https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67161
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|5.1.1 |
Summary|[6 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67161
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Started with r226642.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67163
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
> g2 generates incorrect decl_line (150 is the decl_line for another function:
> addValue)
You did paste the full debug info as the file numbers are way different between
the two.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67161
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67163
--- Comment #2 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 36158
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36158&action=edit
preprocessed file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67163
--- Comment #1 from dehao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 36157
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36157&action=edit
preprocessed file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67162
Bug ID: 67162
Summary: g2 generates incorrect decl_line
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: RESOLVED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67163
Bug ID: 67163
Summary: g2 generates incorrect decl_line
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67148
--- Comment #2 from Casey Carter ---
Here's a somewhat minimized test case that illustrates that overload resolution
works correctly, but matching partial specializations of a class template or
variable template does not:
template
struct bool_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67161
Bug ID: 67161
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE with a static_assert using our
internal __not/__or/__and traits
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67160
Bug ID: 67160
Summary: static_assert feature test macro
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67159
--- Comment #3 from Casey Carter ---
Thanks once again, Jason. Procedural question: now that c++-concepts has landed
on trunk, should I be tagging bug reports differently? i.e., Version=6.0 and
maybe "[concepts]" in the title?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67152
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67159
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67144
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Aug 8 22:04:34 2015
New Revision: 226740
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226740&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67144
* call.c (joust): Only call more_constrained
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67114
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67144
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67142
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67142
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Aug 8 22:01:21 2015
New Revision: 226737
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226737&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67142
* pt.c (equal): Make sure tmpl is actually a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67152
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Aug 8 22:01:39 2015
New Revision: 226739
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226739&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67152
* pt.c (process_partial_specialization): Call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67159
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Aug 8 22:01:29 2015
New Revision: 226738
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226738&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67159
* constraint.cc (finish_template_introduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67114
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Aug 8 22:01:12 2015
New Revision: 226736
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226736&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67114
* call.c (joust): Only call more_constrained
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67059
--- Comment #4 from Vedran Miletic ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #3)
> Fixed on trunk.
> Thanks for the report.
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67144
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67073
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67063
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40958
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25708
Bug 25708 depends on bug 40958, which changed state.
Bug 40958 Summary: module files too large
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40958
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50892
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49011
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67159
Bug ID: 67159
Summary: [c++concepts] Segfault while diagnosing constraint
violation
Product: gcc
Version: c++-concepts
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67059
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67059
--- Comment #2 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Sat Aug 8 19:59:16 2015
New Revision: 226734
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226734&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/67059
* gfortranspec.c (lang_spec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67118
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|fortran |middle-end
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66557
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67140
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Aug 08, 2015 at 05:50:03PM +, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67140
>
> Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67140
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #43 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Tim Ruehsen from comment #42)
> (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #41)
> > Actually I think we want the concept of never returns NULL, both as an
> > attribute and as a property the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65151
--- Comment #14 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Thomas Petazzoni from comment #11)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> > GCC 4.9.3 has been released.
>
> This problem still occurs with GCC 4.9.3, as far as I can see.
The patch in c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67156
Дилян Палаузов changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65151
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Petazzoni ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #12)
> (In reply to Thomas Petazzoni from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> > > GCC 4.9.3 has been released.
> >
> > This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65151
--- Comment #12 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Thomas Petazzoni from comment #11)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> > GCC 4.9.3 has been released.
>
> This problem still occurs with GCC 4.9.3, as far as I can see.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #42 from Tim Ruehsen ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #41)
> Actually I think we want the concept of never returns NULL, both as an
> attribute and as a property the compiler can discover by analysis. Given
> that propert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67158
Bug ID: 67158
Summary: ICE dwarf2out.c:19910/gen_inlined_subroutine_die, at :
Compiling gcc6.0 with gcc6.0 -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65151
Thomas Petazzoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thomas.petazzoni@free-elect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67157
Bug ID: 67157
Summary: Compiling gcc6 with liblto_plugin, v5.2.0
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67156
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #41 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Actually I think we want the concept of never returns NULL, both as an
attribute and as a property the compiler can discover by analysis. Given that
property on the return value, it can be propagated into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67156
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
It should have stripped out the debugging info before doing the cmp.
That is do-compare gets to be:
do-compare = $(SHELL) $(srcdir)/contrib/compare-debug $$f1 $$f2
>From bootstrap-debug.mk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67156
--- Comment #2 from Дилян Палаузов ---
It is x86_64-pc-linux-gnu == host == target == build.
To what I see in the root Makefile (copied below) at the end of the build files
in stage2 and stage3 are compared with `cmp', which fails, if one file h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67156
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
What target is this on? Because debugging information generate should not
change the code generation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67156
Bug ID: 67156
Summary: config/bootstrap-debug.mk: STAGE2_CFLAGS += -gtoggle
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #40 from Jon Grant ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #35)
> which means that there is a path through which a null pointer could be
> potentially dereferenced. However, this actually cannot happen because
> linemap_add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59746
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59746
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin ---
Author: mikael
Date: Sat Aug 8 10:40:06 2015
New Revision: 226732
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226732&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
When undoing symbols, also restore common block lists
gcc/fortran/
2015-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67155
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/VerboseDiagnostics#missing_static_const_definition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60685
--- Comment #4 from Jens Maurer ---
Works with 5.1.0 and 5.2.0, so this seems to be resolved.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66458
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
58 matches
Mail list logo
