https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66322
Bug ID: 66322
Summary: Linus Torvalds: -Wswitch-bool produces dubious
warnings, fails to notice really bad things
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66303
--- Comment #3 from Tatsushi Inagaki ---
Created attachment 35641
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35641&action=edit
gdb session of callback() called from runtime.Caller(skip==3)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66303
--- Comment #2 from Tatsushi Inagaki ---
The first invocation of runtime.Caller() with skip==2 successfully detects
kickoff() in callback(), and thus returns ok==true.
The problem is that the succeeding invocations of runtime.Caller() with
skip=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66316
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66316
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Alexander Trufanov from comment #0)
> Application has two .cpp modules. Let's say 1.cpp and 2.cpp.
> In each module there is a definition of struct N. Name N is the same for
> both. So we have two
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66318
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
You're right that the text of diagnostics is outside the scope of the C
standard. But as you note, even diagnostics are relied on by tools to
manipulate the referenced files, and changing the file names in th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #26 from Honggyu Kim ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #25)
> This should be fixed on trunk for GCC 6.
> I'll keep this open for a few days to make sure there are no glaring
> complaints about the patch as it gets through the aut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66148
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to John David Anglin from comment #10)
> Thanks Thomas for your analysis.
You're welcome. I'm glad you fixed the issue so quickly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66310
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66148
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66148
--- Comment #9 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Thu May 28 01:17:52 2015
New Revision: 223794
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223794&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66148
* config/pa/pa.c (pa_emit_move_seque
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66148
--- Comment #8 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Thu May 28 01:15:46 2015
New Revision: 223793
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223793&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66148
* config/pa/pa.c (pa_emit_move_seque
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66148
--- Comment #7 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Thu May 28 01:12:59 2015
New Revision: 223792
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223792&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66148
* config/pa/pa.c (pa_emit_move_seque
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66148
--- Comment #6 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Thu May 28 01:09:59 2015
New Revision: 223791
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223791&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66148
* config/pa/pa.c (pa_emit_move_seque
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66318
--- Comment #2 from Keith Thompson ---
Martin:
Good point. I don't suggest altering the string to which the __FILE__
macro expands, merely sanitizing file names to be displayed in error
messages.
I see my original description wasn't 100% clear
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66321
Bug ID: 66321
Summary: [4.9.2/5.1.0/6.0.0] errors allocating allocatable
array component of pointer object component
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66320
Bug ID: 66320
Summary: internal compiler error: in
cxx_eval_constant_expression, at cp/constexpr.c:3524
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66319
Bug ID: 66319
Summary: [6 Regression] gcov-tool.c:84:65: error: invalid
conversion from 'int (*)(const c har*, const stat*,
int, FTW*)' to 'int (*)(const char*, const stat*, int,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41227
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66318
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58583
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52595
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66318
Bug ID: 66318
Summary: Error messages contain raw file name; malicious #line
directives can do bad things
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66317
Bug ID: 66317
Summary: Preprocessor chokes on __FILE__ containing a newline
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66316
Bug ID: 66316
Summary: Usage of wrong template function for classes in
different modules but having the same name
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66263
--- Comment #4 from EyalBD ---
Same results for -fwhole-program too. gcc-4.6,4.7 around 0.5s, others 0.7-0.8s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to vries from comment #10)
> Created attachment 35639 [details]
> tentative patch for GOACC_data_end
That is a bad idea, as void GOACC_data_end (void) is already exported out of
libgomp, so this i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #10 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35639
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35639&action=edit
tentative patch for GOACC_data_end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66270
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39726
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Summar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39726
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed May 27 21:13:25 2015
New Revision: 223781
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223781&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/39726
* gcc.dg/target/m68k/pr39726-1.c: New test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66270
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Wed May 27 20:36:14 2015
New Revision: 223773
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223773&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66270
* tree.c (build_pointer_type_for_mode): Can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66315
Bug ID: 66315
Summary: internal compiler error (segfault) when assigning
nested initializer list
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #30 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Christopher Torres from comment #29)
> > URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220974&root=gcc&view=rev
>
> Is there any status updates on this issue? Does this effectively do what
> Alexandre O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66305
--- Comment #4 from andi at firstfloor dot org ---
> --- Comment #3 from lunar at debian dot org ---
> Richard Biener:
> > I think they become deterministic with -frandom-seed=0 for example.
> > They are not deterministic to support partial linkin
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 35637
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35637&action=edit
C source code
For trunk gcc dated 20150527
crypto/asymmetric_keys/pkcs7_trust.c: In f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #9 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> IMNSHO it is much better to accurately describe the builtins to the aliasing
> code etc. over adding ugly hacks like the tailcall one, or postponing
> e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo ---
As Kaz mentioned in PR 65979 #c8, first revert all the SH specific patches.
The SVN revisions are r221686, r221305, r221166, r220957, r220917, r219258.
Thus you can pull the patches from the GCC SVN and reve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66313
Bug ID: 66313
Summary: Unsafe factorization of a*b+a*c
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
Bug ID: 66312
Summary: [SH] Regression: Bootstrap failure
gcc/d/ctfeexpr.dmd.o differs with gcc-4.8/4.9
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66305
--- Comment #3 from lunar at debian dot org ---
Richard Biener:
> I think they become deterministic with -frandom-seed=0 for example.
> They are not deterministic to support partial linking of LTO objects as far
> as I know.
They are indeed repro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #35 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #34)
> If 4.8.something doesn't bootstrap, it would be a "4.8 Regression" type of
> bug. I'd move it to a new PR.
Already. I'll open a new issue then. Just a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66276
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sjölund ---
Thank you. I can confirm our compiler again bootstraps using gcc 5 branch using
-O2. Sadly, -O2 gives different behaviour than -O1, so I will need to
investigate and possibly file another bug report.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66181
--- Comment #14 from Gary Funck ---
*** Bug 66283 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66283
Gary Funck changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
IMNSHO it is much better to accurately describe the builtins to the aliasing
code etc. over adding ugly hacks like the tailcall one, or postponing expansion
till later etc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35636
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35636&action=edit
gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/goacc/kernels-parallel-loop-data-enter-exit-2.c
(In reply to cesar from co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #6 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Isn't GOACC_parallel likely to have the same problem because hostaddrs may be
written to?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66304
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed May 27 16:09:18 2015
New Revision: 223763
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223763&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/66304
config/
* warnings.m4 (ACX_PROG_CXX_WAR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This patch fixes it, but it's a bit of a hack:
...
diff --git a/gcc/tree-tailcall.c b/gcc/tree-tailcall.c
index 013972d..0cb73a7 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-tailcall.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-tailcall.c
@@ -499,6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66309
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64159
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Of course, some computations are wrong, too.
For example :
program p
integer(8), parameter :: z = huge(1_8)
print *, 2_16 * z
print *, 2 * int(z, 16)
print *, 2_16 * int(z, 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Christopher Torres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redflames1003 at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
Bug ID: 66311
Summary: [5 Regression] Problems with some integer(16) values
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66310
Bug ID: 66310
Summary: Problems with intrinsic repeat for large number of
copies
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66309
Bug ID: 66309
Summary: difference of 5.1.0 tarball and 4.9.2 tarball +
4.9.2-5.1.0 patch
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66308
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Only the upcast is really a bug. Downcasting is not a problem here.
The other way round, but I agree.
However, if the two casts happen in different translati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66308
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
When accessing the member of the derived type (which is actually misaligned):
struct node_base {
char c;
};
struct node : node_base {
long long l;
};
int main()
{
unsigned char* buf = new unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66308
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Only the upcast is really a bug. Downcasting is not a problem here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66308
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
When the char member is accessed:
struct node_base {
char c;
};
struct node : node_base {
long long l;
};
int main()
{
unsigned char buf[sizeof(node_base)+1];
node_base* n = (node_base*)(buf+1);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66308
Bug ID: 66308
Summary: -fsanitize=alignment is missing "downcast of
misaligned address" checks
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66030
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66302
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'll just note that the libc++ implementation has the same behaviour. The
precise numbers are different (probably due to a slightly different
implementation of uniform_real_distribution) but the pattern see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66302
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
> Does it make sense?
So you expect the random generator for float to throw away half of the random
bits it is getting from the engine, just for this questionable benefit? And
actually 75%, so it matches with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66272
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 27 14:20:48 2015
New Revision: 223759
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223759&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-27 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/66272
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66272
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62031
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 27 14:20:48 2015
New Revision: 223759
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223759&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-27 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/66272
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66305
--- Comment #2 from andi at firstfloor dot org ---
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:21:04PM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
> I think they become deterministic with -frandom-seed=0 for example. They ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66101
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66101
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 27 14:05:37 2015
New Revision: 223757
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223757&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-27 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66304
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66302
--- Comment #2 from Andrey Kolesov ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> (In reply to Andrey Kolesov from comment #0)
> > Double precision uniform distribution of C++ random number generators from
> > libstdc++ produces sequence whi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66303
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
The one valid entry in the backtrace is in the function kickoff in proc.c.
That function is supposed to stop the trace. Search for "kickoff" in
libgo/runtime/go-callers.c. The question is why that didn'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #25 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This should be fixed on trunk for GCC 6.
I'll keep this open for a few days to make sure there are no glaring complaints
about the patch as it gets through the auto-testers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66307
Bug ID: 66307
Summary: Partial argument overlapping with itself should try to
reuse infrastructure in calls.c
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #24 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Wed May 27 13:25:01 2015
New Revision: 223753
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223753&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[expr.c] PR target/65358 Avoid clobbering partial argumen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66304
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66305
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66304
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I suppose you are reporting this against trunk.
Yeah, sorry, it's really against trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66304
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|5.1.0 |6.0
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66306
Bug ID: 66306
Summary: ICE in reload
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #34 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #33)
>
> > It looks that the log for 4.8.4-2 includes
> > gcc/d/ctfeexpr.dmd.o differs
> > line just after its 'Bootstrap comparison failure!' line. It look
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
When removing the fn spec from GOACC_data_start, we run into the problem that
this example doesn't get parallelized anymore:
...
#include
#define N (1024 * 512)
#define COUNTERTYPE unsigned int
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #33 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #32)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #28)
> I should have been more clear about these comparison messages.
> Warning is warning and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66017
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed May 27 11:18:37 2015
New Revision: 223745
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223745&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/66017
* include/bits/stl_tree.h (_Rb_tree_no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66276
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66101
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||martin.sjolund at liu dot se
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66305
Bug ID: 66305
Summary: -ffat-lto-objects create unreproducible objects
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66304
Bug ID: 66304
Summary: Can't bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu with gcc 4.3.4
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66301
--- Comment #1 from JD ---
german@prometheus ~/test $ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=local/gcc5.1/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/5.1.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-5.1.0/
Sample program
The function runtime.Caller() returns infinitely deep stack frames on s390x
when we increase the argument 'skip'.
Attached sample program does not terminate when we ran with GCCGO on s390x:
[inagaki@inagaki caller]$ go version
go version go1.4.2 gccgo (GCC) 5.1.1 20150527 lin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66302
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrey Kolesov from comment #0)
> Double precision uniform distribution of C++ random number generators from
> libstdc++ produces sequence which is significantly different from floating
> point
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66276
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Can't reproduce on (only slightly modified) trunk, might be latent there now.
Investigating on the branch instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66296
Haitao Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #3 from Haitao Wang --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66302
Bug ID: 66302
Summary: Wrong output sequence of double precision uniform C++
RNG distribution
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54351
--- Comment #14 from TC ---
Well, I would have argued that if the specification doesn't say that a function
does X, then it doesn't do X. NullablePointer/CopyAssignable only means that
the assignment operation must be supported.
But then I reali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66301
Bug ID: 66301
Summary: internal compiler error when using -fopt-info
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
