https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #29 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Oct 20 06:49:13 2015
New Revision: 229021
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229021&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67064
* semantics.c (force_paren_expr): Don't mes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67925
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64919
--- Comment #12 from Alexander ---
> SED=/usr/local/bin/sed CC="gcc -mlp64" CXX="g++ -mlp64"
Unfortunetly, gcc for HPUX is a still 32-bit toolchain, sou should build it by
default 32bit options (without -mlp64)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68027
--- Comment #1 from SztfG at yandex dot ru ---
># no need to do this, eax is equal $100 at this point
I mean edi. after this part:
cmpl$100, %edi
jg .L5
jne .L6
if it passed this jg jne instruction without cond
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68027
Bug ID: 68027
Summary: conditional statement and unnecessary register
assignment
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68018
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka ---
I am also seeing this (or another in ix86_compute_frame_layout) ICE when
running the gfortran testsuite. Again with -mstackrealing. I will post the
testcase when I get home.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68026
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68026
Bug ID: 68026
Summary: Regression in GCC-6.0.0's optimizer
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68025
Bug ID: 68025
Summary: pragma/attribute optimize("profile-arcs") does not
work as intended
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67900
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67900
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue Oct 20 00:45:48 2015
New Revision: 229014
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229014&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-19 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/67900
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60976
--- Comment #23 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Giuseppe Ottaviano from comment #22)
> Yes I referred to the trailing return type. Unfortunately it's not trivial
> to test it with our code because alloc_traits.h is not anymore a drop-in
> r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66870
--- Comment #32 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Mon Oct 19 23:50:30 2015
New Revision: 229009
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229009&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR66870 PowerPC64 Enable gold linker with split stack
A powerpc-linux/powe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
--- Comment #44 from pmderodat at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: pmderodat
Date: Mon Oct 19 23:47:35 2015
New Revision: 229008
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229008&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
REE: fix uninitialized registers handling
gcc/ChangeLo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68024
Bug ID: 68024
Summary: Diagnose variadic functions defined without prototypes
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67037
--- Comment #7 from notasas at gmail dot com ---
Anyone's up for the backports? The patch applies cleanly on both gcc-4_9 and
gcc-5 branches.
I've tested patched 4.9.3 and wine no longer crashes when built with it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67927
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Complete patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg01803.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67913
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Complete patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg01803.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68023
--- Comment #3 from David Barto ---
Created attachment 36546
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36546&action=edit
Compressed gcc 5.2 output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68023
--- Comment #2 from David Barto ---
Created attachment 36545
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36545&action=edit
compressed gcc 4.8 output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68023
--- Comment #1 from David Barto ---
Created attachment 36544
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36544&action=edit
Configuration for GCC 5.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60976
--- Comment #22 from Giuseppe Ottaviano ---
>> The regression might have been already solved in r225244, which uses
>> yet another SFINAE pattern without extra template arguments, which I
>> believe are the cause of the regression. However I have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68023
Bug ID: 68023
Summary: 4.8.4 generates good code where 5.2 generates bad code
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68019
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68019
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Oct 19 21:29:15 2015
New Revision: 229005
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229005&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-19 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/68019
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60976
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #20)
> (In reply to Giuseppe Ottaviano from comment #19)
> > The regression might have been already solved in r225244, which uses yet
> > another SFINAE pattern wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68019
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Oct 19 21:09:21 2015
New Revision: 229003
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229003&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-19 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/68019
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60976
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68018
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Some parts of gcc still assume that MS_ABI stack is always aligned to 128bits.
Proposed patch:
--cut here--
@@ -11283,7 +11296,8 @@ ix86_compute_frame_layout (struct ix86_frame *fram
function prologues
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58754
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE on |[4.9/5 Regression] ICE on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56852
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56852
--- Comment #12 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Oct 19 19:32:52 2015
New Revision: 229000
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229000&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-10-19 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/56852
* primary.c (gf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60976
Giuseppe Ottaviano changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ott at fb dot com
--- Comment #19 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68021
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67124
--- Comment #14 from Uroš Bizjak ---
*** Bug 68011 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68011
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68019
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68022
--- Comment #1 from Tom May ---
Created attachment 36542
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36542&action=edit
avr-gcc -v output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68022
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|c
om/avr-gcc --target=avr
--enable-languages=c --disable-nls --disable-libssp --with-dwarf2
Thread model: single
gcc version 6.0.0 20151019 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-v' '-save-temps' '-O2' '-c'
'-specs=device-specs/specs-avr2'
/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67987
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67987
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Oct 19 18:15:36 2015
New Revision: 228999
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228999&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-19 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/67987
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68021
Bug ID: 68021
Summary: ice in rewrite_use_nonlinear_expr with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68020
Bug ID: 68020
Summary: Issue with implied-shape array parameter of rank > 2
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68019
Bug ID: 68019
Summary: ICE on rank mismatch of implied-shape array of
user-defined type
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68010
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|5.2.1, 6.0 |
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68018
Bug ID: 68018
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: in ix86_compute_frame_layout, at
config/i386/i386.c:11308 with -mstackrealign
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63888
Maxim Ostapenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20151019 (experimental) [trunk revision 228969] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O3 -c small.c
$ gcc-trunk -O2 -g -c small.c
$ gcc-5.2 -O3 -g -c small.c
$
$ gcc-trunk -O3 -g -c small.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64919
Joseph John changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||josephpattara at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67635
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=68016
Bug ID: 68016
Summary: ASan doesn't catch overflow in globals when COPY
relocation is involved.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67847
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68015
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68015
Bug ID: 68015
Summary: ICE in s390_emit_compare
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67933
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67975
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67975
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 19 14:00:28 2015
New Revision: 228971
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228971&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-19 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/67975
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68011
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Possibly a dup of that reload/LRA issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63469
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67977
--- Comment #5 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi David,
Yes it does. Thank you for bring this PR to my attention. I'll mark it
appropriately.
Cheers
Paul
On 19 October 2015 at 13:42, davidgkinniburgh at yahoo dot co.uk
wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67995
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67977
David Kinniburgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davidgkinniburgh at yahoo dot
co.u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45397
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #5 from Joseph John ---
I am still struggling to compiler any version giver than GCC 4.9.0 on ia64
platform still but as far as this issue is concerned I was able to get pass the
LD abort when I used the below options for configure:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67721
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67995
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Oct 19 11:18:14 2015
New Revision: 228967
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228967&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Don't leak ISA to __attribute__ ((target("arch=XXX")))
When proces
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63303
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> The problem is that we don't have a POINTER_DIFF_EXPR similar to
> POINTER_PLUS_EXPR, which would take two pointers and return an integer, and
> the FEs emit po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68011
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
So likely a target bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68011
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68002
--- Comment #2 from vondele at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vondele
Date: Mon Oct 19 10:24:37 2015
New Revision: 228965
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228965&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR68002, add -fkeep-static-functions
gcc/ChangeLog:
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67975
--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg01580.html
>
> Hope that fixes all cases you ran into.
Yeah, thanks. That fixes the builtins-20.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67999
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68011
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Summary|wrong code at -O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68013
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Summary|ICE on valid cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67992
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I think there is a duplicate about gcov slowness for some sort of CFGs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67999
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
GCC assumes objects will not wrap around zero only (well, it assumes objects
cannot live at address zero but it also assumes that the
pointer-to-one-element-after isn't zero or wraps around zero).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67999
--- Comment #15 from Daniel Micay ---
i.e. AFAIK the offsets are intended to be treated as signed but treating
pointers as signed would be a serious bug rather than a design choice
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67999
--- Comment #14 from Daniel Micay ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #12)
> (In reply to Daniel Micay from comment #10)
> > (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #7)
> > > If this is not a GCC bug and it is the responsibility of allo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68012
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67999
--- Comment #13 from Daniel Micay ---
They'd still be able to make a mmap system call via syscall(...) to avoid the
check, so it seems like it's mostly an ABI compatibility issue. Of course,
they'd have to be very careful to avoid all of the cave
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67999
--- Comment #12 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Daniel Micay from comment #10)
> (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #7)
> > If this is not a GCC bug and it is the responsibility of allocators not to
> > produce huge objects, do we also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67999
--- Comment #11 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Daniel Micay from comment #9)
> I don't think there's much of a use case for allocating a single >2G
> allocation in a 3G or 4G address space.
The main OpenJDK heap (well, it was Java back th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67687
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67687
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67999
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Micay ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #7)
> If this is not a GCC bug and it is the responsibility of allocators not to
> produce huge objects, do we also have to make sure that no object crosses
> the boun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67529
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67466
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67999
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Micay ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #8)
> (In reply to Alexander Cherepanov from comment #4)
>
> > Am I right that the C standards do not allow for such a limitation (and
> > hence this should not be rep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67999
--- Comment #8 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Alexander Cherepanov from comment #4)
> Am I right that the C standards do not allow for such a limitation (and
> hence this should not be reported to glibc as a bug) and gcc is not
> standards
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67860
Christian Butcher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrisb2244 at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67999
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 fr
93 matches
Mail list logo
