https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Can someone please test the patch in Comment #9 on powerpc? It should fix all
failures, modulo ieee_10.f90 which is fixed by [1].
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg01685.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89061
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89105
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89105
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 30 07:51:24 2019
New Revision: 268382
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268382=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89105
* config/i386/i386.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89061
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 30 07:49:58 2019
New Revision: 268381
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268381=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/89061
* c-tree.h (C_DECL_COMPOUND_LITERAL_P): Define.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 45564
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45564=edit
Proposed patch
This patch fixes all ieee.exp failures in x86 when configured with fpu-glibc.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
This PR is probably fixed by [1]. It looks that on powerpc feenableexcept fires
exception on stalled exception flags (these were raised when certain exception
was disabled).
Other than that, exception may
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89113
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
That seems already fixed in gcc-9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89113
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The question becomes what is the scope for the compound literal?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89113
Bug ID: 89113
Summary: Missed stack reuse opportunity when using compound
literals
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89112
--- Comment #1 from Samuel Holland ---
Created attachment 45563
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45563=edit
Output of gcc -v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89112
Bug ID: 89112
Summary: Incorrect code generated by rs6000 memcmp expansion
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79010
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
>
>
> Alloca and VLA sizes are controlled by the -Walloca-larger-than= and
> -Wvla-larger-than= options (new in GCC 7). If it's thought to be useful to
> exclude
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39985
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at magfr dot
user.lysator.liu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88956
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88956
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed Jan 30 03:04:14 2019
New Revision: 268378
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268378=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/88956 - ICE: Floating point exception on a memcpy from
a zero-length
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88752
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88761
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86943
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[7/8/9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86943
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 30 02:43:04 2019
New Revision: 268377
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268377=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/86943 - wrong code converting lambda to function pointer.
In this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86218
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89110
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89110
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jan 30 02:32:33 2019
New Revision: 268376
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268376=gcc=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/89110
* g++.dg/other/nontype-1.C: Expect error in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87996
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80864
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89110
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88850
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/9.0.1/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.1 20190129 (experimental) [trunk revision 268359] (GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89106
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57048
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Jan 29 22:40:26 2019
New Revision: 268372
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268372=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-01-29 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/57048
* interface.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89077
--- Comment #6 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #5)
It does not fix the issue in comment #3. In fact, the simpler testcase
program pr89077_3
implicit none
character(20), parameter :: input = 'Forward'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89077
--- Comment #5 from Harald Anlauf ---
The following patch fixes the testcase and seems to pass regression testing.
Index: gcc/fortran/decl.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/decl.c (revision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89110
Bug ID: 89110
Summary: r268343 breaks several tests in c++2a
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89110
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89109
Bug ID: 89109
Summary: Duplicates in COMPILER_PATH and LIBRARY_PATH and not
canonicalized absolute paths
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
One more issue, shouldn't the #pragma GCC target be added before all include
files? Various define many inline functions, e.g. unwind-pe.h or unwind-cxx.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89077
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66676
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 29 21:09:41 2019
New Revision: 268370
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268370=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/66676
PR ipa/89104
* omp-simd-clone.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89104
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 29 21:09:41 2019
New Revision: 268370
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268370=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/66676
PR ipa/89104
* omp-simd-clone.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89103
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89100
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
--- Comment #8 from Damian Rouson ---
(In reply to Nicolas Koenig from comment #7)
> I actually opted to use multiprocessing with shared memory (shm_open() & co)
> instead of multithreading, since it will be much easier and faster with
> static
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35608
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89108
--- Comment #1 from Jonny Grant ---
Could gcc even support a dynamic size? to avoid a hard coded limit?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89108
Bug ID: 89108
Summary: variable tracking size limit exceeded
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54618
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #22 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
--- Comment #28 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
This PR is probably related to/duplicate of pr54618.
These two PRs are so mangled that it very difficult to tell what has been fixed
and what remains to be fixed.
IMO it would be better to open a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89002
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] ICE in |[7/8 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89107
Bug ID: 89107
Summary: -Wconversion warning is not appropriate since
conversion doesn't alter value, because of mask
entered before.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89106
Bug ID: 89106
Summary: cast-to-union documentation incorrect w.r.t.
lvalueness
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89086
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> > > I don't think this is realistic unless someone steps on with at least a
> > > draft.
> >
> > Well, yes. Howewer, I would prefer if you did not close
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66708
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27436
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerhard.steinmetz.fortran@t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88049
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
> > We ICE on the fact that _ZTV1aIN12_GLOBAL__N_11fEE which is vtable for
> > anonymous namespace type but it has EXTERNAL flag set.
> >
> > Jason, why this happens? I am changing type to C++: if there is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89103
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61073
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89089
--- Comment #10 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
Thanks for the quick fix!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89098
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88049
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51637
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #20 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #15)
> Created attachment 45552 [details]
> new patch.
>
> Testing this and would be grateful for a test run.
I can confirm that this patch fixes the glibc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #10 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #18 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #15)
> Created attachment 45552 [details]
> new patch.
>
> Testing this and would be grateful for a test run.
Is this hunk needed as well, or will the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66676
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66676
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looking again what ICC does here: ICC 16 emits a1 (i.e. like aligned(i_x:1)),
ICC 17 emits a8 (i.e. like aligned(i_x:8)), ICC 18 and 19 don't emit anything
(i.e. ignore the aligned clause that doesn't tell
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66676
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89104
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87451
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89105
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86740
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88865
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89089
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88865
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jan 29 15:39:40 2019
New Revision: 268368
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268368=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89089 - ICE with [[no_unique_address]].
In 89089, we were never
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89089
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jan 29 15:39:40 2019
New Revision: 268368
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268368=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89089 - ICE with [[no_unique_address]].
In 89089, we were never
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89061
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Summary|GCC 9 introduces
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89061
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89105
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82501
Andrey Drobyshev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a.drobyshev at samsung dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89105
Bug ID: 89105
Summary: -Wabi warns for functions with internal linkage
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #28 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-01-29 4:53 a.m., redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Done - do you want to keep this open?
Could the change be backported? I will test in coming days.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89104
Bug ID: 89104
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault (in tree_int_cst_elt_check)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #17 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #15)
> Created attachment 45552 [details]
> new patch.
>
> Testing this and would be grateful for a test run.
I believe the #pragma GCC push_options needs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89103
--- Comment #2 from MarkEggleston ---
Created attachment 45556
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45556=edit
Change Log for gc/testsuite for patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89103
--- Comment #1 from MarkEggleston ---
Created attachment 4
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4=edit
Change log for gcc/fortran for patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89103
Bug ID: 89103
Summary: Allow blank format items in format strings
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89101
--- Comment #4 from Gael Guennebaud ---
Good to know this is fixed in trunk! Thank you, and sorry for the false alarm
then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89101
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88995
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at debian dot org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #16 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> We require GNU make, so one can use something like:
> unwind-arm.o unwind-c.o libunwind.o pr-support.o: CFLAGS += -mfpu=none
> or similar in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45547|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89101
--- Comment #2 from Gael Guennebaud ---
Indeed, it fails to remove the dup only if the coefficient is used multiple
times as in the following reduced exemple: (https://godbolt.org/z/hmSaE0)
#include
void foo(const float* a, const float * b,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89099
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #1)
> (a) unify the two, so that -fopt-info messages
..."go through the diagnostics subsystem", I meant to write.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89099
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Indeed: -fopt-info is currently implemented via writing to up to two FILE *
destinations: the dumpfile and the opt-info destination (e.g. stderr).
In particular it doesn't go through the diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89102
Bug ID: 89102
Summary: 'common_type' of single abominable function should not
have a nested typename
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
--- Comment #7 from Nicolas Koenig ---
(In reply to Damian Rouson from comment #5)
> This is an exciting idea. When I gave some thought to writing a
> shared-memory alternative coarray ABI, it seemed to me that pthreads would
> be a better
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87603
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Specifically, we get a new FAIL when running the libstdc++ tests in c++2a mode:
FAIL: 21_strings/basic_string/types/1.cc (test for excess errors)
That's because the is_convertible trait instantiates the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89061
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
