https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90685
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
What kind of system are you running on?
What is the output of
../gcc-9.1.0/config.guess
?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88751
sbabneet at ca dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sbabneet at ca dot ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
--- Comment #20 from Qi Feng ---
I have tried to merge signed and unsigned together:
/* x > y && x != ( 0 or XXX_MIN ) --> x > y */
(for and (truth_and bit_and)
(simplify
(and:c (gt:c@3 @0 @1) (ne @0 INTEGER_CST@2))
(if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68489
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I'm not sure about arrays of structs, but glibc uses [0] at end of struct
in some cases where proper flexible array members would not be accepted.
E.g.
struct __gconv_info
{
size_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90685
Bug ID: 90685
Summary: failure of go in gcc-9.1.0 to build in
i686-pc-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90682
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90598
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90682
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It doesn't seem appropriate to me.
If we don't want to support it we could just add __attribute__((__nonnull__))
to std::set_terminate, but I think we should support it (and so don't want it
to produce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90578
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #5)
> Compiling
>
> print *, lshift(1,-1)
> end
>
> gives the following error
>
> lshift.f90:1:16:
>
> 1 | print *, lshift(1,-1)
> |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89254
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #1)
> I don't think you should be seeing a thread deadlock in std.net.curl after
> r268746.
Indeed, thanks.
> I've not been able to reproduce the never timing out part.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89955
--- Comment #5 from Jim Wilson ---
OK, sounds like we need to move STARTFILE_PREFIX_SPEC into various OS header
files then. That will require some testing. I caught a virus last week and am
behind on everything, so I haven't had a chance to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90665
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Building with GCC is fine, and your configure options look fine.
Please attach the output of
go build -x ./...
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90645
--- Comment #8 from martin ---
Thanks for the clarification.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90665
--- Comment #2 from Thorsten A. Knieling ---
May be I use the wrong configure options.
I used a gcc compiler rather then an Solaris compiler to build gcc 9.1.0.
My configure looks like this
../configure --prefix=/gcc-solaris-9.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47099
Andris Pavenis changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47093
Bug 47093 depends on bug 47099, which changed state.
Bug 47099 Summary: i686-pc-msdosdjgpp fails to build i386.o:
ASM_DECLARE_FUNCTION_NAME undefined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47099
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90683
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90598
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu May 30 17:23:32 2019
New Revision: 271783
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271783=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/90598
* tree.c (lvalue_kind): Return clk_none for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90578
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Compiling
print *, lshift(1,-1)
end
gives the following error
lshift.f90:1:16:
1 | print *, lshift(1,-1)
|1
Error: Second argument of LSHIFT is negative at (1)
While
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90682
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90665
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I built gccgo on a SPARC Solaris 12 machine, but was unable to recreate the
problem. For me your program built and ran fine.
Please attach the output of
go build -x ./...
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90645
--- Comment #7 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Among the requirements for gccgo is support for Thread Local Storage. If your
system does not support that, gccgo cannot work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61180
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90684
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |driver
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71482
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61180
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337
--- Comment #14 from Martin Sebor ---
Changing the size to zero is a variant of one the solutions I was referring to
in comment #12: replacing the call with __builtin_unreachable. Rather than
(possibly) eliminating (most of) the path leading up
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90684
Bug ID: 90684
Summary: New alignment options incorrectly report error
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90683
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64*-unknown-linux-gn |powerpc64*-unknown-linux-gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68901
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Trass3r from comment #7)
> Created attachment 46435 [details]
> cleanup
>
> The previous patch should also allow removing these hacks (untested).
> Though TYPE_ARTIFICIAL wasn't set in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68901
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Trass3r from comment #5)
> Wpadded only checks for input_location != BUILTINS_LOCATION currently
> (stor-layout.c).
> Maybe something like !DECL_ARTIFICIAL(rli->t) should be added there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90683
Bug ID: 90683
Summary: new test case g++.dg/cpp0x/pr90598.C in r271752 has
excess errors
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68901
--- Comment #7 from krux ---
Created attachment 46435
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46435=edit
cleanup
The previous patch should also allow removing these hacks (untested).
Though TYPE_ARTIFICIAL wasn't set in any of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68901
--- Comment #6 from krux ---
Created attachment 46434
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46434=edit
proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #49 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #48)
> I see the performance is back as seen here:
> https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=21.270.0
>
> -Ofast periodic tester hasn't finished yet,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90682
Bug ID: 90682
Summary: std::terminate() will happily call a null terminate
handler
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90681
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||26163
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90681
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90681
Bug ID: 90681
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in
vect_slp_analyze_node_operations_1, at
tree-vect-slp.c:2513 since r271704
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90680
Bug ID: 90680
Summary: Misleading fixit warning with pointers to pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90677
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90679
Bug ID: 90679
Summary: Template specialization with const: “ambiguous
template instantiation” error
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68489
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
if GCC rejects such arrays of trailing-array structs, and my assumption that
glibc is in C, I don't think it can be using them.
IMHO they don't make sense and a compile time error would be good.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90673
--- Comment #4 from Yaro Slav ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Can you provide the preprocessed source and the exact options being used?
Options and version are here (apparently it's present in gcc 9.1.0 as well):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90677
--- Comment #3 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Created attachment 46432
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46432=edit
tree-mudflap.i.gz
If it helps here is complete tree-mudflap.i from gcc-4.6.4 as is:
// fails:
// $
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90577
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> Has the code
>
> /* Left and right shift C routines, to compare to Fortran results. */
> int c_lshift_ (int *x, int *y) { return (*x) << (*y); }
> int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90677
--- Comment #2 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> If the GCC 4.6.4 code is not valid C then it's not a bug to reject it.
Can you clarify what specifically here is not valid C? Should gcc-8 also reject
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90577
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Has the code
/* Left and right shift C routines, to compare to Fortran results. */
int c_lshift_ (int *x, int *y) { return (*x) << (*y); }
int c_rshift_ (int *x, int *y) { return (*x) >> (*y); }
a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12849
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 90539, which changed state.
Bug 90539 Summary: [10 Regression] 481.wrf slowdown by 25% on Intel Kaby with
-Ofast -march=native starting with r271377
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #47 from Thomas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90646
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to myLC from comment #8)
> This is possible. I built 9.1.0 from source and got new issues, though.
> Chances are, my system could be too old.
The std::filesystem code (and everything else in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90634
--- Comment #15 from baltic <1000hz.radiowave at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14)
> It's true that the standard does not require path::iterator to be usable in
> generic algorithms that expect forward iterators
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68901
--- Comment #5 from krux ---
Wpadded only checks for input_location != BUILTINS_LOCATION currently
(stor-layout.c).
Maybe something like !DECL_ARTIFICIAL(rli->t) should be added there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90669
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
shabits.assign(digest.begin(), digest.end()) would've worked too, and not
required any vector reallocations as it grows.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52981
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to krux from comment #6)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
> > This is quite easy to implement.
>
> It's not as trivial as one might think.
> There's some copy-paste code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68901
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90678
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Reduced test-case:
$ cat strstream.ii
class basic_ios {
public:
virtual ~basic_ios();
};
class basic_ostream : virtual basic_ios {};
class strstream : basic_ostream {
~strstream();
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90678
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
$ as --version
GNU assembler (GNU Binutils; openSUSE Leap 15.1) 2.31.1.20180828-lp151.2
$ ld --version
GNU ld (GNU Binutils; openSUSE Leap 15.1) 2.31.1.20180828-lp151.2
$ uname -a
Linux needle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90678
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90678
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
libtool: compile: /home/mliska/Programming/gcc/objdir/./gcc/xgcc
-shared-libgcc -B/home/mliska/Programming/gcc/objdir/./gcc -nostdinc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90678
Bug ID: 90678
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in
aarch64_return_address_signing_enabled, at
config/aarch64/aarch64.c:4865 since r271735
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82853
krux changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hoganmeier at gmail dot com
--- Comment #34 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90671
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90523
krux changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87076
krux changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hoganmeier at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90677
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If the GCC 4.6.4 code is not valid C then it's not a bug to reject it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90677
Bug ID: 90677
Summary: gcc-9.1.0 fails to build __gcc_diag__ souce: error:
'cgraph_node' is not defined as a type
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82920
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Thu May 30 08:00:45 2019
New Revision: 271766
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271766=gcc=rev
Log:
Darwin, backport fix for PR82920 part3 (other CET test fixes).
gcc/testsuite/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82920
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Thu May 30 07:56:10 2019
New Revision: 271765
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271765=gcc=rev
Log:
Darwin, backport fix for PR82920 part2 (mx32 is not supported)
gcc/
2019-05-30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82920
--- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Thu May 30 07:51:32 2019
New Revision: 271764
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271764=gcc=rev
Log:
Darwin, backport fix for pr82920 (part1, code)
gcc/
2019-05-30 Iain Sandoe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90645
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Are there any chances to get gccgo build on this machine by the following
> options?
> - crosscompiling
> - update libc
Cross-compiling doesn't really matter here if you ultimately need to run the Go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90676
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90645
--- Comment #5 from martin ---
Are there any chances to get gccgo build on this machine by the following
options?
- crosscompiling
- update libc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90672
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90674
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90671
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90672
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
I can't reproduce that on x86_64, sorry I don't have access to your target.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52981
--- Comment #7 from krux ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68901
is an example of missed -Wpadded suppression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68901
krux changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hoganmeier at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52981
krux changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hoganmeier at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 from
82 matches
Mail list logo
