https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66521
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
(CC-ing someone on a bug doesn't count as contacting them directly, right?
Just making sure I'm not violating that line from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66521
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #5)
this one; I think I had to pass the '--disable-libstdcxx-filesystem-ts' flag
to configure last time to get past it... I'll open a new PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65766
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
The patch in comment 3 fixes the PR without regression, as well as pr61676,
pr63494, and pr66562 (duplicates?).
Note that patches should be posted to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67066
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu ---
Created attachment 36092
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36092action=edit
(compressed) preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67065
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #11 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #10)
Looking at the build log, it's only gcc/real.o where the comparison fails,
all the others (except for the checksum files)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67066
Bug ID: 67066
Summary: libstdc++-v3/src/filesystem/dir.cc fails to compile,
preventing bootstrapping with libstdcxx-filesystem-ts
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66521
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #5)
this one; I think I had to pass the '--disable-libstdcxx-filesystem-ts' flag
to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66917
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57271
--- Comment #11 from Mark H Weaver mhw at netris dot org ---
FYI, there's now a suggested fix for bug #66917. It would be interesting to
know whether it fixes the problem reported here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
hannes_weisbach at gmx dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hannes_weisbach at gmx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66917
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For both loads and stores we do
else if (DR_MISALIGNMENT (first_dr) == -1)
{
TREE_TYPE (data_ref)
=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66917
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 30 Jul 2015, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66917
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67067
Bug ID: 67067
Summary: #error -static-libstdc++ not implemented
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67068
Bug ID: 67068
Summary: Ambiguous interfaces generated when including open mip
fortran header
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66917
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
Daniel Gutson daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67067
Alex Lai zclai at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|#error -static-libstdc++|Trouble closing elf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67067
--- Comment #3 from Alex Lai zclai at yahoo dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
(In reply to Alex Lai from comment #1)
the error apparently is due to the missing space between -static and
-libstdc++.
There is no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67068
Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66870
--- Comment #15 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
I have submitted my patch to gcc-patches to check for the no_split_stack
attribute after revising it based on Alan's comments.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67070
Bug ID: 67070
Summary: [concepts] Concept with negation and disjunction not
checked correctly
Product: gcc
Version: c++-concepts
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67007
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67007
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jul 30 20:38:27 2015
New Revision: 226415
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226415root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/67007
* constraint.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67000
--- Comment #4 from Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com ---
(In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #3)
The problem initially reported in this bug is now fixed in the git branch
aoliva/pr64164. I'm not sure how to go about duplicating the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67034
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-07-30, at 2:18 PM, aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
John, if you can help with that, would you like
the asm for this one testcase, or is it easy enough for you to give the branch
a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67072
--- Comment #3 from Peter Cordes peter at cordes dot ca ---
@Andrew Pinski: same code is generated with -march=sandybridge (-march=native
on Sandybridge). (Except of course the intrinsics use the VEX version.)
-mtune=intel doesn't help either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67072
Bug ID: 67072
Summary: Slow code generated for getting each byte of a 64bit
register as a LUT index.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67063
--- Comment #2 from HEMMI, Shigeru textdirected at gmail dot com ---
Thanks for the reply.
My output of 'gfortran -v' is:
PS E:\tmp gfortran -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=E:\mingw-w64\mingw64\bin\gfortran.exe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67072
--- Comment #2 from Peter Cordes peter at cordes dot ca ---
I restructured the intrinsics loop to match the asm. This gave a small
speedup, but it's still ~30% slower than my asm. clang-3.5 is even slower than
gcc.
I still don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67072
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Have you tried adding -march=intel ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67073
Bug ID: 67073
Summary: short program produces ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67065
--- Comment #3 from Anders Granlund anders.granlund.0 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
(In reply to Anders Granlund from comment #0)
The following program is ill-formed (proc.cc):
int main;
Compile
() { X::i; }
Command line:
g++ prog.cc -std=c++14 -pedantic-errors
This results in name-lookup ambiguity errors when looking up X in main. This is
not a name-lookup ambiguity since the two names founds denotes the same entity.
I tried this with gcc HEAD 6.0.0 20150730 here:
http://melpon.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67074
--- Comment #1 from Anders Granlund anders.granlund.0 at gmail dot com ---
I have reported the same bug in clang also:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24324
Richard Smith confirmed it and added this additional test case:
And likewise:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67065
--- Comment #2 from Anders Granlund anders.granlund.0 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
(In reply to Anders Granlund from comment #0)
The following program is ill-formed (proc.cc):
int main;
Compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67072
--- Comment #4 from Peter Cordes peter at cordes dot ca ---
I just timed with Linux perf:
time taskset 0x04 perf stat -e
task-clock,cycles,instructions,r1b1,r10e,r2c2,r1c2,stalled-cycles-frontend,stalled-cycles-backend
./rs-asmbench
my code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62242
Louis Krupp t56xjcu6dh at snkmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t56xjcu6dh at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62242
--- Comment #5 from Louis Krupp t56xjcu6dh at snkmail dot com ---
Created attachment 36097
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36097action=edit
Possible patch
The problem seems to be with an array constructor with an array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62242
--- Comment #4 from Louis Krupp t56xjcu6dh at snkmail dot com ---
Created attachment 36096
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36096action=edit
Executable test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66842
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #11 from Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com ---
or simply -pedantic/-pedantic-errors :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #12 from Daniel Gutson daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot
com ---
I tried them all, and none of those flags reject a global variable declared as
register. I still think a separate issue should be filed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #13 from Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com ---
It is correct that currently none of the pedantic-flags diagnose the use of
this extension; perhaps that should be fixed while fixing this bug...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #13)
It is correct that currently none of the pedantic-flags diagnose the use of
this extension; perhaps that should be fixed while
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
Bug ID: 67064
Summary: Register asm variable broken
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66917
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |target
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #36 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015, alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
but also feel that those two statements hashing differently is not really
helpful!
Well, it still uses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66917
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Suggested fix:
Index: gcc/config/arm/arm.c
===
--- gcc/config/arm/arm.c(revision 226348)
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65706
Andreas Herrmann andreash87 at gmx dot ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andreash87 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63304
--- Comment #22 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David Abdurachmanov from comment #21)
I am on vacations now, but I already marked this on my TODO list. Once I
find a free time slot I will give it a spin. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67069
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67066
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
Are you playing use as many configure options as possible?
Yeah, basically (as many interesting-looking ones as possible, at least).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67034
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #48 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The errors reported in comments 44, 45, 46, and 47 are fixed in the git branch
aoliva/pr64164. I'm giving it all some more testing before posting an updated,
consolidated patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67068
--- Comment #2 from Mike Glass mwglass at sandia dot gov ---
Yes, all the FORTRAN code is compiled with those options. We want to mimic the
behavior of the Intel compiler when we add the '-r8' flag to their compiler:
Makes default real and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Gutson daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot com
---
Thanks Ville and Jens for looking into this.
I'll be able to fix this during next week, so if nobody is available to solve
this sooner, then please assign it to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67068
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 06:24:19PM +, mwglass at sandia dot gov wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67068
--- Comment #2 from Mike Glass mwglass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
C++11 rules about (x) have changed. If you use -std=gnu++98 you would get the
same behavior as before.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Huber sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de ---
Indeed -std=gnu++98 gets rid of this error. So this is working as intended for
C++11 and later? This is really nice in combination with defines and macros
that use ( )
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Sebastian Huber from comment #2)
Indeed -std=gnu++98 gets rid of this error. So this is working as intended
for C++11 and later? This is really nice in combination
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67053
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jul 30 07:09:20 2015
New Revision: 226384
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226384root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-07-30 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67060
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=67053
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66917
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=67066
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Don't use --enable-concept-checks
It enforces C++03 semantics, so doesn't really make much sense these days.
Maybe I'll remove the option.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67066
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Are you playing use as many configure options as possible?
Most of those options are on by default anyway, others don't do anything.
I'm pretty sure --enable-libstdcxx-time is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67069
Bug ID: 67069
Summary: ld: fatal: file .libs/lto-plugin.o: wrong ELF class:
ELFCLASS32 during gcc compilation on Solaris 10 x86-64
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Gutson daniel.gutson at tallertechnologies dot com
---
Please discard my previous comment, I read too fast.
I'll do some debugging and get back with some analysis.
It seems that cxx_mark_addressable() is wrongly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67068
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=67067
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Alex Lai from comment #1)
the error apparently is due to the missing space between -static and
-libstdc++.
There is no missing space, that's a valid gcc option.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67066
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67071
Bug ID: 67071
Summary: GCC misses an optimization to load vector constants
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66849
--- Comment #3 from simon at pushface dot org ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #2)
(In reply to simon from comment #0)
Having configured with
--target=arm-eabi
--with-arch=armv7
--with-mode=thumb
If you are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #8 from Jens Maurer jens.maurer at gmx dot net ---
In general, x and (x) have the same meaning as per 5.1.1p6.
There are a few (spelled-out) exceptions, though.
One exception is inside a decltype-specifier, where decltype(e) is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65828
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67000
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
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=65828
Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67065
Bug ID: 67065
Summary: Missing diagnostics for ill-formed program with main
variable instead of function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
--- Comment #6 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat derodat at adacore dot com ---
Thanks for your answer, Richard!
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
So what is the issue with replacing zero-extending an uninitialized %ebp
with a random other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66891
--- Comment #7 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Jul 30 08:53:48 2015
New Revision: 226389
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226389root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline:
2015-07-17 Uros Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
--- Comment #20 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Jul 30 08:53:48 2015
New Revision: 226389
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226389root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline:
2015-07-17 Uros Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #10 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #9)
Not sure if this is a good idea.
I actually think it is the best option as chances are dim otherwise that we
find
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67063
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67052
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This means that the ABS_EXPRx 0 code is correct in simplifying
NaN 0 to true and it is correct to _not_ simplify NaN = 0 to true.
But at the same time it has to do the same as
90 matches
Mail list logo
