https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65443
--- Comment #17 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu May 28 21:23:54 2015
New Revision: 223848
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223848root=gccview=rev
Log:
Add transform_to_exit_first_loop_alt
2015-05-28 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66330
Bug ID: 66330
Summary: gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-1.c compilation fatal
error with -flto -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66017
--- Comment #7 from M. Hanselmann public at hansmi dot ch ---
Confirmed for revision 223846 in gcc-5-branch. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66329
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66329
Bug ID: 66329
Summary: If condition evaluated wrongly for y1 == 0
condition
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66329
--- Comment #2 from sandeep shimple0 at yahoo dot com ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1)
has lower precedence than ==.
Thanks Markus. It never occurred to me when hit by a bug in some other code.
I myself was wondering how
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66329
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45780
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66328
Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66326
Bug ID: 66326
Summary: Floating point exception with -mfpmath=387 and
-fcilkplus.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66310
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Gerhard Steinmetz from comment #3)
I do agree, that some extra temporary data is necessary and there
should be a practical (high) limit for something like that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66327
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66327
Bug ID: 66327
Summary: -fsanitize=nonnull-attribute errors in stl_algobase.h
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66326
--- Comment #1 from Eric ejolson at unr dot edu ---
The compilers gcc-5.1 and cilkplus-4_8-branch were bootstrapped using the
Debian 4.7.2-5 gcc compiler on Debian Wheezy. Compiling and running the test
program yields the following output:
$
Hi there
I Japanese.
Poor English.
I like gcc.
But,
Why,
gcc is, in this code, or put out a warning?
-O4 only???
+ cat -n bug.c
1#include stdio.h
2intary[2][12] ;
3voidfunc(intx,int y)
4{
5inti,j ;
6for(i = 0 ; i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66328
Bug ID: 66328
Summary: Wrong initialization of derived-type DATA
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45780
Eric Gallager egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at
__gcc_personality_v0
.ident GCC: (GNU) 6.0.0 20150528 (experimental)
.section.note.GNU-stack,,@progbits
[hjl@gnu-tools-1 tmp]$
The problem is
.L8:
subl$12, %esp
movl%eax, %esi
pushl $0
callcl
movl%esi, (%esp)
.LEHB1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66331
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
See PR 65903
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66331
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66318
Mikhail Maltsev miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66332
Bug ID: 66332
Summary: goacc/acc_on_device-2.c scan-rtl-dump-times expand
testsuite failure
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66333
Bug ID: 66333
Summary: [C++14] Static constexpr template
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65248
Khem Raj raj.khem at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||raj.khem at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66331
Bug ID: 66331
Summary: gfortran.dg/continuation_13.f90 execution failure
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66334
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
Run-time testcases are nptl/tst-cancelx4.c and nptl/tst-cancelx5.c
in glibc when compiled with -fPIE -pie on Linux/x86.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66326
--- Comment #2 from Eric ejolson at unr dot edu ---
Additional information and discussion about this bug may be found on the Intel
Cilk Plus developer forum at
https://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/558825
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45780
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
The -Wc90-c99-compat that made it into gcc5 currently warns about
any usage of bool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66329
Mikhail Maltsev miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66332
Thomas Schwinge tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66331
--- Comment #3 from John Stanley jpsinthemix at verizon dot net ---
Wonderful. Thanks much, and sorry I missed 65903. I guess this can be closed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66313
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
D is not part of FSF GCC so I am inclined to close as invalid.
If there's a bug that shows up with D but doesn't show up with non-D, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
Bug ID: 66322
Summary: Linus Torvalds: -Wswitch-bool produces dubious
warnings, fails to notice really bad things
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44672
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||damian at sourceryinstitute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66321
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66314
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66320
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
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=66312
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
D is not part of FSF GCC so I am inclined to close as invalid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66314
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66319
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #4 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #1)
As Kaz mentioned in PR 65979 #c8, first revert all the SH specific patches.
The SVN revisions are r221686, r221305,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66302
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66302
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
Well, using switch on bool is always weird, one really should use if for
that.
If you want fallthrough, then just use if (cond) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66310
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=66323
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65352
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnozicka at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66323
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66320
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65742
--- Comment #5 from jules at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jules
Date: Thu May 28 09:29:19 2015
New Revision: 223801
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223801root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libgomp/65742
gcc/
* builtins.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I guess we also shouldn't warn on
(1) switch (bool)
{
case true: ...
default: ...
}
(2) switch (bool)
{
case true: ...
}
(3) switch (bool)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66299
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66299
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66324
Bug ID: 66324
Summary: GOACC_parallel is optimization barrier
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #13 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #9)
The GOACC_parallel is more tricky. I don't see what kind of fnspec for
GOACC_parallel could fix this. The only other potential solution I see
besides
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66310
--- Comment #3 from Gerhard Steinmetz gerhard.steinmetz.fort...@t-online.de
---
I do agree, that some extra temporary data is necessary and there
should be a practical (high) limit for something like that.
Let the helper buffers be five or ten
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66323
Bug ID: 66323
Summary: runtime error with zero sized std::array using begin
and end methods
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66302
--- Comment #5 from Andrey Kolesov andrey.kolesov at intel dot com ---
Ok, we understand your points. Obviously there are two approaches:
1) provide maximum random bits in all precisions but not preserve sequences
2) provide reasonable number of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #12 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35642
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35642action=edit
Updated tentative patch
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
(In reply to vries from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66325
Bug ID: 66325
Summary: ICE in gcc.c-torture/execute/930408-1.c, verify_type
fails with --enable-checking=yes
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65742
--- Comment #6 from jules at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jules
Date: Thu May 28 09:38:40 2015
New Revision: 223802
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223802root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libgomp/65742
gcc/
* builtins.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
Szabolcs Nagy nszabolcs at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nszabolcs at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65352
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 28 11:53:35 2015
New Revision: 223806
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223806root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65352
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63810
--- Comment #26 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mrs
Date: Thu May 28 12:27:05 2015
New Revision: 223808
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223808root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-05-28 Lawrence Velázquez
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66017
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 28 12:33:36 2015
New Revision: 223811
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223811root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/66017
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65352
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 28 12:33:41 2015
New Revision: 223812
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223812root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65352
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62308
--- Comment #10 from Christophe Lyon clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hello Vladimir,
Have you been able to make progress on this bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63368
--- Comment #7 from Mathieu Malaterre mathieu.malaterre at gmail dot com ---
For anyone reading this. the comment -latomic is there already. means:
replace __sync_val_compare_and_swap(ptr, oldval, newval) in your code with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63810
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66017
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66142
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu May 28 13:24:53 2015
New Revision: 223816
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223816root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-05-28 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66264
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
Should be switch-conversion doing the job?
Yes, I think so. I'll try to have a look in the near future.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #14 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu May 28 14:18:19 2015
New Revision: 223832
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223832root=gccview=rev
Log:
Add IFN_GOACC_DATA_END_WITH_ARG
2015-05-28 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66314
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Broken by DOM2.
Can somebody reduce this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66251
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66314
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35644
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35644action=edit
Reduced testcase
Confirmed on aarch64-none-elf with current trunk.
Attaching reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66314
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=37522
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 28 16:27:46 2015
New Revision: 223840
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223840root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-12-22 Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65352
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 28 16:27:56 2015
New Revision: 223842
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223842root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65352
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65352
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66301
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65352
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 28 16:00:09 2015
New Revision: 223838
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223838root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65352
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63810
Lawrence Velázquez vq at larryv dot me changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34010|0 |1
is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63810
Lawrence Velázquez vq at larryv dot me changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34012|0 |1
is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63810
Lawrence Velázquez vq at larryv dot me changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34011|0 |1
is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63810
--- Comment #31 from Lawrence Velázquez vq at larryv dot me ---
(In reply to m...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #27)
Fixed in 6.0. Backports pre approved after bake time and testing that
includes older darwins and ppc.
Thanks! I've attached updated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65352
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 28 16:14:26 2015
New Revision: 223839
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223839root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65352
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66314
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
char *a;
int b, c, d;
int d;
is enough I guess.
94 matches
Mail list logo
