https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65594
Bug ID: 65594
Summary: libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-6.c timeout
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: testsuit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #25 from Jan Hubicka ---
The memory use report:
rtl.c:317 (copy_rtx)9610680: 1.6% 0:
0.0% 0: 0.0% 0: 0.0% 401870
tree.c:8281 (build_method_type_directly)28395
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65536
--- Comment #46 from Jan Hubicka ---
Manuel,
I will hopefully commit the cache patch today or tomorrow morning. It does not
solve full issue. What we have is
1) we still drop columns for firefox&chromium pretty early
2) there is a bug that we som
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #24 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Fri Mar 27 04:02:28 2015
New Revision: 221719
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221719&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/65076
* passes.def: Add pass_nothrow.
* ipa-pure-cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65575
--- Comment #2 from Tom Honermann ---
r221695 does correct the specific test case in comment 0. However, I'm still
seeing similar errors for function declarations that don't specify the return
type with a trailing return type:
$ svn info # Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65593
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54005
--- Comment #15 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14)
> Can we close this?
I can't say now, sorry, but will be back on this in a week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #23 from Jan Hubicka ---
Also with early-inlining-insns=11 the statement count is smaller for mainline
(copmared to 4.9) until the pass bswap, it grows up in PRE (by about 1%) and
then it continues growing with subsequent passes. So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65593
Bug ID: 65593
Summary: [5 Regression] internal compiler error: in
extract_insn, at recog.c:2343
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65592
Bug ID: 65592
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault when using
non-existant enum class enumerator
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60421
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.0 |6.0
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65510
--- Comment #5 from Chen Gang ---
After remove clobber (match_scratch ...), it will generate the correct assembly
code (I guess it is):
.file "test.i"
.c6xabi_attribute Tag_ABI_array_object_alignment, 0
.c6xabi_attribut
rt ()
#3 0x000100f32170 in linemap_lookup (set=0x10175e0f0, line=651) at
../../gcc-5-20150326/libcpp/line-map.c:806
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61250
--- Comment #15 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to howarth from comment #14)
> Testing https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-03/msg01334.html in case
> correction of the overflow tests eliminates this bug.
The proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65510
--- Comment #4 from Chen Gang ---
In gcc/config/c6x/c6x.md, if we remove (clober ...) for
movmisalign_store, it will be OK (just symmetric with
movmisalign_load which is OK).
(define_insn_and_split "movmisalign_store"
[(set (match_operand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65561
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65561
--- Comment #8 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Mar 26 22:14:07 2015
New Revision: 221712
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221712&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65561
* config/i386/sse.md (avx512f_vextract32x4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65586
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Comment on attachment 35157
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35157
Untested draft patch
I'd say the C++ parser change is ok, but the C parser change is not, I think
c_parser_skip_until_fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60421
Jaak Ristioja changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65590
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60421
--- Comment #5 from Jaak Ristioja ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Fixed for gcc5.
Looking at the diff of revision 221708, I fail to see how the
if (__rtime <= __rtime.zero())
return;
check in sleep_for() prevents the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65586
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
--- Comment #9 from felix.ospald at gmx dot de ---
Hi,
I attached an output from
strace ./main 2>&1 | tee log
Maybe this helps. I see that there are some futex EAGAIN errors. I'm not sure
if this is a problem (I also get them on my notebook).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
--- Comment #8 from felix.ospald at gmx dot de ---
Created attachment 35156
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35156&action=edit
strace output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65561
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.3
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
--- Comment #7 from felix.ospald at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> I ran for 2836 iterations with the trunk GCC and aarch64 which has a very
> weak memory ordering and did not run into a single failure.
This is what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64666
--- Comment #5 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Just use -pedantic-errors if you want strict language conformance?
-std=* -pedantic is supposed to be enough to get GCC to conform to the
specified standard (t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65561
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Mar 26 20:37:53 2015
New Revision: 221709
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221709&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65561
* config/i386/sse.md (avx512dq_vextract64x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64666
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65576
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
*** Bug 65577 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64666
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65577
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65577
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
According to git bisect, 2d5ee2b9035db2414ae3535db18550c1d90e52fd is the first
bad commit:
commit 2d5ee2b9035db2414ae3535db18550c1d90e52fd
Author: meissner
Date: Thu Mar 19 22:37:33 2015 +
[gcc]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65591
Bug ID: 65591
Summary: G++ should use default constructor for {}-init when
possible
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65154
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58038
--- Comment #13 from Matthew Lai ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> (In reply to Matthew Lai from comment #8)
> > Here is another case where this bug caused a hard-to-find problem -
> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1757428
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
I ran for 2836 iterations with the trunk GCC and aarch64 which has a very weak
memory ordering and did not run into a single failure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65500
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65147
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62259
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60421
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58038
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58038
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Matthew Lai from comment #8)
> Here is another case where this bug caused a hard-to-find problem -
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17574287/boostthread-attributes-setting-
> call-stack-si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60421
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Mar 26 19:59:08 2015
New Revision: 221708
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221708&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/58038
PR libstdc++/60421
* include/std/thread (t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58038
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Mar 26 19:59:08 2015
New Revision: 221708
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221708&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/58038
PR libstdc++/60421
* include/std/thread (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65154
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 26 19:51:58 2015
New Revision: 221704
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221704&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65154
* init.c (build_vec_init): Fix initializing aggregate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65154
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 26 19:52:00 2015
New Revision: 221705
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221705&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65154
* init.c (build_vec_init): Fix initializing aggregate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65588
David Kredba changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35154|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61250
--- Comment #14 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
Testing https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-03/msg01334.html in case
correction of the overflow tests eliminates this bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62259
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Mar 26 19:27:02 2015
New Revision: 221703
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221703&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/62259
PR libstdc++/65147
* include/std/atomic (a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65590
Bug ID: 65590
Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/coarray/coindexed_3.f90
-fcoarray=single -O2 -latomic (test for errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65147
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Mar 26 19:27:02 2015
New Revision: 221703
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221703&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/62259
PR libstdc++/65147
* include/std/atomic (a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65551
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61250
--- Comment #13 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
The offending line appears to be at...
static const struct line_map*
linemap_macro_map_lookup (struct line_maps *set, source_location line)
{
unsigned int md, mn, mx;
const struct line_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65551
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 26 19:17:44 2015
New Revision: 221702
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221702&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/65551
* tree-ssa-sccvn.c (fully_constant_vn_r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61250
--- Comment #12 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
To clarify, I am able to debug the core file by executing...
make -k -j8 check RUNTESTFLAGS="pch.exp=pch.C --target_board=unix'{-dH}'"
until I see...
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/pch.C -O2 -I. -Dwit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61250
--- Comment #11 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
It appears that -dH does indeed produce a core in /cores. Using...
gdb /sw/src/fink.build/gcc5-5.0.0-1/darwin_objdir/gcc/cc1plus /cores/core.92484
the bt shows...
#0 0x7fff96238286 i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44685
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #2)
> I am getting something similar on blackfin
> when building linux kernel
> arch/blackfin/kernel/setup.c:1110:1: internal compiler error: in
> final_scan_insn,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65576
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
git bisect pinpointed the following as the commit that introduced the ICE:
commit 2d5ee2b9035db2414ae3535db18550c1d90e52fd
Author: meissner
Date: Thu Mar 19 22:37:33 2015 +
[gcc]
2015-03-19 M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61250
--- Comment #10 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
The crashing compiler does leave a crash log in
~/Library/Logs/DiagnosticReports but unfortunately these show...
Backtrace not available
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Note rand () is not thread-safe, so calling it from multiple threads
> concurrently is undefined-behavior.
Actually looking into glibc sources, you can notice th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
--- Comment #4 from felix.ospald at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Can't reproduce here, with neither 4.8 nor 4.9. But tested just on 16
> threads box (both with argument 16 and 32).
With only 16 threads I also cann
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61250
--- Comment #9 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
Unfortunately it doesn't look like the -d option...
`H'
Produce a core dump whenever an error occurs.
is functional on darwin.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Can't reproduce here, with neither 4.8 nor 4.9. But tested just on 16 threads
box (both with argument 16 and 32).
Note rand () is not thread-safe, so calling it from multiple threads
concurrently is undefin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
--- Comment #2 from felix.ospald at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I cannot reproduce this on an AARCH64 target with 48 cores with the trunk.
I do not have the trunk installed. What do you suggest? Should I compile m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65561
--- Comment #5 from Rainer Emrich ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> Rainer, the failure doesn't trigger for me on crosscompiler from
> x86_64-linux-gnu. Can you please check if the attached patch fixes the
> failure for you?
ICE is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I cannot reproduce this on an AARCH64 target with 48 cores with the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61250
--- Comment #8 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
I also noticed that the ICE...
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/pch.C -O2 -g -I. -Dwith_PCH (internal compiler error)
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/pch.C -O2 -g -I. -Dwith_PCH (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/pch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033
--- Comment #7 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Mar 26 18:31:11 2015
New Revision: 221701
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221701&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65033
* include/bits/atomic_base.h (__atomic_base::is_loc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61250
--- Comment #7 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
Is there any sensible approach we can use to try to obtain a backtrace?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65154
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Mikhail Maltsev from comment #5)
> We'll get 1000 calls to ss() in main instead of calling default c-tor of
> struct C. (which is probably not what we want).
Agreed, we ought to use the default
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65503
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.8.1
Severity|blocker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
Bug ID: 65589
Summary: OpenMP 3.1 produces random results for simple array
copy
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65525
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 26 17:58:39 2015
New Revision: 221699
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221699&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65525
* constexpr.c (potential_constant_expression_1): Hand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65525
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65587
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65587
--- Comment #4 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Mar 26 17:51:57 2015
New Revision: 221698
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221698&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/65587
debug/elf: apply relocations for SHT_RELA/EM_PPC
M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61250
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Does the -Winvalid-pch flag give any extra information?
AFAICT no.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65588
--- Comment #1 from David Kredba ---
Created attachment 35154
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35154&action=edit
A little c-reduced preprocessed file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65587
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
Created attachment 35153
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35153&action=edit
object file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61250
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65588
Bug ID: 65588
Summary: lto1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65587
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose ---
Created attachment 35151
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35151&action=edit
output of cgo command
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65536
--- Comment #45 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #42)
> Hi,
> I read linemap_line_start and I think I noticed few issues with respect
> to overflows and lines being added randomly.
I honestly think this is too s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65587
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
When I've seen this before, it's been because the relocation processing in
applyRelocationsPPC in debug/elf/file.go is not working.
If you run the go command with the -x option, you will see the exact com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65587
Bug ID: 65587
Summary: C package incomplete/not working for powerpc-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65586
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5 Regression] |-fopenmp-simd rejects valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65586
Bug ID: 65586
Summary: [5 Regression] -fopenmp-simd rejects valid input
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp, rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65585
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65584
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65585
--- Comment #2 from EatDirt ---
Sorry for the noise and thanks very much for the info.
I was completely unaware of the f2003 feature!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65585
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65585
Bug ID: 65585
Summary: Implicit allocation of unallocated array with an
implicit summation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65525
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65584
Bug ID: 65584
Summary: [i386] Intrinsics inclusion with `-nostdinc' failing
due to `stdlib.h' dependency
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42575
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.2.1 |5.0
--- Comment #15 from kt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59256
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|jason at gcc dot
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo
