https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77463
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70473
--- Comment #12 from Leonid Lisovskiy ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #11)
r239772 seriously decreases genautomata memory consumption for ARM. As for
valgrind massif report, it requires 316MB now.
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65467
--- Comment #15 from Andreas Schwab ---
FAIL: gcc.dg/gomp/_Atomic-4.c (test for warnings, line 7)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65467
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #15)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/gomp/_Atomic-4.c (test for warnings, line 7)
Does
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/gomp/_Atomic-4.c.jj2016-09-02 20:36:22.0
+0200
+++ gcc/t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77405
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69514
lkrupp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lkrupp at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65467
--- Comment #17 from Andreas Schwab ---
FAIL -> UNSUPPORTED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65467
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #17)
> FAIL -> UNSUPPORTED
That is expected on targets that don't provide compute_vecsize_and_simdlen
target hook. If it is a target with reasonable vector support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65467
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Sep 3 09:20:03 2016
New Revision: 239970
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239970&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/65467
* gcc.dg/gomp/_Atomic-4.c: Require vect_simd_c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65467
--- Comment #20 from Andreas Schwab ---
aarch64 also fails.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59970
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69514
--- Comment #4 from lkrupp at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This patch is a kludge. I don't recommend it. But it does fix at least one of
the test cases, it passes the test suite, and it might point to a proper
solution:
Index: arith.c
==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60165
--- Comment #16 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #15)
> Well, detecting uninitialized variables is equivalent to generating better
> code. See the following functions. If you want to be able to remove the i =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66447
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66946
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77464
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77464
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Or at least give a clearer error that mentions -fPIC ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77464
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77464
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #3)
> Or at least give a clearer error that mentions -fPIC ...
Actually this is not a driver issue just a binutils issue if that. Why add
no-pie anyways to the l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77463
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Reis ---
I just compiled the same file using gcc-6.2.0 without any problems, regardless
of the switch -Os.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77412
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77414
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77415
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Peter Wu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at lekensteyn dot nl
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52830
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77434
--- Comment #11 from Bernd Edlinger ---
As I said, I think "<<" on signed integers is generally bogus in a
truth value context.
So I tried an experiment for such a warning:
Index: c-common.c
=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77427
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking, patch
--- Comment #10 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77466
Bug ID: 77466
Summary: [7 regression] FAIL: g++.dg/gcov/gcov-dump-1.C
-std=gnu++11 (test for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65467
--- Comment #21 from Jeff Hammond ---
Thanks. This is great. I built GCC master last night and can now compile both
the trivial test program and a more interesting one that encapsulates what I
actually need to work to make progress on OpenMP 5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77462
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77465
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77463
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|WAI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77457
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |middle-end
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77457
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77457
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77457
--- Comment #5 from Ruslan ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Note also should be shown in C99 hex floats because that is 100% exactly
> representable of the number in binary :).
Not sure if exactness is worth it. It'll make it ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77456
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71956
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77467
Bug ID: 77467
Summary: Segmentation fault with switch statement in constexpr
function
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22141
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||petschy at gmail dot com
--- Comment #36
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68791
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68751
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77467
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60443
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Is this still true?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77445
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68663
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68690
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone|6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68610
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60307
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77441
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77459
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68611
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note int** is not implicit casted to int const * const in C. There is another
bug report about that :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77456
--- Comment #2 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
#22141 does not mention a DSE issue, nor a segfault of the compiler, so hardly
an exact duplicate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77456
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77456
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
You have like three different bugs in listed in here so it was hard to
understand which one was which :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77456
--- Comment #5 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Sorry. Should I open dedicated bugs for them, or can you work from this single
one? Though the example code would be the same. Probably I would have picked a
more descriptive title mentioning the DS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33259
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41244
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2009-09-03 14:12:37 |2016-9-3
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
Bug ID: 77468
Summary: C-ray regression on Aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67793
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||50584
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53659
PeteVine changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tulipawn at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77464
--- Comment #6 from Balint Reczey ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #3)
> > Or at least give a clearer error that mentions -fPIC ...
>
> Actually this is not a driver issue just a bin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77464
--- Comment #7 from Balint Reczey ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> You need -fPIC to create shared libraries.
I know that the relevant options are -fPIC and -fno-PIC. I have opened the bug
to handle -shared -no-pie and -no-pie -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77464
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Basically -no-pie says you are now doing an executable overriding the previous
-shared. This is not a bug, you want -no-pie -shared.
So if you want to disable pie for some building just set CC (and CXX and L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77464
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
-no-pie
Don't produce a position independent executable.
Maybe the wording is a bit weird but -no-pie says produce an executable which
is not position independent executable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60301
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61326
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Does this work with a newer version of GCC?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77469
Bug ID: 77469
Summary: std::regex x("[b\\-a]") throws with message "Invalid
range in bracket expression."
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77469
--- Comment #1 from alban...@baker-research.com ---
Created attachment 39543
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39543&action=edit
Test program with the bug
Build the program:
g++ testRegex.cc -o testRegex -std=c++11
Run:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77469
--- Comment #2 from alban...@baker-research.com ---
Created attachment 39544
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39544&action=edit
config.log from building gcc 6.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64700
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-01-21 00:00:00 |2016-9-3
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77469
--- Comment #3 from alban...@baker-research.com ---
Created attachment 39545
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39545&action=edit
Preprocessed file generated by -save-temps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64711
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
DEF_LIB_BUILTIN_CHKP (BUILT_IN_MEMMOVE, "memmove",
BT_FN_PTR_PTR_CONST_PTR_SIZE, ATTR_RET1_NOTHROW_NONNULL_LEAF)
memmove is marked as nothrow. So the question is that correct if so then there
is no bug h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68436
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68400
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68008
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67725
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61291
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68339
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68339
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77469
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77470
Bug ID: 77470
Summary: libssp may have bad includes
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77471
Bug ID: 77471
Summary: -O3 -g comile time hog on ppc64le
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
A
83 matches
Mail list logo
