error is still emitted:
b = A(:,iter))
1
Error: Invalid character in name at (1)
This was confirmed with gcc built this morning (gcc version 6.0.0 20150707)
Also, while I'll agree that Unclassifiable statement is better than Invalid
character in name, it would be nicer to see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
--- Comment #1 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat derodat at adacore dot com ---
Created attachment 35923
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35923action=edit
Part of the reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66791
Bug ID: 66791
Summary: Replace builtins with gcc vector extensions code
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66523
--- Comment #9 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ok. Ok for all active release branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66642
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue Jul 7 16:25:22 2015
New Revision: 225521
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225521root=gccview=rev
Log:
Add empty loop exit block in transform_to_exit_first_loop_alt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41861
--- Comment #9 from Mike Crowe mac at mcrowe dot com ---
It seems that there's been lots of talk about this but no firm solution. Here's
some interesting links:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2009/n2999.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41861
--- Comment #10 from Mike Crowe mac at mcrowe dot com ---
(In reply to Mike Crowe from comment #9)
3. condition_variable should support wait_until using at least steady_clock
(CLOCK_MONOTONIC) and system_clock (CLOCK_REALTIME.) Relative wait
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
Bug ID: 66790
Summary: Invalid uninitialized register handling in REE
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
--- Comment #2 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat derodat at adacore dot com ---
Created attachment 35924
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35924action=edit
Part of the reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
--- Comment #3 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat derodat at adacore dot com ---
Created attachment 35925
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35925action=edit
Part of the reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=887
--- Comment #9 from Aaron Graham aaron at aarongraham dot com ---
Thanks. I had already patched our gcc so that gthreads cond always gets
initialized with CLOCK_MONOTONIC, then I switched __clock_t in
condition_variable to steady_clock. It was a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66792
Bug ID: 66792
Summary: Document sort template in bits/list.tcc
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66785
Bug ID: 66785
Summary: internal compiler error in record_operand_use
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66768
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66773
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
A cast is seldom a good solution, but even equality tests have the potential to
go wrong with C's composite type rules.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66780
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #1)
It turned out that the fix for PR65249 causes this problem.
The codes for stack protect can be inserted after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66786
Bug ID: 66786
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66784
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66768
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
IVOPTs seems to carry address-space info on 'type' here (in fact if I amend
tree dumping with address-space dumping on memory references I fail to get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66739
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jul 7 07:46:57 2015
New Revision: 225502
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225502root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-07-07 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66523
Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52144
--- Comment #10 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Tue Jul 7 07:56:10 2015
New Revision: 225503
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225503root=gccview=rev
Log:
Cleanup arch file directive.
PR target/52144
* config/arm/elf.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66786
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66739
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66733
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66538
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66703
--- Comment #2 from Yulia Koval julia.koval at intel dot com ---
Why zero-extend with and is better than zero-extend with movz? Why it's ok to
clobber the flags?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66523
--- Comment #11 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
No, but one has to get RM approval. Should be easy enough to get that, as long
as the work gets done before they make the last snapshot.
Does someone have the regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66334
--- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10)
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #9)
I will work on the patch and commit it on next week.
Thanks.
I tried this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66523
--- Comment #10 from Jack Howarth howarth.at.gcc at gmail dot com ---
I assume we have missed the window for gcc 5.2.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56520
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 07:10:48PM +, casey.webster at gmail dot com wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56520
--- Comment #7 from Casey Webster
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66779
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Jul 7 19:22:01 2015
New Revision: 225522
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225522root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR jit/66779: fix segfault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56829
Peter Cordes peter at cordes dot ca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66783
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Jul 7 19:29:58 2015
New Revision: 225523
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225523root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR jit/66783: prevent use of opaque structs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56520
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 05:23:17PM +, casey.webster at gmail dot com wrote:
Also, while I'll agree that Unclassifiable statement is better
than Invalid character
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56520
--- Comment #7 from Casey Webster casey.webster at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #6)
On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 05:23:17PM +, casey.webster at gmail dot com
wrote:
Also, while I'll agree that Unclassifiable
--enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150707 (experimental) [trunk revision 225501] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -Os -c small.c
small.c: In function ‘fn1’:
small.c:18:10: warning: function returns address of local variable
[-Wreturn-local-addr]
return *c;
^
small.c:12:7: note
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66780
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Tue Jul 7 20:39:28 2015
New Revision: 225526
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225526root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/66780
* config/sh/sh.md
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150707 (experimental) [trunk revision 225501] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O1 small.c
$ gcc-5.1 -Os small.c
$
$ gcc-trunk -Os small.c
small.c: In function ‘main’:
small.c:18:1: error: control flow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66782
--- Comment #3 from marcus at jet dot franken.de ---
Created attachment 35927
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35927action=edit
testcase-min.i
gcc -S -fPIC -O2 -g testcase.i -o testcase.s
there will be a pattern to spot the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52846
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35926
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35926action=edit
A partially cooked patch to complete the implentation of submodules
The attached is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66782
--- Comment #4 from marcus at jet dot franken.de ---
(actually not sure this is the same issue that my wine colleagueds are seeing,
but it also a miscompilation)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66795
Bug ID: 66795
Summary: Incorrect and missed optimizations of
__builtin_frame_address
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66796
Bug ID: 66796
Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/hppa/shadd-1.c scan-assembler-times
sh.add 1
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66777
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66777
dongkyun.s at samsung dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66797
Bug ID: 66797
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr65447.c scan-tree-dump-not
ivopts \\nuse 5\\n
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66788
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
Not sure what is correct behavior here (Jakub points out mangling ignores
the over-alignment).
Even ignoring the over-alignment, const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65249
Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64036
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #2)
An example function, compiling with -O2 -m4:
int test_0 (unsigned short* x, int y, int z)
{
return
(x[0] + x[1] + x[2] + x[3] +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66788
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66788
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66788
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.5, 6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64036
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've just tried the following example on the AMS branch:
float fun (float* x)
{
return x[0] + x[1] + x[2] + x[3];
}
no AMS:
mov r4,r1
add #4,r1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65991
--- Comment #5 from Дилян Палаузов dilyan.palauzov at aegee dot org ---
The problem does not appear anymore, since I upgraded gcc 4.9.2 - 4.9.3 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14940
--- Comment #49 from Martin Richter xricht17 at stud dot fit.vutbr.cz ---
(In reply to Martin Richter from comment #47)
My apologies, that patch is incorrect - `VirtualAlloc` still uses
`pch_VA_max_size` instead of `size`.
Some discussion about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66578
--- Comment #18 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Tue Jul 7 11:10:12 2015
New Revision: 225507
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225507root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2015-07-07 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66787
--- Comment #1 from Minjae Kim denmark114 at naver dot com ---
Oops, I swapped `create` and `print`. gcc does tail call elimination on
`create` but it doesn't on `print`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66768
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 7 Jul 2015, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66768
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So address
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66780
--- Comment #4 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #2)
Could this also be the cause for PR66312 and PR66563 after all?
My 2 cents.
I've just revert the problematic part on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66788
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reduced testcase:
#include cstdint
#include deque
typedef uint64_t cl_ulong __attribute__((aligned(8)));
std::dequecl_ulong args_qualifier;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66780
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Tue Jul 7 12:29:16 2015
New Revision: 225512
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225512root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/66780
* config/sh/sh.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66770
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66759
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66788
Bug ID: 66788
Summary: [5 Regression] Rejects instantiation of class
std::dequelong long unsigned int with -m32
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66787
Bug ID: 66787
Summary: gcc fails tail call elimination
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66788
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.2 |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66780
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66788
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66768
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So address space info is kept and checked in base object's type of MEM_REF. As
in function expand_expr_real_1:
case TARGET_MEM_REF:
{
addr_space_t as
= TYPE_ADDR_SPACE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66788
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58493
--- Comment #5 from vgrebinski at gmail dot com vgrebinski at gmail dot com
---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #4)
Checked that this works with current gcc-6/5/4.9. Can this be closed now?
I'm fine to close it since the bug is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65988
Jesus Cea jcea at jcea dot es changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56520
--- Comment #9 from Casey Webster casey.webster at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #8)
On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 07:10:48PM +, casey.webster at gmail dot com
wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56520
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66303
--- Comment #12 from stli at linux dot vnet.ibm.com stli at linux dot
vnet.ibm.com ---
The glibc bug https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18508
is fixed upstream with commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64036
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #3)
else if (flag_exceptions)
{
if (flag_schedule_insns global_options_set.x_flag_schedule_insns)
warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66703
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Yulia Koval from comment #2)
Why zero-extend with and is better than zero-extend with movz? Why it's ok
to clobber the flags?
According to Intel Pentium optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66787
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
5 words: temporary whose address is taken
Due to c++ references.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66789
Bug ID: 66789
Summary: FAIL: tr1/8_c_compatibility/complex/50880.cc (test for
excess errors) on bare-metal targets
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66789
--- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Forgot to mention, bisection showed that it started with:
Author: redi redi@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4
Date: Mon Jan 26 23:42:39 2015 +
PR libstdc++/64368
*
81 matches
Mail list logo
