https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55561
--- Comment #50 from Roland Schulz roland at rschulz dot eu ---
I must say I don't know how the internals work. But I assume that reductions
are implemented in libgomp (I know they are in iomp). Thus for any code which
uses OpenMP reduce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55561
--- Comment #51 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Roland Schulz from comment #50)
I must say I don't know how the internals work. But I assume that reductions
are implemented in libgomp (I know they are in iomp). Thus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55561
--- Comment #52 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #51)
Your assumption is wrong, reductions are not handled in libgomp, but in the
code emitted by the compiler.
does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61756
Bug ID: 61756
Summary: arm-none-eabi-gcc-4.10.0 internal compiler error with
atomic_flag
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55561
--- Comment #53 from Dmitry Vyukov dvyukov at google dot com ---
If we instrument libgomp with tsan, this can introduce lots of extraneous
synchronization which is useful only for verification of libgomp itself, but
harmful for libgomp users (as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61757
Bug ID: 61757
Summary: genmodes failure with enable-checking
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61602
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59361
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Jul 9 08:32:43 2014
New Revision: 212386
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212386root=gccview=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-07-09 Andrew Sutton
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59361
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48183
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46329
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52412
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61757
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61453
--- Comment #3 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Wed Jul 9 09:01:06 2014
New Revision: 212387
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212387root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-07-09 Dominique d'Humieres domi...@lps.ens.fr
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61453
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61758
Bug ID: 61758
Summary: std::chrono::steady_clock::now() no longer exported
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43999
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49423
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=49423
cbaylis at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61756
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52435
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61757
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64-linux, x86, ia64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61758
--- Comment #1 from Martin von Gagern Martin.vGagern at gmx dot net ---
I just read https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-05/msg01553.html indicating
that this is likely a deliberate ABI breakage for an experimental API. If that
is your
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59843
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Isn't even this change ABI changing? I know you ICE when returning such
vectors, but doesn't the change from BLKmode to V1DFmode change how such vars
are laid out in structures, or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61758
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It is totally unsupported (and unlikely to work) to mix C++11 code built with
GCC 4.x and 4.y, for any x!=y
Mixing code built with 4.8.x and 4.8.y should work, and does with the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61758
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61757
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61741
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The testcase fails without LTO as well if you use -Os -fno-strict-overflow,
fixed by -fno-tree-vrp (not necessarily caused by it though). Also
fails with -O2 -fno-strict-overflow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43725
Marat Zakirov m.zakirov at samsung dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joseph at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61758
--- Comment #4 from Martin von Gagern Martin.vGagern at gmx dot net ---
Thanks for the quick reply.
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
It is totally unsupported (and unlikely to work) to mix C++11 code built
with GCC 4.x and 4.y,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61756
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ktkachov at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61757
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61759
Bug ID: 61759
Summary: internal compiler error: in objc_eh_runtime_type, at
objc/objc-next-runtime-abi-01.c:2792
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61759
--- Comment #1 from Douglas Mencken dougmencken at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 33094
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33094action=edit
preprocessed a11yselectionwrapper.mm
Attaching preprocessed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61758
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin von Gagern from comment #4)
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
It is totally unsupported (and unlikely to work) to mix C++11 code built
with GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61757
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
This also breaks gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030922-2.c on m68k.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61759
--- Comment #2 from Douglas Mencken dougmencken at gmail dot com ---
Also, there's builder.cxx (one of files which compiles after removing -x
objective-c++ from line, but not with it):
S=/lo-build I=$S/instdir W=$S/workdir mkdir -p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61759
--- Comment #3 from Douglas Mencken dougmencken at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 33095
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33095action=edit
preprocessed builder.cxx
Attaching preprocessed builder.cxx (builder.mii)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58155
--- Comment #2 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Wed Jul 9 13:33:58 2014
New Revision: 212392
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212392root=gccview=rev
Log:
libcpp/
2014-07-09 Edward Smith-Rowland 3dw...@verizon.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59850
--- Comment #31 from Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #28)
Please let me know what I can do to help complete this branch. I'd be happy
to help write the documentation, for instance.
It's maybe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59850
--- Comment #32 from Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #31)
force, adddress_space, and noderef are the final 5 commits on the branch.
Err, 8 commits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58155
--- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Wed Jul 9 15:10:43 2014
New Revision: 212393
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212393root=gccview=rev
Log:
libcpp/
2014-07-09 Edward Smith-Rowland 3dw...@verizon.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58155
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59843
Alan Lawrence alan.lawrence at arm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59843
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've been just concerned, many backends derive (perhaps incorrectly) passing
conventions from DECL_MODE or TYPE_MODE and so any changes in that are a red
flag to me.
If passing as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61057
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61057
--- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Leaving a space before the dot also works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59843
--- Comment #10 from Alan Lawrence alan.lawrence at arm dot com ---
I can confirm that prior to V1DFmode, all four of those cases gave an ICE (in
emit_move_insn, via a variety of routes).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61754
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61741
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|lto |c
Known
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61741
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|lto |c
Known
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61760
Bug ID: 61760
Summary: -Wconversion inconsistency between gcc and g++
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61761
Bug ID: 61761
Summary: [C++11] std::proj returns incorrect values
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61760
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61760
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I see now that the C FE has a FE optimization (short_shift in build_binary_op)
that the C++ FE doesn't have. The optimization is probably useless for code
generation, but for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61762
Bug ID: 61762
Summary: failure to optimize memcpy from constant string
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61763
Bug ID: 61763
Summary: [4.9 Regression] gcc-4.9.0 Bootstrap comparison
failure!
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59800
--- Comment #3 from Matteo Riondato rionda at gmail dot com ---
What exactly does the WAITING status mean?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61764
Bug ID: 61764
Summary: gcc fails to build
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61764
--- Comment #1 from Udo Steinberg us15 at os dot inf.tu-dresden.de ---
This is with SVN version 212406.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61764
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61757
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||us15 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59800
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
Phil Miller unmobile at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||unmobile at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57466
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Jul 9 21:23:06 2014
New Revision: 212410
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212410root=gccview=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-07-09 Paolo Carlini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57465
Bug 57465 depends on bug 57466, which changed state.
Bug 57466 Summary: [DR 1584] Argument deduction fails for 'const T*' when T is
function type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57466
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57466
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57743
--- Comment #2 from Phil Miller unmobile at gmail dot com ---
I just went to look at this in more detail, and I'm not sure how to interpret
what I've found. If the DR in question in 225
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61728
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61728
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jul 9 22:21:49 2014
New Revision: 212413
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212413root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/61728
* libsupc++/cxxabi.h:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61728
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57743
--- Comment #3 from Phil Miller unmobile at gmail dot com ---
The latest release of Microsoft Visual C++ (per the version available at
http://rise4fun.com/Vcpp) now accepts this code without complaint.
Cray compilers version 8.2 and onwards also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61765
Bug ID: 61765
Summary: Rejects valid BIND(C) ENTRY
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61765
Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35031
Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56908
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60686
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Jul 9 22:44:42 2014
New Revision: 212415
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=212415root=gccview=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-07-09 Paolo Carlini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60686
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61765
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Rejects valid BIND(C) ENTRY
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61766
Bug ID: 61766
Summary: [4.9 regression] ICE on trans-array.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61766
--- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter juergen.reuter at desy dot de ---
Created attachment 33097
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33097action=edit
Code that triggers the ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46097
--- Comment #33 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Write a plugin. It's trivial using gcc-python-plugin, see
http://blog.cuviper.com/2014/01/23/add-new-warnings-to-gcc-with-python/
A custom plugin is far more suitable to your
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56789
Sean Santos quantheory at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||quantheory at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56789
--- Comment #4 from Sean Santos quantheory at gmail dot com ---
Oops, I mean a free() error as in comment 0, not a segfault.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57743
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Phil Miller from comment #2)
Does the committee need another nudge on this point, as practice has shifted?
I don't believe practice has shifted. The difference in
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc_trunk/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc/4.10
--enable-languages=c,fortran,c++ --disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.10.0 20140709 (experimental) (GCC)
svn info of the gcc source code shows Revision 212004. The two source code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61767
Reuben Budiardja reubendb at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
87 matches
Mail list logo
