https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67476
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Posted updated patch series:
- https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-09/msg00794.html
- https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-09/msg00795.html
FTR, bootstrap and reg-test of this patch series o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67534
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67567
Bug ID: 67567
Summary: pretty-print.h sanitizer detects NULL pointer passed
to obstack_grow
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67534
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I tested on trunk. The sanitizer message disappeared.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67557
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This reminds me of PR 62052 but doesn't involve lambdas.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67557
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> 0x7ffdd31bbb60 constructed
> 0x7ffdd31bbb90 copied from 0x7ffdd31bbb60
> 0x7ffdd31bbb60 destroyed
> 0x7ffdd31bbbe0 x.tag_ in main()
> 0x7ffdd31bbbe0 destroyed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67557
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #8 from Jonatha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67557
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67460
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
patch submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-09/msg00894.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67566
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #110 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #109)
> Maybe it also fixes the std::locale issues. Kaz, could
> you please have a look?
It doesn't fix those failures. I'll try to bisect that issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67061
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #5)
> Created attachment 36331 [details]
> Proposed patch
>
> The issue with the function 'sh_find_set_of_reg' has also popped up when
> enabling LRA by default on trunk (see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67559
--- Comment #2 from Joel Yliluoma ---
But when compiling for earlier standard versions that explicitly label this as
undefined behavior, it should at least give a warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64132
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa-unknown-linux-gnu |hppa-unknown-linux-gnu,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67566
Bug ID: 67566
Summary: std::move is in global scope g++ 5.1
-std=c++14
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67559
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67538
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > This is valid since F2003 (implemented recently by Andre Vehreschild), but
> > it should not give an ICE.
>
> Are you sure?
>
> There is no array spec. ...
You are right, the code is invalid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67096
--- Comment #5 from John Marino ---
Hmmm, thinking about this, I'd bet Linux would FAIL this test. It probably
does allow 6-bytes (even though it should not) and thus K would return 6.
I don't really have a recommendation -- the standard is pre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67538
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56659
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||62226
--- Comment #3 from Manuel L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56659
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224
--- Comment #24 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #23)
> > I'm not a Fortran dev, but I would humbly suggest to add this testcase
> > to the regression testsuite before closing the bug.
>
> OK. REOPENED.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67565
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54221
Bug 54221 depends on bug 54224, which changed state.
Bug 54224 Summary: Warn for unused internal procedures
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67565
Bug ID: 67565
Summary: [concepts] Very slow compile time and high memory
usage with complex concept definitions, even if unused
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66409
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67539
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67545
Casey Carter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
--- Comment #1 from Casey Carter -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67542
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58864
Denis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d.glazachev at gmail dot com
--- Comment #12 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62235
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67538
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67540
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca ---
str4 used to point to str so the "logic" seems to check that str4 does
not follow any more str.
But the test is erroneous.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67543
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57778
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67534
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67564
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67564
Bug ID: 67564
Summary: Segfault on sourced allocattion statement with
class(*) arrays
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #109 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #108)
>
> It seems I should really fix PR 67061, which
> looks like the same issue (and the other issue with sh_find_set_of_reg which
> was fixed with a modified_between_p).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67096
--- Comment #4 from John Marino ---
Created attachment 36332
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36332&action=edit
codecvt/max_length/wchar/4.cc patch
codecvt/max_length/wchar/4.cc test thinks that 6 is the maximum byte size for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67061
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo ---
Created attachment 36331
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36331&action=edit
Proposed patch
The issue with the function 'sh_find_set_of_reg' has also popped up when
enabling LRA by default on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54221
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I agree that this PR can probably be closed.
Closing as FIXED. Please file new PR(s) for new issue(s).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54221
Bug 54221 depends on bug 54224, which changed state.
Bug 54224 Summary: Warn for unused internal procedures
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67540
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62235
Victor Porton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|5.1.0 |5.2.1
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62235
--- Comment #6 from Victor Porton ---
Not fixed in GNAT 5.2.1 20150903 (i586-linux-gnu) (Debian gnat-5 package).
However the exact error message is somehow different.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67563
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67563
Bug ID: 67563
Summary: verify_flow_info failed
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67557
--- Comment #6 from Georg Baum ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #4)
> Well, the automatically generated copy constructor is a (special) member
> function.
OK, I see what you mean, but I still do not understand. The automatically
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #108 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #107)
The problem is the define_split at sh.md line 893 (the part at 945). Or
actually, it's sh_find_set_of_reg. Adding this
diff --git a/gcc/config/sh/sh-protos.h b/gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #107 from Oleg Endo ---
> > The serious one would be
> >
> > Running target sh-sim/-m2/-mb
> > FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-2.c -Os execution test
>
I have tried compiling that test case outside of the testsuite with -m2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #106 from Oleg Endo ---
Created attachment 36329
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36329&action=edit
20040709-2.s with LRA (FAIL)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #105 from Oleg Endo ---
Created attachment 36328
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36328&action=edit
20040709-2.s without LRA (PASS)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67557
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67557
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Well, the automatically generated copy constructor is a (special) member
function.
58 matches
Mail list logo
