https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67619
Bug ID: 67619
Summary: ICE at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu in
int_mode_for_mode, at stor-layout.c:425
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67620
Bug ID: 67620
Summary: _GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=1 fails to catch
ios_base::failure
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66142
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Sep 18 07:57:00 2015
New Revision: 227896
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227896&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-09-18 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/66142
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67612
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67619
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67619
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|rtl-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67621
Bug ID: 67621
Summary: Syntax error for template function of template class
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67622
Bug ID: 67622
Summary: [6 regression] Solaris/SPARC bootstrap fails compiling
stage2 stdc++.h.gch/O2ggnu++0x.gch
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67622
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67513
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #7)
> FYI I'd prefer to keep current BIT_IOR_EXPR approach in
> asan_expand_check_ifn as it allows for efficient implementation for ARM
> targets (as compared to two succ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64480
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56566
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67513
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67621
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66145
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cctsai57 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67620
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16233
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2012-04-12 11:50:00 |2015-9-18
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67283
--- Comment #13 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: alalaw01
Date: Fri Sep 18 10:55:11 2015
New Revision: 227901
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227901&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
completely_scalarize arrays as well as records.
gcc/:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67623
Bug ID: 67623
Summary: interaction between cpp and Fortran
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67623
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I think multi-line strings like this are not well supported by C/C++.
Eventually fortran needs to tell the preprocessor it allows them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67623
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
int main()
{
printf ("Hello\
/* */\
world");
}
works as expected though:
> ./a.out
Hello /* */ world
but then libcpp doesn't know about fortrans continuation cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67621
--- Comment #2 from physik3 at gmx dot net ---
Hi.
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> (In reply to physik3 from comment #0)
> > foo.foo(); // this line gives a compiler error
>
> This needs to be:
>
> foo.template foo()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67623
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67621
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16233
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||physik3 at gmx dot net
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67552
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
I think we should place
if (current_function_decl && ix86_is_interrupt_p ())
{
for (i = 0; i < FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER; i++)
{
if (!STACK_REGNO_P (i) && !MMX_REGNO_P (i))
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67624
Bug ID: 67624
Summary: arm/fp16.c __gnu_f2h_internal has wrong pattern for
INF/NAN
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67243
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek ---
Another case is -Wdeclaration-after-statement:
int
fn (int m)
{
if (m > 0)
return -1;
int a;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67625
Bug ID: 67625
Summary: some constexpr expressions rejected as enumerator
value
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50749
--- Comment #23 from Oleg Endo ---
Thanks for the interesting test/use case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66624
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56158
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66624
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
markus@x4 ~ % clang++ -fsanitize=undefined -O0 -g t.cc
markus@x4 ~ % gdb ./a.out
Reading symbols from ./a.out...done.
(gdb) b __ubsan::ScopedReport::~ScopedReport
Breakpoint 1 at 0x41f5c0: file
/home/ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56158
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Now that sanitisers are complaining about this we should really fix it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67626
Bug ID: 67626
Summary: Erroneous report on downcast to __numpunct_cache
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67627
Bug ID: 67627
Summary: libatomic parallel build failure
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67628
Bug ID: 67628
Summary: [tree-optimization] (a && b) && c shows better codegen
than a && (b && c)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67628
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67628
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This is due to the fold-const.c optimization which should not be there any
> more. You need to do benchmarking on x86 also if you remove it.
>
cou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67628
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > This is due to the fold-const.c optimization which should not be there any
> > more. You need to do benchmarking on x86
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47679
--- Comment #27 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Sep 18 15:29:01 2015
New Revision: 227908
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227908&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH] Break out phi-only cprop into its own file
PR tree-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67629
Bug ID: 67629
Summary: bogus -Wreturn-type in a function with tautological
if-else
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67619
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Sep 18 16:27:51 2015
New Revision: 227909
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227909&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/67619
* except.c (expand_builtin_eh_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42568
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67624
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67630
Bug ID: 67630
Summary: ymm and zmm register aren't preserved in interrupt
handler
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67630
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124
--- Comment #27 from baoshan ---
> It seems GCC at some moment unrolls the loop and creates such block with
> those ranges. Probably, the block is unreachable, but it would be better to
> not create it in the first place. Finding out where and wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67401
--- Comment #3 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Fri Sep 18 18:24:09 2015
New Revision: 227913
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227913&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/67401
* optabs.c (expand_atomic_compar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67401
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Fri Sep 18 18:26:13 2015
New Revision: 227914
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227914&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/67401
* optabs.c (expand_atomic_compar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67401
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124
--- Comment #28 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to baoshan from comment #27)
> > It seems GCC at some moment unrolls the loop and creates such block with
> > those ranges. Probably, the block is unreachable, but it would be better to
> > n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124
--- Comment #29 from baoshan ---
> However, it is clear that _14 = baz[_9] is executed only 5 times (not 5
> times + 1). Why is this estimate wrong?
The max value of n is 6, so the max value of i is 5 as "i < n", then the max
value of j is 4 as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124
--- Comment #30 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to baoshan from comment #29)
> > However, it is clear that _14 = baz[_9] is executed only 5 times (not 5
> > times + 1). Why is this estimate wrong?
>
> The max value of n is 6, so the max v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67615
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65441
--- Comment #3 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 36348
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36348&action=edit
Proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47679
--- Comment #28 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Sep 18 19:33:48 2015
New Revision: 227922
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227922&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH] const_and_copies is no longer file scoped
PR tree-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67615
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #3)
> This patch to resolve.c catches the problem. Watch for
> cut-n-paste corruption of tabs.
>
> @@ -10377,12 +10381,11 @@ gfc_resolve_code (gfc_code *code, gfc_n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44756
Bug 44756 depends on bug 67347, which changed state.
Bug 67347 Summary: [alpha] unused function vms_asm_out_constructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67347
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67347
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67631
Bug ID: 67631
Summary: brace initialization bug
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67632
Bug ID: 67632
Summary: explicit instantiation omits copy constructor and
others
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124
--- Comment #31 from baoshan ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #30)
> (In reply to baoshan from comment #29)
> > > However, it is clear that _14 = baz[_9] is executed only 5 times (not 5
> > > times + 1). Why is this estimate wron
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67631
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67632
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67632
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|WOR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67624
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
All NaNs should have the top mantissa bit set in the result of the
conversion (i.e. the result of the conversion should always be a quiet
NaN, not a signaling NaN) - setting that bit also e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67632
--- Comment #3 from Joseph Link ---
Yeah, watch out for the copy constructor that takes an allocator. That one's
there. The compiler generated one is not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67633
Bug ID: 67633
Summary: decltype on parenthesized class member access of a
prvalue sometimes return wrong results
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67630
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 36349
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36349&action=edit
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28901
Paul Eggert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eggert at gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28901
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67634
Bug ID: 67634
Summary: Can't preserve bound register in interrupt handler
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67573
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo ---
I think this should be backported to GCC 5. Even if it might not be triggered
often, there is a possibility for silent wrong-code bugs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47679
--- Comment #29 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Sat Sep 19 02:56:15 2015
New Revision: 227931
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227931&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH] avail_expr_stack is no longer file scoped
PR tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66609
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67635
Bug ID: 67635
Summary: [SH] ifcvt missed optimization
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28901
--- Comment #12 from Paul Eggert ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #11)
> Another alternative is to only warn if the variable is defined in the main
> file (MAIN_FILE_P) as opposed to an included file.
Thanks, this is a reasonab
78 matches
Mail list logo
