https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60734
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67372
Bug ID: 67372
Summary: Functions created via cp/decl2.c:start_objects not
properly registered
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60734
--- Comment #12 from Bhargava Shastry bshastry at sec dot t-labs.tu-berlin.de
---
Also, I noticed a couple of potentially suspicious casts not fixed upstream.
They are in _S_right [1] and elsewhere.
The problem I see is this:
a. _M_right is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67371
Bug ID: 67371
Summary: Never executed throw in constexpr function fails to
compile
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60734
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bhargava Shastry from comment #12)
a) and b) together imply that it is possible that _M_right points to an
object of type _Rb_tree_node_base when cast to _Link_type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366
--- Comment #9 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366
--- Comment #11 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #10)
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67356
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Aug 27 13:56:39 2015
New Revision: 227260
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227260root=gccview=rev
Log:
[RS6000] Correct constraints for iormode_mask
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67356
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60734
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366
--- Comment #9 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Does that really do the right thing? That is, does force_reg understand a
misaligned memory op?
Also, what if one memory operand is aligned, but the other not? Don't we want
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67283
--- Comment #10 from Xavier Roche roche at httrack dot com ---
The Second test case attached should produce exactly the same bytes
(byte-to-byte) for the two demo_1 and demo_2 functions. And this would not rely
on stack size that might change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67283
--- Comment #7 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: alalaw01
Date: Thu Aug 27 15:40:10 2015
New Revision: 227265
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227265root=gccview=rev
Log:
completely_scalarize arrays as well as records
gcc/:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67283
--- Comment #9 from Xavier Roche roche at httrack dot com ---
Created attachment 36260
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36260action=edit
Second test case (might be useful for unit testing)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67283
--- Comment #11 from Xavier Roche roche at httrack dot com ---
PS: Shall I create a twin ticket for the structure case ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67005
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67005
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Aug 27 17:07:35 2015
New Revision: 227268
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227268root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/67005
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67374
Bug ID: 67374
Summary: std::cbegin can't call valarray range access functions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67374
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67373
Bug ID: 67373
Summary: Can't compile gcc snapshot for avr target with mingw
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67283
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66752
--- Comment #17 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
The fix for the ppc64 bootstrap regression looks good. I'm just having a bear
of a time producing a reasonable test for the regression suite.
) are:
--
~/code/gcc/prefix/bin/g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 6.0.0 20150827 (experimental)
~/code/gcc/prefix/bin/g++ -std=c++14 test/worksheet.cpp
test/worksheet.cpp: In substitution of ‘
templateclass ... Yn
closureXn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67317
--- Comment #7 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Aug 27 18:29:37 2015
New Revision: 227271
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227271root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/67317
* config/i386/i386.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67374
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Aug 27 19:05:19 2015
New Revision: 227274
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227274root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/67374
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67374
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.9.4 |5.2.1
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56958
Louis Dionne ldionne.2 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ldionne.2 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67367
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=37021
--- Comment #23 from Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 36261
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36261action=edit
tree-slp-details dump
Ah, I was looking at the code in the test suite this time,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510
--- Comment #9 from Chen Gang gang.chen.5i5j at gmail dot com ---
We need call warning_at() instead of warnings() in fold_overflow_warning() in
gcc/fold-const.c.
The related location parameter of warning_at() should be calculated, just like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
--- Comment #22 from Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #21)
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #20)
...snip...
I see it only failing due to cost issues (tried ppc64le and -mcpu=power8).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67375
Bug ID: 67375
Summary: abi::__cxa_demangle crashes demangling a lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67351
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i?86|x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67371
--- Comment #1 from Louis Dionne ldionne.2 at gmail dot com ---
This is almost certainly a duplicate of #66026, yet it is still unconfirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67376
Bug ID: 67376
Summary: Comparison with pointer to past-the-end of array fails
inside constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67377
Bug ID: 67377
Summary: gcc 6.0 fails to compile on Darwin 14
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67377
--- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter juergen.reuter at desy dot de ---
First remark from my side: the error with the missing /usr/install came from an
incompletely installed MAC OS X command line tools, sorry for the digression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66135
Louis Dionne ldionne.2 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ldionne.2 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67362
--- Comment #3 from Tim Shen timshen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: timshen
Date: Fri Aug 28 03:39:53 2015
New Revision: 227291
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227291root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2015-08-28
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67362
Tim Shen timshen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67164
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Louis Dionne from comment #4)
Still fails on trunk. Out of curiosity Markus, do you use software to reduce
test cases? Did you generate these A, B, ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67362
--- Comment #1 from Tim Shen timshen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: timshen
Date: Fri Aug 28 02:35:21 2015
New Revision: 227289
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227289root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/67362
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67371
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67362
--- Comment #2 from Tim Shen timshen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: timshen
Date: Fri Aug 28 03:03:55 2015
New Revision: 227290
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227290root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2015-08-28
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53852
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2013-02-03 00:00:00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66026
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67371
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366
--- Comment #5 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #3)
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67368
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, ramana at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67369
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #3)
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366
--- Comment #8 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #7)
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, ramana at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67368
--- Comment #2 from Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
so it fails on purpose (not sure why though). And it ignores always-inline.
I wonder if we should, for always-inline functions, inline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67370
Bug ID: 67370
Summary: Invalid parameter packs not expanded error in lambda
capture
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67370
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Almost certainly a dup of PR 64488 and PR 47226
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67357
--- Comment #3 from Roger Orr rogero at howzatt dot demon.co.uk ---
The following code block also gives an ODR violation with the same versions of
gcc; in this case only a *single* translation unit is involved.
$ cat test.cxx
#include memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
I think this boils down to the fact that memcpy expansion is done too late
and
that (with more recent GCC) the inlining done on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67363
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=67368
Bug ID: 67368
Summary: Inlining failed due to no_sanitize_address and
always_inline conflict
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67317
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67369
Bug ID: 67369
Summary: [5/6 Regression] ICE (in tsubst_decl, at
cp/pt.c:11302) with -std=c++14
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67361
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=67369
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67317
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-*-* |x86
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60734
Bhargava Shastry bshastry at sec dot t-labs.tu-berlin.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67378
Bug ID: 67378
Summary: PowerPC unrecognizable insn (ICE in in extract_insn,
at recog.c:2297)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
70 matches
Mail list logo