https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63448
--- Comment #2 from Svante Signell ---
Hi, when compiling ./build/atlas-base/src/blas/gemm/KERNEL/ATL_cNCCUmmNN.c from
Debian atlas 3.10.2-3 on GNU/Hurd the ICE happens (twice):
ATL_cNCCUmmNN.c:3856:1: internal compiler error: Maximum number of L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63448
--- Comment #1 from Svante Signell ---
Created attachment 33642
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33642&action=edit
Preprocessed source stored into /tmp/ccejGHdk.out file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63448
Bug ID: 63448
Summary: ICE when compiling atlas 3.10.2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63447
Bug ID: 63447
Summary: merge consecutive stw to std
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298
--- Comment #11 from Damian Rouson ---
Thanks for the quick response. In recent times, I’ve had the impression that
it’s harder to find developers than to find money (not that it’s all that easy
to find money). I’ve attempted to fund gfortran d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298
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=63422
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298
--- Comment #9 from Damian Rouson ---
Oh boy. I'm guessing that's an indication that there won't be any movement on
this anytime soon. It seems this is one of only two major features missing for
full Fortran 2003 compliance -- the other being d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61877
--- Comment #10 from Michael Hudson-Doyle ---
I've proposed a fix https://codereview.appspot.com/152840043
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63444
--- Comment #1 from Pranith Kumar ---
Just FYI, clang compiles the same file using 1G memory.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63446
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61877
--- Comment #9 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Thanks for the test case. I wrote a completely different test case that is
more like the existing reflect tests: https://codereview.appspot.com/151280043/
. This test passes with gc but fails with gccgo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13423
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #3)
> Although this is an ABI issue, passing float vector by reference should not
> actually suffer from this problem, but it does:
>
> typedef float v4sf __attribute__ ((vect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63446
Bug ID: 63446
Summary: dangling reference results in confusing diagnostic
from -Wuninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63362
--- Comment #10 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Reduced:
template
struct bool_
{
};
template
struct mytrait : bool_<__is_trivially_constructible(T, Args...)>
{
}
trivial_trait2.cpp:7:64: internal compiler error: tree check: expected class
‘type’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63362
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63435
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
Yes,
good to remind me. The aliases are quite broken on AIX pre 4.9
and becasue some of them are now auto generated, we probably ought
to fix it. One solution would be to disable generation of aliases, other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2008-08-16 22:55:22 |2014-10-2
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Ko
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57460
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #4)
> (In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #3)
> > I tried to close the issue as INVALID, but it seems that I cannot do that by
> > myself.
>
> Strange, as the repo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57460
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57460
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler ---
I tried to close the issue as INVALID, but it seems that I cannot do that by
myself.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57460
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #1)
> But there is no T that would cause check<(EXPR,T())> to be valid, so no
> valid specialization can be generated for the template, so the program is
> ill-formed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57248
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #6)
> However, it's true that all the up to
> date compilers I have at hand reject it with the same kind of error about
> get at:
>
>return std::get(t1);
>
> lik
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63422
--- Comment #7 from tejohnson at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tejohnson
Date: Thu Oct 2 20:30:11 2014
New Revision: 215822
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215822&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-01 Teresa Johnson
PR middle-end/63422
en simplifying
conditional [-Wstrict-overflow]
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < n; i++)
^
$ gcc -v 2>&1|tail -2
gcc version 5.0.0 20141002 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63302
--- Comment #16 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 9/29/2014 9:02 AM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> I've started a full build and
> check
> with 4.9 branch. I'll also test it on hpux starting this evening.
I see no regressions with th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63444
Bug ID: 63444
Summary: Compilation consumes 2.5G memory
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53025
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Oct 2 18:05:55 2014
New Revision: 215813
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215813&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-10-02 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/53025
* cp-tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61880
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61880
--- Comment #3 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Oct 2 18:00:01 2014
New Revision: 215812
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215812&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/61880
compiler: symbol names should have '.' replaced wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61880
--- Comment #2 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Oct 2 17:56:50 2014
New Revision: 215810
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215810&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/61880
compiler: symbol names should have '.' replaced wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63375
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Oct 2 17:13:30 2014
New Revision: 215807
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215807&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-02 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimization/63375
* tree-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63375
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Oct 2 17:11:24 2014
New Revision: 215806
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215806&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-02 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimization/63375
* tree-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63199
--- Comment #4 from Tim Shen ---
Author: timshen
Date: Thu Oct 2 16:50:39 2014
New Revision: 215805
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215805&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/63199
* include/bits/regex.h (basic_regex::basic_regex,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63375
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Oct 2 16:49:14 2014
New Revision: 215804
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215804&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-02 Martin Jambor
PR tree-optimization/63375
* tree-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63306
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60181
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to boger from comment #6)
> If the last comment is true, does that mean the fold_const.c file in gcc
> should be built in a way so that it doesn't use the fma, like using some
> kind of option durin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63443
Bug ID: 63443
Summary: copyrename2 introducing bogus profile counts
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60181
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|ppc64-ibm-linux,|s390x-ibm-linux,
|s39
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60181
--- Comment #6 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
If the last comment is true, does that mean the fold_const.c file in gcc should
be built in a way so that it doesn't use the fma, like using some kind of
option during the build of gcc at least for t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63342
--- Comment #6 from Julian Taylor ---
thanks, head (and branches) work fine now
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61877
--- Comment #8 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I see only minor changes to makefuncgo_amd64.go between 4.9 and mainline--are
you sure you are looking at the right files?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63442
Bug ID: 63442
Summary: [AArch64] ICE with ubsan/overflow-int128.c test
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63172
boger at us dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #6 from boge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63381
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Actually, Comment 1 applies here as well, so these two could be dups.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63380
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63381
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Ugh, ignore Comment 1, that was for PR63380.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63381
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61877
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Shopov ---
> It also seems the intel case is broken on this test case on mainline. If I
> hack it to take the ffi case, it works with my patch. Also 4.9 works, which
Not sure how relevant this would be, but makefu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60181
boger at us dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boger at us dot ibm.com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63172
boger at us dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62131
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63247
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63441
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63441
Bug ID: 63441
Summary: incorrect "array subscript is below/above array
bounds" diagnostic
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61877
--- Comment #6 from Michael Hudson-Doyle ---
Created attachment 33640
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33640&action=edit
my test cases
I think the patch works because when the compiler sees a call to a variadic
function, it g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51317
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||james.kanze at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63438
Bug 63438 depends on bug 34075, which changed state.
Bug 34075 Summary: [DR 587] temporary used in ?: expression tho second and
third expr. lvalues
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34075
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34075
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63440
Bug ID: 63440
Summary: -Og does enable -fmerge-constants too
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61736
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63438
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51317
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eric.niebler at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63437
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63362
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62056
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #11)
> Jonathan, what should we do about this? Is this implementation better than
> the one in libstdc++?
I don't know, I haven't looked.
Agustin, do you hav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63436
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63439
Bug ID: 63439
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-33.c scan-tree-dump vect
"Alignment of access forced using peeling"
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63437
--- Comment #2 from Kohei Takahashi ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> in C++14 (a) means the same as static_cast(a).
>
> So it is a reference at this point which means const & is better than &&.
>
> Or at least that is how I und
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62128
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Oct 2 07:29:49 2014
New Revision: 215796
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215796&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/62128
* config/i386/i386.c (expand_vec_perm_1): Try expa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61153
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63438
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
73 matches
Mail list logo
