https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64470
Bug ID: 64470
Summary: “floating constant exceeds range” warning for
constants that should fit
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64471
Bug ID: 64471
Summary: 403 Forbidden on GCC 5 page
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: web
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61135
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64455
--- Comment #2 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Reduced to avoid using type_traits:
template
constexpr bool IsType = true;
template struct Test
{
};
template
struct Test
{
typedef T type;
};
template
struct X {
typedef typename Test,T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57562
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64472
Bug ID: 64472
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/inline-7.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60507
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Jan 2 11:24:32 2015
New Revision: 219141
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219141&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-02 Janus Weil
PR fortran/60507
* interface.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64472
--- Comment #1 from Tejas Belagod ---
Only fails for -fPIC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64470
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60507
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64473
Bug ID: 64473
Summary: libstdc++-v3 tests fail to link on AArch64 tiny memory
model.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
||l.com
--- Comment #5 from Senthil Kumar Selvaraj ---
Not reproducible with the latest trunk build (gcc version 5.0.0 20150102)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63949
--- Comment #7 from vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I ran GCC tests against the patch found one failure.
int
adds_shift_ext ( long long a, int b, int c)
{
long long d = (a + ((long long)b << 3));
if (d == 0)
return a + c;
else
retu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64465
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58175
patnel97269-gfortran at yahoo dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||patnel97269-gfortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64468
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64472
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64474
Bug ID: 64474
Summary: transfer(c_null_ptr, ...) causes an internal error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64472
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
I think is expected since "a" may be overridden when compiled with
-fPIC. We can either make "a" static or mark it as hidden.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64474
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57562
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Jan 2 16:31:52 2015
New Revision: 219144
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219144&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-02 Janus Weil
PR fortran/57562
* expr.c (fin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57562
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64468
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Jan 2 16:50:51 2015
New Revision: 219147
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219147&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/64468
* doc/doxygen/user.cfg.in: Set correct TAB_SIZ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64438
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Jan 2 16:50:45 2015
New Revision: 219146
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219146&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/64438
* testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/numeric_co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64468
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64438
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64470
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The definition of DBL_MAX_EXP (and thereby GCC's __DBL_MAX_EXP__) in C11
is "maximum integer such that FLT_RADIX raised to one less than that power
is a representable finite floating-point
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64475
Bug ID: 64475
Summary: [5.0 Regression] FAIL:
28_regex/algorithms/regex_match/ecma/char/backref.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64475
--- Comment #1 from Tejas Belagod ---
Fails on AArch32 too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64475
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes it fails everywhere, but this one is nothing to do with me :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64475
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The fix has already been posted and approved:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2015-01/msg1.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64454
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Folding (x%y)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64461
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill ---
Doing a git bisect showed this to be the commit that broke things. Clearly not
m68k specific but triggered it.
commit 91ae0791cbebaac673e42e53c8b7f000241a0ca1
Author: dj
Date: Fri Aug 29 23:19:42 2014 +0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47540
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64422
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Fri Jan 2 21:12:54 2015
New Revision: 219149
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219149&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-02 Bernd Edlinger
PR libstdc++/64422
* src
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64422
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64461
--- Comment #2 from Joel Sherrill ---
Multiple BSPs trigger this on various files which is not a surprise seeing as
it is generating an illegal memory to memory move. But in case it helps, this
is the list of CPU CFLAGS of BSPs which trigger it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63552
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #3)
> For the commented-out line I get:
>
> call co_reduce(a,x%ppc)
>1 2
> Fehler: A argument at (1) has type INTEGER(4) but the function passed as
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64474
--- Comment #2 from Arjen Markus ---
Hi Janus,
thanks for looking into this. Personally, I have no problem moving to
version 4.9. It's just that I ran into the problem.
Regards,
Arjen
2015-01-02 16:28 GMT+01:00 janus at gcc dot gnu.org :
> ht
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64461
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
It is using truncsiqi2, but that pattern hasn't been adjusted for coldfire.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64475
--- Comment #4 from Tim Shen ---
Author: timshen
Date: Fri Jan 2 22:33:04 2015
New Revision: 219151
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219151&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/64475
* include/bits/regex_executor.tcc (_Executor<>::_M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64461
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab ---
The easiest fix is to disable the three trunc patterns for the coldfire.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53314
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46586
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14436
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14538
Bug 14538 depends on bug 14436, which changed state.
Bug 14436 Summary: ICE building libgcc.a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14436
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14554
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64461
--- Comment #5 from Joel Sherrill ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #4)
> The easiest fix is to disable the three trunc patterns for the coldfire.
This isn't my area of expertise. That's why I focused in on doing the git
bisect. Hoped
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51192
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54747
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36828
--- Comment #4 from Joel Sherrill ---
Based on the last comment, should this PR be closed. It has been five years.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63552
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64476
Bug ID: 64476
Summary: std::uninitialized_copy tests assignability the wrong
way, resulting in performance pessimization
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64477
Bug ID: 64477
Summary: x86 sse unnecessary GPR spill
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64478
Bug ID: 64478
Summary: Ada Exception handlers call signal-unsafe malloc/free
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64478
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger ---
I found this initially with TSAN:
RUN c52104x
^M
,.,. C52104X ACATS 2.5 15-01-03 04:12:21^M
C52104X CHECK THAT IN ARRAY ASSIGNMENTS AND IN SLICE ASSIGNMENTS,^M
THE LENGTHS MUST MATCH; A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64478
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
)
$ ./xgcc --version
xgcc (GCC) 5.0.0 20150102 (experimental) [trunk revision
ae61c50:a5fe274:4df12aa29efd9950b5bcbe15c207e61e11c16435]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48918
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52120
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64478
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64478
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64478
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger ---
but I cant see why a potential deadlock in an exception
handler is not a bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64478
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #5)
> but I cant see why a potential deadlock in an exception
> handler is not a bug?
Actually here is what glibc says about malloc:
Function: void * malloc (size_t s
64 matches
Mail list logo
