https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67585
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #2 from Janne Blomqvis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67598
Bug ID: 67598
Summary: [6 Regression] Target powerpc-e500v2-linux-gnuspe
failed to bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67573
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #4)
> Maybe FPSCR_STAT_REG should be in the clobber list, too? Otherwise stores
> of FP exception bits etc (get_fpscr builtin) could be wrongly CSE'd across
> function c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67597
Bug ID: 67597
Summary: [6 Regression] profiledbootstrap failure on ppc64le
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67595
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67596
Bug ID: 67596
Summary: /usr/include/c++/4.7/bits/stl_list.h error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.7
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58397
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
of gcc
g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 6.0.0 20150915 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
result of compiling is:
g++: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65806
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67594
--- Comment #5 from Vincent ---
Thanks Jonathan to take the time. I have to reread the manual... Apologies for
using bandwidth.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67594
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The primary template defines the default argument for the second parameter.
The C partial specialization is irrelevant, it isn't used.
The C specialization is identical to C because it uses the
default ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67573
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo ---
Maybe FPSCR_STAT_REG should be in the clobber list, too? Otherwise stores of
FP exception bits etc (get_fpscr builtin) could be wrongly CSE'd across
function calls... However, I don't know if this is a problem a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67594
--- Comment #3 from Vincent ---
Oh, I see. So the first partial specialization is not "preferred" over the
general template?
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> The partial specialization C uses the default template argument, so
> is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67594
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67593
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67594
--- Comment #1 from Vincent ---
I've changed gcc version to 5.2, as 5.2 issues the same error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67587
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Ugh, never mind that, somehow I had the patch on there. Either way,
confirmed again, and I'm on it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67594
Bug ID: 67594
Summary: Bug on partial specialization? Incomplete type.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67587
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I can reproduce the ICE, with the testcase from #c10, with a compiler
built from trunk at 2015-09-10, so before the accused patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67593
Bug ID: 67593
Summary: Partial specialization: "Template argument involves
template parameters"
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #26 from Andrés Agustín Tiraboschi ---
Hi, I've read the bug report and I've made a patch in order to fix it.
I've ran all the gcc tests and I have only one fail, but that fail is also
present in the original gcc. Anyway I've attached
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #25 from Andrés Agustín Tiraboschi ---
Created attachment 36338
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36338&action=edit
The test that fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
Andrés Agustín Tiraboschi
changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andres.tiraboschi@tallertec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67587
--- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 36336
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36336&action=edit
testcase for x86_64
% g++ -c -march=westmere -O2 -pipe -fprofile-use -DIN_GCC -fno-exceptions
-fno-rtti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67587
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> Could you then reduce the testcase, or something? Yes I know that is
> inconvenient to do with LTO. It is also very inconvenient for me to
> set up an environmen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67484
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67587
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Could you then reduce the testcase, or something? Yes I know that is
inconvenient to do with LTO. It is also very inconvenient for me to
set up an environment on x86-64, wait a few hours, and then see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67592
Bug ID: 67592
Summary: A virtual member function declared constexpr fails to
trigger a diagnostic
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67587
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #6)
> Do you have a .i file instead? And .gcda I guess.
It failed during the final LTO link. How does .i file help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67587
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Do you have a .i file instead? And .gcda I guess.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67580
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67580
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Sep 15 17:19:11 2015
New Revision: 227803
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227803&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/67580
* c-decl.c (tag_exists_p): New function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47679
--- Comment #24 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue Sep 15 17:03:49 2015
New Revision: 227801
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227801&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH] More class-ification of DOM
PR tree-optimization/47679
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67587
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
% ../gcc/configure --disable-libstdcxx-pch --disable-libvtv --disable-libitm
--disable-libcilkrts --disable-libssp --disable-libgomp --disable-werror
--disable-multilib --enable-languages=c,c++ --with-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67588
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67587
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67591
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67591
Bug ID: 67591
Summary: ARM v8 Thumb IT blocks deprecated
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67587
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at kernel dot
crashing.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66227
--- Comment #2 from patnel97269-gfortran at yahoo dot fr ---
Yes the first and third should be True as i understand.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67589
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67572
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67590
Bug ID: 67590
Summary: libcc1 cannot find objdump when cross build native
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67589
Bug ID: 67589
Summary: go-main: int main() while return NULL
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67442
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67587
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67573
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
I've wrongly cut&paste call_value_pcrel. It's
(define_insn_and_split "call_value_pcrel"
[(set (match_operand 0 "" "=rf")
(call (mem:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "symbol_ref_operand" ""))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67470
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[5/6 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67470
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[5/6 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67470
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Sep 15 14:10:10 2015
New Revision: 227797
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227797&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-09-15 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/67470
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67582
--- Comment #5 from Vegard Nossum ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> But *p is not a valid expression, so you might as well ask for
> typeof(this is nonsense and not valid C++).
>
> You also can't ask for sizeof(*p) for a void p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67585
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52144
--- Comment #11 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Tue Sep 15 13:43:17 2015
New Revision: 227795
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227795&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-09-15 Christian Bruel
PR target/52144
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67484
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Uros, I applied your patch and the sanitizer message disappeared.
Is this still an UNCONFIRMED bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67588
Bug ID: 67588
Summary: module.c heap use after free
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67476
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #6)
> Updated patch series:
> - https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-09/msg00938.html
> - https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-09/msg00940.html
FTR, bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67587
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67563
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[5/6 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67563
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Sep 15 12:37:19 2015
New Revision: 227788
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227788&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-09-15 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/67563
* gim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67587
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67587
Bug ID: 67587
Summary: [6 Regression] profiledbootstrap failure with
--with-build-config=bootstrap-lto
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65142
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65142
>
> --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67582
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Vegard Nossum from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> > You can't dereference a void*, so why do you expect to be able to get the
> > type of an invalid expression?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65142
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> > If the user controls how the random file is opened (non-blocking or
> > blocking)
>
> They don't.
To be cl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65142
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> If the user controls how the random file is opened (non-blocking or blocking)
They don't.
> then the behavior (whether to re-try on EINTR or short reads) sho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67573
--- Comment #2 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
It seems that LRA allocates r7 for the scratch reg at
(define_insn_and_split "call_value_pcrel"
[(set (match_operand 0 "" "=rf")
(call (mem:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "symbol_ref_operand" ""))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67580
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67484
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Patch in testing:
--cut here--
Index: config/i386/i386.c
===
--- config/i386/i386.c (revision 22)
+++ config/i386/i386.c (working copy)
@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65142
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
If the user controls how the random file is opened (non-blocking or blocking)
then the behavior (whether to re-try on EINTR or short reads) should be
controlled by that choice. Starting to throw on users th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67586
Bug ID: 67586
Summary: xtensa: ICE with -Os -g -fno-builtin-malloc in
dwarf2out_var_location, at dwarf2out.c:22380
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67585
Bug ID: 67585
Summary: Retry system calls failing with EINTR
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: libf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67582
--- Comment #3 from Vegard Nossum ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> You can't dereference a void*, so why do you expect to be able to get the
> type of an invalid expression?
I was under the impression that the expression was n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65218
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67584
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54430
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tony at becrux dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67584
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67484
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Vittorio Zecca from comment #0)
> //to make happy the sanitizer I commented out the for loop in i386.c lines
/* Save the current options unless we are validating options for
#pragm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67584
Bug ID: 67584
Summary: Compilation is fine if an undeclared identifier is
used in a for range-based loop, and lsh has the same
name as rhs
Product: gcc
Version: 5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67583
Bug ID: 67583
Summary: libstdc++-v3/testsuite/27_io/basic_stringbuf/seekoff/c
har/1.cc:92 erroneous call to sputn
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67582
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(If it works in C I would suggest that's a bug in the C compiler, but that's
for the C front end maintainers to decide)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67582
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67470
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
g_40 = PHI <0B(9), &a(6)>
invariant up to level 1, cost 21.
pretmp_42 = g_40 == 0B;
invariant up to level 1, cost 22.
but we're only moving pretmp_42, not g_40. The PHI is controlled by
if (f_16(D) !=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67582
Bug ID: 67582
Summary: typeof(*p) * fails when p is void *
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67563
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, so we are somewhat inconsistent in whether fold_stmt () performs EH
transfer
from old to new stmts (even on the 4.9 branch). What triggers here is that
the new replace_call_with_value does it while upda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67571
--- Comment #8 from werner at beroux dot com ---
Tried to build the exact same just on newer gcc and nothing else should have
changed, and it failed.
I'll try to build on older gcc as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67581
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67568
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Sep 15 08:00:30 2015
New Revision: 227779
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227779&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-09-15 Richard Biener
PR lto/67568
* lto-stream
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67568
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67484
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||g...@the-meissners.org
--- Comment #2 from
89 matches
Mail list logo
