https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65797
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
> With gold's ICF, as I understand it, there is a function name and file/line
> information for every function in the backtrace. It may not be the name or
> the
ICF does not do the wrappers as far as I know.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65799
Bug ID: 65799
Summary: Allows constexpr coversion from cv void * to other
type
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth.at.gcc at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65797
--- Comment #7 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
With gold's ICF, as I understand it, there is a function name and file/line
information for every function in the backtrace. It may not be the name or the
file/line info you expect, but it's there.
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65797
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
The following untested patch could help. We may need to set location of the
debug statement
etc. I probably won't be able to do much more on this till Monday evening
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65797
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Well, if you turn one function to alias of another, there is no way to preserve
it (like Gold's ICF doesn't). With dwarf extensions we can restore some of the
info based on context where the function is called,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65797
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I think we should have a goal of making backtraces always work. I don't know
why we would ever want backtraces to fail. Every function should have a name
and a file name. I can accept that in some cases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65792
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65792
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Created attachment 35346 [details]
> draft patch, untested
The patch fixes the PR, but causes
FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_19.f03 -O0 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_19.f03 -O1 execution te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65797
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hi,
the ICF wrapper are created same way as thunks (by expand_thunk) which probably
suppress debug info because we do not want to see it for thunks. I suppose it
is:
DECL_IGNORED_P (thunk_fndecl) = 1
I suppose
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65787
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 17 22:05:12 2015
New Revision: 05
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=05&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2015-04-17 Bill Schmidt
PR target/65787
* config/rs60
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65798
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65798
--- Comment #3 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Apr 17 21:58:58 2015
New Revision: 03
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=03&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/65798
runtime: In Caller don't return ok == true if PC ==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65798
--- Comment #4 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Apr 17 21:59:10 2015
New Revision: 04
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=04&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/65798
runtime: In Caller don't return ok == true if PC ==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
--- Comment #44 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Apr 17 21:55:05 2015
New Revision: 02
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=02&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Don't define ix86_binds_local_p for MacOS nor Windows
PR targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
--- Comment #43 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Apr 17 21:54:22 2015
New Revision: 01
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=01&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Don't define ix86_binds_local_p for MacOS nor Windows
PR targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65798
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I don't see it as a good idea to ignore an empty file name, but I'm fine with
ignoring a 0 PC, so that is what I will implement. Though I am definitely
curious how they got a 0 PC from runtime.Caller.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65798
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
The libgo code actually follows the lead of the gc code here. The 1.3 code, in
C, said this:
} else if((f = runtime·findfunc(rpc[1])) == nil) {
retfile = runtime·emptystring;
retline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64683
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64683
--- Comment #14 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Apr 17 21:29:20 2015
New Revision: 00
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=00&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/64683
runtime/pprof: Assume function with no name is in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65797
--- Comment #2 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Apr 17 21:29:20 2015
New Revision: 00
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=00&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/64683
runtime/pprof: Assume function with no name is in r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65797
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Apr 17 21:29:08 2015
New Revision: 222199
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222199&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/64683
runtime/pprof: Assume function with no name is in r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64683
--- Comment #13 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Apr 17 21:29:08 2015
New Revision: 222199
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222199&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/64683
runtime/pprof: Assume function with no name is in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64683
--- Comment #12 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
Sorry I did not intend to reopen a closed bugzilla, I must not have looked
carefully enough and thought it was still open. Just wanted to document what I
found since their log output was the same.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65798
Bug ID: 65798
Summary: runtime.Caller returns ok=true when return data is
invalid
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64683
--- Comment #11 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
This bug may have the same symptoms but it has a completely different cause.
Next time, please do not reopen the bug unless you are certain it has the same
cause. Please open a new bug instead. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65797
Bug ID: 65797
Summary: [5.0 regression] IPA ICF causes function to be emitted
with no debug line info
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65787
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 17 20:35:59 2015
New Revision: 222198
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222198&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-17 Bill Schmidt
PR target/65787
* config/rs6000/rs60
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65535
Andreas Tobler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65792
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 35346
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35346&action=edit
draft patch, untested
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65180
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65792
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #58 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Apr 17 19:29:43 2015
New Revision: 222197
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222197&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/64999
PR go/65180
runtime: Adjust libbacktrace PC va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65180
--- Comment #3 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Apr 17 19:29:28 2015
New Revision: 222196
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222196&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/64999
PR go/65180
runtime: Adjust libbacktrace PC val
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65180
--- Comment #4 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Apr 17 19:29:43 2015
New Revision: 222197
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222197&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/64999
PR go/65180
runtime: Adjust libbacktrace PC val
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #57 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Apr 17 19:29:28 2015
New Revision: 222196
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222196&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/64999
PR go/65180
runtime: Adjust libbacktrace PC va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47679
--- Comment #19 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Apr 17 19:24:17 2015
New Revision: 222195
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222195&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/47679
* Makefile.in (OBJS); Add tree-ssa-scop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65755
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65755
--- Comment #3 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Apr 17 18:19:44 2015
New Revision: 222194
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222194&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/65755
compiler, runtime, reflect: Use reflection string f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #39 from Andrew Macleod ---
(In reply to torvald from comment #38)
> (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #34)
> > > However, I guess some people relying on data races in their programs could
> > > (mis?)understand the __sync_lock
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65535
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Tobler ---
Author: andreast
Date: Fri Apr 17 17:50:46 2015
New Revision: 222192
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222192&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65535
* config.gcc: Exit with a comment when we do not have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42112
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
This seems to have been fixed at least for 4.8.4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58754
--- Comment #9 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Ah that's a pity. I thought that 5.0 had closed when Tobias was
panicking about his co-array patch. I didn't think to check.
Cheers
Paul
On 17 April 2015 at 18:03, dominiq at lps dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57354
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
AFAICT this PR is fixed at 4.9.2. Any reason why it is not closed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
--- Comment #64 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 17 17:10:27 2015
New Revision: 222189
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222189&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/62077
* configure.ac (--enable-stage1-checking): Def
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
--- Comment #63 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 17 17:09:20 2015
New Revision: 222187
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222187&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/62077
* configure.ac (--enable-stage1-checking): Def
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65689
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6 Regression][AArch64] S |[5 Regression][AArch64] S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65796
Bug ID: 65796
Summary: unnecessary stack spills during complex numbers
function calls
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65689
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 17 16:43:28 2015
New Revision: 222186
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222186&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65689
* genpreds.c (struct constraint_data): Add maybe_a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
--- Comment #40 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Apr 17 16:36:22 2015
New Revision: 222185
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222185&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Properly handle uninitialized common symbol
Uninitialized common
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
--- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I applied the patch, and did a make in the built folder. I still get the ICE.
Did you do "make install"?
> Or do I have to change the file gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c and do a completely
> new built
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
--- Comment #39 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Please commit it to the branch too, I'll do another RC tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6 Regression]|[5 Regression]
|Uninitialize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
--- Comment #37 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Apr 17 16:23:24 2015
New Revision: 222184
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222184&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Properly handle uninitialized common symbol
Uninitialized common
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
--- Comment #17 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I applied the patch, and did a make in the built folder. I still get the ICE.
Or do I have to change the file gcc/fortran/trans-stmt.c and do a completely
new built of the gcc/gfortran compiler suite?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
--- Comment #36 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Patch in c#35 is approved.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58754
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > No RC yet!
>
> What, really?
Now yes. 5.1 should be available in the middle of next week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58754
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #6)
> > This fixes the problem.
>
> Confirmed.
>
> > However, it will produce multiple evaluations of function results
> > and expressions. I will introduce a t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #38 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #34)
> > However, I guess some people relying on data races in their programs could
> > (mis?)understand the __sync_lock_release semantics to mean that it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65180
--- Comment #2 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
We've been putting most of the discussion on this in the bugzilla mentioned in
the previous comment.
However there is a simple fix for Power which I will add here:
ndex: libgo/runtime/go-callers.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #37 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #35)
> (In reply to torvald from comment #32)
> > (In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #28)
> > > This also gives us an easier route to fixing any
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65795
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65795
Bug ID: 65795
Summary: Segfault (invalid write) for ALLOCATE statement
involving COARRAYS
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65787
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Jakub pointed out that this is actually a general problem with how I'm handling
PARALLELs elsewhere, which I had missed. Testing a slightly different patch
now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65787
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Apr 17 14:50:50 2015
New Revision: 222182
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222182&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2015-04-17 Bill Schmidt
PR target/65787
* config/rs60
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65771
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 17 14:16:30 2015
New Revision: 222181
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222181&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/65771
* dwarf2out.c (mem_loc_descriptor): For CONST, fal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65296
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64950
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65296
--- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Apr 17 13:54:16 2015
New Revision: 222179
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222179&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65296
* config/avr/gen-avr-mmcu-specs.c (*avrlibc_start
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65612
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65787
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Updated patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg00883.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64683
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=64999
--- Comment #56 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
Here is a bit more detail. Now that I think I understand all the
considerations, I'm proposing this simple fix for gcc 5. Maybe longer term a
more thorough solution could be done but not sure it i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65673
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
What happens here is that pop_init_level returns error_mark_node because
initializing a zero-length array member with {} is discarded:
7565 /* Silently discard empty initializations. The parser will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65612
--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Apr 17 12:58:07 2015
New Revision: 222178
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222178&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Hide __cpu_indicator_init/__cpu_model from linker
We shouldn't cal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #46 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > And I haven't looked yet at Dominique's feedback in comment #43.
>
> The test in comment #41 fails at run time when compiled with
> -fsanitize=address.
> If I take the "complement" of the reduced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64950
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to vries from comment #7)
> Marking resolved, fixed.
So, can PR41089 hack [1] finally be reverted?
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg00072.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65794
Bug ID: 65794
Summary: Building crossback fails: No rule to make target
`auto-build.h', needed by `build/genmddeps.o'
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64527
ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #55 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
Created attachment 35344
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35344&action=edit
Increment the pc in the callback routine for backtrace_full
Always increment the pc in the callback,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61275
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65793
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65793
Bug ID: 65793
Summary: Libstdc++ docs on _GLIBCXX_CONCEPT_CHECKS are
duplicated
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65792
Bug ID: 65792
Summary: allocation of scalar elemental function with structure
constructor fails
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55932
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57965
Bug 57965 depends on bug 55932, which changed state.
Bug 55932 Summary: [F03] ICE for structure constructor with scalar allocatable
component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55932
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65788
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65788
>
> H.J. Lu changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64527
--- Comment #3 from ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Fri Apr 17 12:14:24 2015
New Revision: 222176
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222176&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR c++/64527
gcc/
PR c++/64527
* gimplify.c (gimp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65788
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
--- Comment #62 from Richard Biener ---
Works for me. Of course we should hunt down IL differences that appear with
GC.
It's just a lurking bug that can hit the non-GC checking path as well.
But all this is exceptionally hard to track down :/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #61
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
In fact comment 3 doesn't even need C++11, it's valid C++03.
It came from http://stackoverflow.com/a/29696258/981959
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.8.3, 4.9.2, 5.0, 6.0
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65460
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
stage1 ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg00861.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
--- Comment #28 from Richard Biener ---
So the context I put the stub DIE in is technically wrong. Thus some more
analysis results. The reason why we end up populating the limbo_die_list
from the force_decl_die path is because we refuse to put
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
