https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66852
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
See PR65709 for a similar issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66858
Bug ID: 66858
Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/pch/system-2.C -O2 -g
assembly comparison on aarch64-none-elf, arm-none-eabi
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66852
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
So I suppose the IsAligned template is wrong.
Yes.
390 template class T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66852
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The code in algparam.h is just disgusting. AssignFromHelperClass binds a
reference to NULL just to default-construct a temporary of some type, then
binds a const-reference to that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66852
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey Walton noloader at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
The code in algparam.h is just disgusting. AssignFromHelperClass binds a
reference to NULL just to default-construct a temporary of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709
Jeffrey Walton noloader at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||noloader at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46193
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66842
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |c
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm saying that if the program does not trigger undefined behavior (e.g. by
accessing misaligned integers without telling the compiler about it (by using
memcpy, or packed attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66857
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66852
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66852
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey Walton noloader at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
The code in algparam.h is just disgusting. AssignFromHelperClass binds a
reference to NULL just to default-construct a temporary of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66809
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709
--- Comment #16 from Jeffrey Walton noloader at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
I'm saying that if the program does not trigger undefined behavior (e.g. by
accessing misaligned integers without telling the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66856
Bug ID: 66856
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE in compute_live_loop_exits, at
tree-ssa-loop-manip.c:234
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66555
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66857
--- Comment #1 from Sebastian Lauwers sebastian.lauwers at gmail dot com ---
Command: g++ -v -save-temps test.cpp
Output:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/5.1.1/lto-wrapper
Target:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66852
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66854
Bug ID: 66854
Summary: libgcc2.c:1846:9: internal compiler error:
Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66852
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey Walton noloader at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
So I suppose the IsAligned template is wrong.
So I'm clear (please forgive my ignorance)...
According to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
--- Comment #14 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13)
Patch in testing.
This patch fixes the testcase, now we get:
inet_ntoa:
0: 41 56 push %r14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66760
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Paolo has submitted a patch for this issue to the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg00984.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jeffrey Walton from comment #16)
OK, so you'll have to forgive my ignorance again.
So you are saying that it may be a bug to use vmovdqa if the source and/or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64589
--- Comment #5 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Mon Jul 13 09:01:54 2015
New Revision: 225730
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225730root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2015-07-13 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #47 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Another cosmetic issue that I've noticed is that an extra newline is added
after every quoted comment.
For example:
test
reply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 35964
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35964action=edit
Combined middle/end/target patch
Patch in testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66852
--- Comment #12 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jeffrey Walton from comment #10)
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
So I suppose the IsAligned template is wrong.
So I'm clear (please forgive
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13)
Created attachment 35964 [details]
Combined middle/end/target patch
Patch in testing.
I tried it on GCC 5 and it works on glibc. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66857
Bug ID: 66857
Summary: Reference not bound to lvalue
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66852
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So I suppose the IsAligned template is wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66726
--- Comment #9 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
On m68k:
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr46309.c scan-tree-dump-times reassoc1 Optimizing range tests
a_[0-9]*.D. -.1, 1. and -.3, 3.[\n\r]* into 1
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr46309.c scan-tree-dump-times reassoc1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66855
Bug ID: 66855
Summary: codecvt wrong endianness in UTF-16 conversions
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65913
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66855
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66848
--- Comment #8 from Jack Howarth howarth.at.gcc at gmail dot com ---
Note that radr://21372179 has been closed by Apple as behaves as expected' so
that they believe the bug lies in the FSF gcc boehm-gc code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66834
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #9)
So it seems that applying the DR 1430 tentative resolution to concepts severely
limits the usability of variadic concepts, and we should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66864
Bug ID: 66864
Summary: floor function error
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee:
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150713 (experimental) [trunk revision 225727] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O1 small.c; ./a.out
$ gcc-5.1 -Os small.c; ./a.out
$
$ gcc-trunk -Os small.c
$ ./a.out
Floating point exception (core dumped)
$
-
int a, b;
int
fn1 (int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23664
hs.naveen naveen_gcc at indiatimes dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||naveen_gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66852
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey Walton noloader at gmail dot com ---
A quick update
We did out best to take the advice of Jakub, Janathan, Markus and others:
https://github.com/weidai11/cryptopp/commit/9bf0eed0f6ff6d0b0a2d277e5401d69dc8c0e394.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66092
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jul 14 04:11:11 2015
New Revision: 225758
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225758root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/66092
PR c++/66834
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66834
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jul 14 04:11:11 2015
New Revision: 225758
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225758root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/66092
PR c++/66834
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19987
Bug 19987 depends on bug 23664, which changed state.
Bug 23664 Summary: fold does not change (aC1)+(bC2) to (aC1)|(bC2) iff (C1
C2) == 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23664
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23664
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66857
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66829
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We either need to change how we build testsuite_shared.cc, or change what goes
into it.
--- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/libstdc++.exp
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/libstdc++.exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63345
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I believe all the real problems are fixed now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66856
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=66857
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The gimple dump shows a temporary int being created from the global, and the
temporary is passed to the constructor.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66859
Bug ID: 66859
Summary: internal compiler error: in lower_stmt
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66851
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66862
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66828
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The C standard says nothing about the cumulative effect of several shift so I'm
guessing that the real issue is probably that the type is signed. Quoting C99
section 6.5.8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63522
aaron.mcdaid at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aaron.mcdaid at gmail dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66861
Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66861
--- Comment #3 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Or rather, also fixing another similar potential issue, you might instead want
to test this:
diff --git a/libgfortran/io/unix.c b/libgfortran/io/unix.c
index e5fc6e1..a1ce9a3 100644
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66842
--- Comment #2 from Bin Fan bin.x.fan at oracle dot com ---
I couldn't find a category for libatomic, and my understand is that C and C++
share libatomic library.
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
This obviously isn't a libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66842
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, so either C or C++ might be appropriate, but not libstdc++.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66860
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66862
--- Comment #1 from William Jordan bill.jordan at intel dot com ---
Created attachment 35972
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35972action=edit
Disassembled code
Assembly shows that code generated with #pragma omp simd is the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66860
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
Stack overflow?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66861
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Emrich rai...@emrich-ebersheim.de ---
I suspect the following commit causing the issue:
215307:
File size: 43008 byte(s)
PR libfortran/62768 Handle filenames with embedded null characters.
testsuite ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66862
Bug ID: 66862
Summary: OpenMP SIMD does not work (use SIMD instructions) on
conditional code
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52846
--- Comment #8 from Salvatore Filippone sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #7)
Created attachment 35926 [details]
A partially cooked patch to complete the implentation of submodules
The attached is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66861
Bug ID: 66861
Summary: [5/6 Regression] Segmentation fault in
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/streamio_5.f90
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66846
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35970
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35970action=edit
Tentative patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66834
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #8)
I think we should reconsider the rule against partial specialization of a
variable concept, as that seems like the right way to handle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
--- Comment #13 from Patrick Palka ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Mon Jul 13 20:35:53 2015
New Revision: 225749
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225749root=gccview=rev
Log:
Fix PR c++/65186
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66855
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Jul 13 20:07:48 2015
New Revision: 225748
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225748root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/66855
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66855
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.3
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66834
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think we should reconsider the rule against partial specialization of a
variable concept, as that seems like the right way to handle this situation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66860
Bug ID: 66860
Summary: ]FAIL: gfortran.dg/graphite/pr42393.f90 -O (internal
compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66726
--- Comment #11 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for reporting. This test case is valid for targets that has branch cost
greater than 1.
One way to handle this is by disabling this for convections involving bool that
are part of branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66857
Patrick Palka ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65249
--- Comment #19 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Although this is essentially a problem with the old reload, I'm testing
another adhoc patch which is hinted by an Oleg's patch for gbr addressing.
The problematic insn is (set
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66726
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Sinking the cast changes the form of the range tests into one that
tree-ssa-reassoc isn't prepared to handle. Sadly the form presented with the
cast sunk is *simpler* than the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66861
--- Comment #4 from Rainer Emrich rai...@emrich-ebersheim.de ---
Am 13.07.2015 um 20:56 schrieb jb at gcc dot gnu.org:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66861
--- Comment #3 from Janne Blomqvist jb at gcc dot gnu.org --- Or rather,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
--- Comment #11 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Please make 64bit TLS patterns dependant on SP_REG, in the same way as 32bit
are.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66828
Thomas Preud'homme thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66853
Bug ID: 66853
Summary: sanitized gcc shows bug in rtlanal.c:4911 shift
exponent too large because bitwitdth==0
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66752
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64327
Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66853
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64327
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 66853 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66849
--- Comment #1 from simon at pushface dot org ---
I should have said, I’m interested in Cortex-M3 and Cortex-M4{F); and possibly
Cortex-M7(F).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66556
--- Comment #3 from renlin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: renlin
Date: Mon Jul 13 08:29:46 2015
New Revision: 225729
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225729root=gccview=rev
Log:
[PATCH]Fix PR66556. Don't drop side-effect in
87 matches
Mail list logo
