https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66158
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66833
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66762
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66238
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25071
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
No activity for more than four years. AFAICT everything is fixed, but for
comment 7 preferring an error instead of the warning. Since warnings can be
turned into errors with -Werror, I don't think thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67466
Bug ID: 67466
Summary: Project segfaulting, working with other compilers
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Componen
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150905 (experimental) [trunk revision 227508] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 small.c; ./a.out
$ gcc-trunk -O3 -fno-tree-vectorize small.c; ./a.out
$ gcc-5.2 -O3 small.c; ./a.out
$
$ gcc-trunk -O3 small.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63921
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67430
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed|
: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150905 (experimental) [trunk revision 227508] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 small.c; ./a.out
01
$ gcc-5.2 -O3 small.c; ./a.out
01
$
$ gcc-trunk -O3 small.c
$ ./a.out
00
$
-
int printf (const char *, ...);
int a = 1, b, c, d, e, f, g;
void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66236
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66236
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67460
--- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #2)
> Again a problem caused by buffering. Some warnings converted into error may
> get buffered and then discarded but that doesn't reset
> ->some_warnings
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66189
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67460
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Again a problem caused by buffering. Some warnings converted into error may get
buffered and then discarded but that doesn't reset ->some_warnings_are_errors.
However, we probably do not need this varia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67463
Bug ID: 67463
Summary: PGO (Profile Guided Optimizations) are not applied
with gcc-5.2.1 (they are fine on gcc-4.9.x)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #20 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #12)
> Created attachment 36224 [details]
> Stage 3 compiled version of ctfeexpr.dmd.o (unstripped)
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #11)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67455
--- Comment #3 from James Hobson ---
Or more importantly, how can I write an +alloc method?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67455
--- Comment #2 from James Hobson ---
Okay. Interesting. Why is it then that many place on the internet indicate that
they do?
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1064045
http://wiki.codeblocks.org/index.php?title=Installing_Objective-C_Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63336
--- Comment #6 from tprince at computer dot org ---
Created attachment 36295
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36295&action=edit
pre-processed C source
pre-processed, without function calls
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63336
--- Comment #5 from tprince at computer dot org ---
Created attachment 36294
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36294&action=edit
shortened c code
C source with external function calls removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67076
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67462
Bug ID: 67462
Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/ifcvt-3.c scan-rtl-dump
ce1 "3 true changes made"
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67461
Bug ID: 67461
Summary: Multiple atomic stores generate a StoreLoad barrier
between each one, not just at the end
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66227
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66465
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66694
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67460
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67177
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42568
--- Comment #27 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Is it still true on recent versions of Cygwin (it has been fixed on darwin
> since darwin10, see pr34136)?
Ping! Without answer I'll close this PR as FIXED.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47648
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #19 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #18)
> (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #17)
> > Adrian, the recent GCC 5 build/bootstrap on SH included D, didn't it?
>
> If you mean that gdc is built wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67460
Bug ID: 67460
Summary: [5/6 Regression] Spurious: f951: all warnings being
treated as errors
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55758
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60355
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #18 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #17)
> Adrian, the recent GCC 5 build/bootstrap on SH included D, didn't it?
If you mean that gdc is built with gcc-5 on sh4, then no. The gdc packages are
mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65250
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo ---
The patch attachment 36012 for PR 54236 improves the treg_set_expr machinery by
doing proper comparison inversion, instead of trying only EQ <-> NE. This will
be the prerequisite to match a
(set (reg:SI 168)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67459
Bug ID: 67459
Summary: [SH] addc/subc/negc set of T reg rtx seem wrong
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67458
Bug ID: 67458
Summary: x86: atomic store with memory_order_release doesn't
order other stores
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67457
Bug ID: 67457
Summary: segfault in libbacktrace
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #17 from Oleg Endo ---
Adrian, the recent GCC 5 build/bootstrap on SH included D, didn't it?
41 matches
Mail list logo