https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64781
Tim Shen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65354
--- Comment #2 from Charlie ---
Here's a more succinct example (using the "+" trick to convert to a function
pointer):
#include
int main ()
{
auto f = +[] (std::string s)
{
return std::string (std::move (s));
};
std::stri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65321
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #4 from Honggyu Kim ---
Dear Mikael Pettersson
I also have a runtime testcase, which is different from dejagnu format.
Can I add this testcase with your modification as my first gcc contribution? :)
I was trying to fix this bug mysel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #5 from Honggyu Kim ---
I just wrote foo function code separately to debug gcc more easily by compile
only problematic code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65357
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to Honggyu Kim from comment #4)
> Can I add this testcase with your modification as my first gcc contribution?
> :)
Sure, just attach it to this PR as a new test case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65357
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
I missed there was a sequence point issue there too :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65284
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65359
Bug ID: 65359
Summary: [OOP] undefined output with array and inheritance
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64441
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64441
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kaballo86 at hotmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64781
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65336
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thibaut.lutz at googlemail dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Testcase from PR65336:
extern "C" int puts(const char*);
struct ostream {} cout;
template struct A{ T t; };
struct B{};
struct C : public B{};
ostream& operator<< (ostream& out, const B&)
{ puts("
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And the testcase from PR 61161:
struct T {
template void f(const T &v) {
0 << v;
}
};
namespace N {
struct X {};
struct Y : X {};
void operator<<(int, const X&) {}
}
void operator<<(int, c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65354
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62052
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||charlie at charliedyson dot net
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62052
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Segfaulting testcase from PR 65354:
#include
int main ()
{
auto f = +[] (std::string s)
{
return std::string (std::move (s));
};
std::string s ("hello");
f (std::move (s));
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65321
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60780
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I have doubled the number of modules to get the following results
gcc version 4.8.5
21.907u 0.994s 0:23.00 99.5%0+0k 0+22io 3pf+0w
-rw-r--r-- 1 dominiq staff 2923 Mar 9 10:59 module0.mod
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65360
Bug ID: 65360
Summary: Compiler error, while using gcc xml to parse a .c and
a .h file at the same time
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.6
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65360
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65270
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #32 from Richard B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65338
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc, openmp
Assignee|una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
callgrind shows the cgraph_edge_hasher quite high in the profile (via
redirect_all_calls). I suppose as the large main is a single BB walking
all stmts over-and-over is quite bad. Also hash_pointer isn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65321
--- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Thanks, looks good to me too FWIW.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65335
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65337
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65338
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.0 |---
Summary|[5 Regression] O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65341
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65349
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65346
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64715
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65353
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65342
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65238
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||emsr at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43660
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > [Note that the same issue exists with other ways of invoking using the
> > generator (e.g., a std::uniform_real_distribution with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65361
Bug ID: 65361
Summary: [5 Regression] LTO: tree check: expected tree that
contains ‘decl minimal’ structure, have ‘tree_binfo’
in add_type_duplicate, at ipa-devirt.c:1509
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65361
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 34990
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34990&action=edit
two.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64351
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64467
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Mar 9 12:47:51 2015
New Revision: 221279
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221279&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/64467
* testsuite/28_regex/traits/char/isctype.cc:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64446
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64467
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65361
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65270
--- Comment #33 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 9 13:54:28 2015
New Revision: 221281
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221281&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-09 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/65270
* tree-core.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65330
Bug 65330 depends on bug 65270, which changed state.
Bug 65270 Summary: [5 regression] issues with merging memory accesses from
different code paths
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65270
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65270
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65292
--- Comment #8 from John Marino ---
As a final follow up, webkit-qt5 built on a March 8 version of gcc5 with no
changes from my previous attempt.
Good news, thanks for the patch!
John
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65177
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65342
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65269
Andrew Sutton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew.n.sutton at gmail dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65353
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65361
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65349
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62630
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65024
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65355
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65121
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65323
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65222
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65045
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65121
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65362
Bug ID: 65362
Summary: OpenACC compilation on Tegra K1 (ARM)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65121
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65121
--- Comment #5 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Mon Mar 9 15:19:20 2015
New Revision: 221282
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221282&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR number for 65121 in Changelog.
PR target/65121
The commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #16)
> callgrind shows the cgraph_edge_hasher quite high in the profile (via
> redirect_all_calls). I suppose as the large main is a single BB walking
> all stmts o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65361
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #16)
> > callgrind shows the cgraph_edge_hasher quite high in the profile (via
> > redirect_all_calls). I suppose as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #21 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #18)
> I think this is worth investigating though because it's conceptually
> much simpler than adding yet another indirection. And we should
> concentrate on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927
--- Comment #22 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #20)
>> Yeah. There wasn't much point submitting it when it wouldn't work anyhow :}
>> Also see the README.archer file. It explains some changes that are needed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65361
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr65361_0.C.jj2015-03-09 16:43:42.720534781
+0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lto/pr65361_0.C2015-03-09 16:47:00.325356410 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+// { dg-lto-do link { xfail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65341
--- Comment #16 from Michael Meissner ---
As I can see there are several issues/whatever.
1) Each of the _ARCH_PWR is cumulative, so if you say -mcpu=power8 for
instance, it defines _ARCH_PWR4, _ARCH_PWR5, _ARCH_PWR5X, _ARCH_PWR6,
_ARCH_PWR7, an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65242
--- Comment #8 from Michael Meissner ---
I'm going to start looking at this. I suspect the issue is we need more checks
about the offset in TOC references. In particular, the 64-bit GPR load/store
instruction (ld, std), the sign-extended 32-bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65361
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Untested fix
Thanks! It looks good for the the original two unreduced files. Also, I have
finally been able again to compile the full code (at least with some op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65345
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Or e.g.
_Atomic int i = 5;
int j = sizeof (i + 1);
which is valid code not involving _Generic. And, similarly:
_Atomic int i = 5;
int j = sizeof (i = 0);
or
_Atomic int i = 5;
int j = s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65363
Bug ID: 65363
Summary: trivial redundant code reordering makes code less
optimal
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65341
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65345
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #4)
> Or e.g.
>
> _Atomic int i = 5;
> int j = sizeof (i + 1);
>
> which is valid code not involving _Generic. And, similarly:
>
> _Atomic int i = 5;
> in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65345
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
FWIW, my testcase was
/* PR c/65345 */
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "" } */
_Atomic int i = 3;
int g1 = sizeof (i + 1) + sizeof (-i);
int g2 = __builtin_constant_p (i + 1);
int g3 = 0 && i;
int g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64317
--- Comment #23 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So with a functional prototype in place, I can get good code for this test.
However, deeper testing of that prototype is proving difficult simply because
the postreload-gcse.c code very rarely does anythin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65364
Bug ID: 65364
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/uninit-19.c (test for warnings, line 22)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65222
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65364
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65364
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg00557.html for a patch and
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg00737.html for some analysis for
darwin.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63958
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 9 18:25:28 2015
New Revision: 221283
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221283&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/63958
Reapply:
2014-10-14 David S. Miller
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65120
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 9 18:26:52 2015
New Revision: 221284
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221284&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/65120
* c-typeck.c (parser_build_binary_op): Don't warn for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60780
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60780
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Is 40958 a duplicate of this PR or is there something else lurking?
AFAIU pr40958 comment 13, Janne was anticipating possible exponential behaviors
from a rather theoretical point of view. This PR i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63958
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for GCC 5 now, but the problem will likely reappear during next merge :(.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63958
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65364
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-03-09 2:08 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65364
>
> --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65339
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Mar 9 19:59:54 2015
New Revision: 221285
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221285&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65339
* call.c: Don't call maybe_resolve_dummy when calling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65361
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65361
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 9 20:19:34 2015
New Revision: 221286
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221286&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/65361
* ipa-devirt.c (add_type_duplicate): Don't use DECL_C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65339
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
