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #31)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #30)
> > >
> > > Isn't an empty record is one without any field decls?
> >
> > I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #32 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #31)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #30)
> >
> > Isn't an empty record is one without any field decls?
>
> I thin it is language specific.
How so? An record w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68115
--- Comment #7 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Whatever works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #31 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #30)
>
> Isn't an empty record is one without any field decls?
I thin it is language specific.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66214
--- Comment #21 from Magnus Fromreide ---
Odd. I have just tried with a freshly built gcc and openssl-1.0.2d and the
build still fails on line 351 (the definition of struct bn_gencb_st)
On the other hand, I am running x86_64-linux, not osx.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #30 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #29)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #27)
> > Comment on attachment 36720 [details]
> > A patch
> >
> > How does this interact with LTO where lang_hooks.decls.emp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68365
--- Comment #2 from tprince at computer dot org ---
Created attachment 36722
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36722&action=edit
fortran source
gfortran -c lcdmod.f90 should take care of the missing .mod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68095
--- Comment #5 from David ---
> the target code adds a cc clobber always.
Agreed. On i386, there is no way to say that an extended asm doesn't clobber
"cc", so it only serves as a comment on that specific platform.
> There is no conflict.
I b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #29 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #27)
> Comment on attachment 36720 [details]
> A patch
>
> How does this interact with LTO where lang_hooks.decls.empty_record_p is not
> defined?
We can stream out empty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #36720|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68277
--- Comment #10 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #9)
> At the current (lack of) pace I don't know when all of that will be done.
> So my idea was to at least reduce the R0 problem for users by making LRA the
> default
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66214
--- Comment #20 from Guille ---
(In reply to Magnus Fromreide from comment #19)
> When you say "latest openssl", do you refer to trunk or 1.0.2d? It seems
> that the problem is gone from openssl trunk due to a source reorganization
> but it seems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68358
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Can you please bisect SVN revision that is responsible for these failures?
The warnings are issued by dsymutil coming with Xcode 7 for darwin14 or 15. If
I replace it with dsymutil coming from Xcode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61502
Alexander Cherepanov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ch3root at openwall dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #27 from Andrew Pinski ---
Comment on attachment 36720
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36720
A patch
How does this interact with LTO where lang_hooks.decls.empty_record_p is not
defined?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #26 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 36720
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36720&action=edit
A patch
I am testing this patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #42 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
On 2015-11-16 00:48, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
>
> --- Comment #41 from Andrew Pinski ---
> (In reply to Alexander Cherepanov from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #41 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alexander Cherepanov from comment #40)
> Ok, this program:
>
> #include
> #include
>
> int main() {
>int y, x = 0;
>int *volatile v = &x;
>int *xp = v;
>int *i = &y + 1;
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68368
Bug ID: 68368
Summary: [6 regression] ICE tree check: expected integer_cst,
have nop_expr in decompose, at tree.h:5123
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #40 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
Ok, this program:
#include
#include
int main() {
int y, x = 0;
int *volatile v = &x;
int *xp = v;
int *i = &y + 1;
if (xp != i) {
printf("hello\n");
xp = i;
}
prin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68367
Bug ID: 68367
Summary: ICE in vectorizable_load, at tree-vect-stmts.c:6711
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #39 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alexander Cherepanov from comment #38)
> IMHO this bug is not specific to integers and boils down to this: when a
> check for equality ignores provenance for some reason, phiopt nevertheless
> w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
Alexander Cherepanov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ch3root at openwall dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68360
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
For AARCH64 GCC does a much better job:
foo:
stp x29, x30, [sp, -32]!
add x29, sp, 0
ldrbw1, [x29,28]
lsr w2, w0, 2
bfi w1, w2, 2, 2
lsr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68366
Bug ID: 68366
Summary: [6 Regression] sdbout.c build error
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68358
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68365
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68365
Bug ID: 68365
Summary: gfortran test case showing performance loss with
vectorization
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66214
--- Comment #19 from Magnus Fromreide ---
When you say "latest openssl", do you refer to trunk or 1.0.2d? It seems that
the problem is gone from openssl trunk due to a source reorganization but it
seems to still be present in 1.0.2d.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68362
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a...@cloudius-systems.com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68364
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68364
Bug ID: 68364
Summary: ICE in tree_check()
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassig
root
--with-as=/usr/libexec/gcc/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/as
--with-ld=/usr/libexec/gcc/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/ld
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20151115 (experimental) (GCC)
RTL checking must be enabled.
Tested revisions:
trunk r230394 - ICE
5-branch r229483 - ICE
4_9-branch r229291 - ICE
4_8-branch r224828 - OK
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36854
Bug 36854 depends on bug 38115, which changed state.
Bug 38115 Summary: unneeded temp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38115
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38115
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68362
Bug ID: 68362
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected integer_cst,
have nop_expr in get_val, at tree.h:5157
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68115
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-11-15, at 10:46 AM, ian at airs dot com wrote:
> The HAVE_SYNC_FUNCTIONS test is in libbacktrace/internal.h, and it #define's
> the functions. You can see that that is happening because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68115
--- Comment #5 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
The HAVE_SYNC_FUNCTIONS test is in libbacktrace/internal.h, and it #define's
the functions. You can see that that is happening because the warning is about
a macro expansion. It looks like we just need t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68115
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68361
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68360
Bug ID: 68360
Summary: GCC bitfield processing code is very inefficient
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68361
Bug ID: 68361
Summary: [6 regression] Bootstrap failure with
--enable-checking=release
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68117
--- Comment #25 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
I think the issue is caused by Richi's r229405.
In this patch the following two lines were accidentally removed from
tree-ssa.c (delete_tree_ssa):
- /* We no longer need the edge variable maps. *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68328
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson ---
I'm on Fedora 20 / x86_64 (Ivy Bridge i7-3770K) w/ the 4.3 Linux kernel. I've
tried various combinations of bootstrap compiler (system gcc-4.8.3 or my own
gcc-4.9.3 + patches), support libraries (system
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49954
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Nov 15 14:07:52 2015
New Revision: 230396
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230396&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-15 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/50221
PR fortran/68216
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66408
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Nov 15 14:07:52 2015
New Revision: 230396
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230396&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-15 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/50221
PR fortran/68216
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68216
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Nov 15 14:07:52 2015
New Revision: 230396
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230396&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-15 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/50221
PR fortran/68216
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50221
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Nov 15 14:07:52 2015
New Revision: 230396
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230396&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-15 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/50221
PR fortran/68216
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63932
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Nov 15 14:07:52 2015
New Revision: 230396
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230396&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-15 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/50221
PR fortran/68216
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67674
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Nov 15 14:07:52 2015
New Revision: 230396
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230396&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-15 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/50221
PR fortran/68216
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68117
--- Comment #24 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Forgot to mention: ggc_collect happens during pass_reload.
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: adam at os dot inf.tu-dresden.de
Target Milestone: ---
With gcc version 6.0.0 20151115 (experimental) (GCC), x86_64:
$ cat t.i
struct G {};
struct L
{
enum class T { S } t;
G f() const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68358
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67958
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68356
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67973
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67710
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68357
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68358
Bug ID: 68358
Summary: Some tests in gfortran.dg fail when compiled with '-g
-flto' and Xcode 7
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #23)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #22)
> > This is a target independent issue. Clang++ skips empty struct argument
> > and g++ passes it. Skip empty struct argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||60336
--- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu ---
I thin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu ---
It is related to PR 68355. With -finline-small-functions, we call
std::_Hashtable,
std::__detail::_Identity, std::equal_to, std::hash,
std::__detail::_Mod_range_hashing, std::__detail::_Default_ranged_hash,
std:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68353
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Sun Nov 15 11:15:08 2015
New Revision: 230395
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230395&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/68353 fix _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_WCHAR test
PR libstdc++/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68353
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68357
Bug ID: 68357
Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/other/darwin-cfstring1.C
-std=* (internal compiler error) on
x86_64-apple-darwin1(0|4)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68356
Bug ID: 68356
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr68264.c -O* execution test
on x86_64-apple-darwin1(0|4)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68346
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68355
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
clang doesn't pass constant byte at all:
[hjl@gnu-tools-1 pr67239]$
/export/build/gnu/llvm-clang/build-x86_64-linux/bin/clang -S -O2 foo.ii
-std=c++11
[hjl@gnu-tools-1 pr67239]$ cat foo.s
.text
.f
82 matches
Mail list logo
