https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65030
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65031
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65035
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65036
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65037
Bug ID: 65037
Summary: cpp inserts spurious newlines
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65037
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65015
--- Comment #5 from conchur at web dot de ---
Thanks for the patches. I've rebuild the gcc package (which took the whole
afternoon + night on my machine) and can verify that the mini testcases are now
working perfectly fine.
I've also tried this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65037
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
See PR54005 for some of the history.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65017
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
Terry Guo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||terry.guo at arm dot com
--- Comment #35 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65015
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to conchur from comment #5)
> Thanks for the patches. I've rebuild the gcc package (which took the whole
> afternoon + night on my machine) and can verify that the mini testcases are
> now working
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32667
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
One way to "fix" this is to emit the memcpy as
if (p != q)
memcpy (p, q, ...);
but of course that comes at a cost in code-size and runtime for no obvious good
reason (in practice).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64837
--- Comment #19 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #18)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #17)
> > (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #16)
> > > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #15)
> > > > (In repl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #36 from Kai Tietz ---
Well, I guess that you missed to reconfigure gcc. By checking current source
is the include of ftw.h guarded by HAVE_FTW_H check, which get defined by
configure if header is found.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #37 from Kai Tietz ---
I confirm that in libgcc we still have an issue ...
Could you please make a new report for libgcc's libgcov-util.c for it.
Thanks in advance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65034
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65034
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65038
Bug ID: 65038
Summary: Unable to find ftw.h for libgcov-util.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32667
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #38 from Terry Guo ---
(In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #37)
> I confirm that in libgcc we still have an issue ...
> Could you please make a new report for libgcc's libgcov-util.c for it.
>
> Thanks in advance
Reported it at http
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65014
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 12 09:45:27 2015
New Revision: 220640
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220640&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/65014
* fold-const.c (fold_binary_loc): When
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65019
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 12 09:48:44 2015
New Revision: 220641
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220641&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/65019
* ubsan.c (ubsan_expand_objsize_ifn): Always re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57653
--- Comment #28 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Feb 12 09:48:56 2015
New Revision: 220642
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220642&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-11 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2014-07-2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65039
Bug ID: 65039
Summary: g++ 5 segmentation fault when compiling with -O2
optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65039
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040
Bug ID: 65040
Summary: [5 Regression] gcc-5 -Wformat broken
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65031
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Appears to work with r220637. Checking if dup of PR65003.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65030
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Works with r220637 - may well be a dup of PR65003. Checking.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65036
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
May well be - works with r220637
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65035
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Works with r220637 - may well be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> Taking. I think check_format_types needs a small tweak to look thru
> NOP_EXPRs.
Well, more like do some lame VR computation and not warn if the signedness
does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65039
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I reproduced this with an out-of-date trunk build, but using today's trunk it
compiles OK, so seems to be fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59375
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo ---
Any updates regarding this problem?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040
Frank Ch. Eigler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fche at redhat dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65039
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65019
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65014
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64979
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 12 12:17:41 2015
New Revision: 220645
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220645&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2015-02-09 Jakub Jelinek
PR targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64979
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64837
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64990
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61047
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
*** Bug 64990 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65032
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64930
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 12 13:14:47 2015
New Revision: 220646
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220646&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/64930
* gcc.target/powerpc/atomic-p7.c: Adjust expec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64930
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62630
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65032
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65036
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65003
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65035
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65003
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
*** Bug 65035 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65027
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65003
--- Comment #7 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
*** Bug 65030 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65030
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65031
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65003
--- Comment #8 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
*** Bug 65031 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63607
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|mjambor at suse dot cz |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55342
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The #c10 issue went away with r204212 I believe.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Another example, with a function template:
struct s
{
static int i;
};
template
int s()
{
return s::i;
}
p.cc: In function ‘int s()’:
p.cc:9:10: error: ‘s’ is not a class, namespace, or enumeration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65012
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64443
Tejas Belagod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65041
Bug ID: 65041
Summary: Improve -Wclobbered
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39589
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994
--- Comment #9 from Momchil Velikov ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg00659.html(In reply to Jakub
Jelinek from comment #8)
> Have you pinged your patch? If a patch isn't reviewed within a week or two,
> you should ping it on gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042
Bug ID: 65042
Summary: gcc5 has a template depth problem that was fine in
gcc4
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64797
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think this is probably a bug in the test. I was expecting "Stop\\xff\\xff" to
cause a conversion error, but it is successfully converted to a wide string.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42575
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64275
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64984
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 12 15:38:33 2015
New Revision: 220649
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220649&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/64984
* except.c (check_noexcept_r): Return NULL for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64984
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64224
mshawcroft at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64930
--- Comment #12 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #9)
> My point was that if you write a testcase that specifically tests for
> consume and get acquire code then that is a fail. The code generated is
> using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65043
Bug ID: 65043
Summary: Expected narrowing conversion during list
initialization of bool from double
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #11 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
libbacktrace is all about stack backtraces. It is not about handling
exceptions.
libbacktrace handles inlined calls and hand written trampolines, assuming the
DWARF information is correct. libbacktrace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #12 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I should add that for purposes of Go, it's not all that important that
libbacktrace does not yet handle sibling calls, because the Go compiler turns
on -fno-optimize-sibling-calls by default
(https://gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042
--- Comment #2 from Matěj Cepl ---
Created attachment 34741
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34741&action=edit
preprocessed file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55541
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 12 18:09:59 2015
New Revision: 220650
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220650&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/55541
* cp-tree.h (BLOCK_OUTER_CURLY_BRACE_P): Define.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
What command line options are used?
With explicit -ftemplate-depth=25 (or even 27) it indeed fails, succeeds with
28, but the default is 900 AFAIK. Have those command line options changed in
any way since th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55541
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9/5 Regres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65042
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Yeah, the default is 900. (C++11 recommends 1024 AFAIK.)
>From what I can see they used
/usr/lib64/ccache/g++ -v -save-temps -g3 -O0 -DDEBUG -ftemplate-depth-25
-DHAVE_CONFIG_H -pthread -Idefault/src/main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033
--- Comment #5 from Bin Fan ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #3)
> (In reply to Bin Fan from comment #0)
> > 2. g++ tries to make lock-free property per-type, but the libatomic.so
> > implementation does not match.
>
> This. We alway
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033
--- Comment #6 from Richard Henderson ---
(In reply to Bin Fan from comment #5)
> So after the fix, atomic_is_lock_free will always return 0 for
> size=3,align=1 atomic struct objects?
Yes.
> I understand currently libatomic tries to make an at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64932
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Thu Feb 12 19:30:53 2015
New Revision: 220654
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220654&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-12 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/64932
* trans-stmt.c (gfc_tran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64959
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Feb 12 20:21:34 2015
New Revision: 220656
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220656&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64959
* parser.c (lookup_literal_operator): Return all cand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64966
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64935
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #12
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo