https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69523
Eric Fiselier changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77945
Bug ID: 77945
Summary: GCC generates invalid constexpr copy/move assignment
operators for types with trailing padding.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77903
--- Comment #4 from Damian Rouson ---
Check the date on your draft. The latest draft is dated 31 August 2016.
C1556 appears on page 330. Does the following link work for you?
http://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/16/16-007.pdf
I'm working on obtain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Unfortunately it doesn't work:
dirac.i:3:6: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
void fn1(char *p1, int p2) {
^~~
0xb6d367 crash_signal
../../gcc/gcc/toplev.c:337
0x7ff87981f10f ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77943
--- Comment #3 from Mathias Stearn ---
> Not being a C++ expect, but following spec:
> http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/noexcept_spec
>
> "If a search for a matching exception handler leaves a function marked
> noexcept or noexcept(true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77934
--- Comment #1 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: acsawdey
Date: Wed Oct 12 02:12:06 2016
New Revision: 241017
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241017&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-12 Aaron Sawdey
PR target/77934
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77944
Bug ID: 77944
Summary: FAIL: 20_util/variant/compile.cc (test for excess
errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77943
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77942
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77942
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue Oct 11 21:46:12 2016
New Revision: 241011
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241011&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/77942
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421
Bug 77421 depends on bug 77424, which changed state.
Bug 77424 Summary: Identical statements in if-else branches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77424
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77424
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77424
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue Oct 11 21:41:51 2016
New Revision: 241009
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241009&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/77424
* tree-ssa-threadupdate.c (threa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77942
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue Oct 11 21:03:04 2016
New Revision: 241008
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241008&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-11 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/77942
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
--- Comment #5 from B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77943
--- Comment #1 from Mathias Stearn ---
Created attachment 39787
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39787&action=edit
Reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77943
Bug ID: 77943
Summary: Optimization incorrectly commons noexcept calls with
non-noexcept calls
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critica
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77917
PeteVine changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Well, -march=amdfam10 is of course x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Does not reproduce on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu. Can you please report the
target triple?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77942
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77941
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77940
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77942
Bug ID: 77942
Summary: ICE: Floating point exception, in gfc_simplify_cshift,
at fortran/simplify.c:1845
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77941
--- Comment #2 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
For completeness, with older test versions (--enable-checking=yes) :
$ gfortran-7-20161002 z1.f90
z1.f90:2:0:
print *, f(2_8**32+1)
internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
0xc29b8f crash_sig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77941
Bug ID: 77941
Summary: ICE in expand_expr_addr_expr_1, at expr.c:7805
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77941
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
No ICE with "intent(in)" instead :
$ cat z2.f90
program p
print *, f(2_8**32+1)
contains
function f(n)
integer(8), intent(in) :: n
character(n) :: f
f = 'a'
end
end
$ gfo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77940
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
For completeness :
$ cat y1.f90
module m
type t
end type
contains
subroutine s1(x)
type(t) :: x[*]
end
subroutine s2(x)
type(t) :: x(2)
call s1(x(1))
end
end
$ gf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77940
Bug ID: 77940
Summary: ICE in walk_coarray, at fortran/trans-array.c:6684
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77938
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
Tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77939
Bug ID: 77939
Summary: Valid program rejected due to access control
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77938
--- Comment #1 from Ivan Sorokin ---
The generated code for caller is the following:
caller():
sub rsp, 24
lea rdi, [rsp+12]
callescape(int&)
callcallee()
add rsp, 24
ret
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77911
--- Comment #2 from Dr Hilbert Swan ---
If a similar thing is done with ints the code would look like this:
constexpr int i[] = { 1, 2, 3 };
constexpr int FindMatchingIdx(const int w, const int idx) {
return (w == i[idx]) ? (idx) : (FindMat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77938
Bug ID: 77938
Summary: missing tailcall optimization in case when local
variable escapes
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937
Bug ID: 77937
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE: in replace_one_candidate, at
gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c:3370
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77936
Bug ID: 77936
Summary: include/parallel/checkers.h:66: pointless local
variable ?
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77922
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77935
Bug ID: 77935
Summary: uninstantiated template constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77538
--- Comment #9 from Dmitry Vyukov ---
Humm... what are they waiting for? Is it also core dump? Stack for the sleeping
task is missing for some reason.
What kernel version do you use? Maybe the problem is with the kernel? Isn't it
too old?.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77538
--- Comment #8 from peien luo ---
In another case, the process got stuck, compiled with gcc 4.9.4. I will try a
different version of gcc. The proc stack info is:
[god@localhost 5019]$ cat task/*/status | grep State
State: D (disk sleep)
State:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77710
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6)
> (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #5)
>
> Thanks for fixing it! I keep making this mistake because { target *-*-*-* }
> matches on my own develop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77710
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #5)
Thanks for fixing it! I keep making this mistake because { target *-*-*-* }
matches on my own development boxes. I wonder why DejaGnu doesn't accept {
target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77934
Bug ID: 77934
Summary: pattern for mtvsrdd needs to use b constraint not r
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77924
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77924
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue Oct 11 14:12:09 2016
New Revision: 240994
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240994&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-11 Michael Meissner
PR target/77924
* co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66146
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77922
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #0)
> constexpr int a = 1;
> with -std=c++98 gives
> pr.C:1:1: error: ‘constexpr’ does not name a type; did you mean ‘constexpr’?
> constexpr int a = 1;
> ^
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77933
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77931
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Oct 11 12:52:44 2016
New Revision: 240991
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240991&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-11 Richard Biener
PR debug/77931
* gimple-l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77933
Bug ID: 77933
Summary: Stack corruption on ARM when using high registers and
__builtin_return_address
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77710
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Preu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77929
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77921
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77932
Bug ID: 77932
Summary: [GRAPHITE] gmp-6.1.0, 6.1.1 breaks because of
fgraphite-identity
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
URL: https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7850262.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77931
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Confirmed, this patch fixes the issue. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77931
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
It's that way in the original BIND_EXPR already. So it looks like we need to
handle this gracefully :/
Index: gcc/gimple-low.c
===
--- gcc/gi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77931
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77931
Bug ID: 77931
Summary: PASS->FAIL: gdb.cp/namespace.exp: print ina
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77904
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2016-10-10 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77558
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77558
--- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue Oct 11 08:21:25 2016
New Revision: 240970
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240970&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
backport "Remove RECORD_TYPE special-casing in std_canonical_va_list_type"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77558
--- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue Oct 11 08:16:11 2016
New Revision: 240968
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240968&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Remove RECORD_TYPE special-casing in std_canonical_va_list_type
2016-10-11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77930
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Wonder if it is var-tracking -- does -fno-var-tracking "fix" it?
Yes, it does.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77929
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77919
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77930
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Wonder if it is var-tracking -- does -fno-var-tracking "fix" it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77929
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77920
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77898
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77898
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #8)
> I agree that in many cases there isn't enough information to tell that a
> range is final and can't be further improved. But there certainly are such
> cases (the t
72 matches
Mail list logo