https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69899
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
/configure --prefix=/home/absozero/trunk/root-gcc
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160221 (experimental) [trunk revision 233594] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk abc.c
abc.c:2:1: warning: return type defaults to 'int' [-Wimplicit-int]
fn1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69715
--- Comment #15 from Kip Warner ---
Thank you for your hard work, Richard. It's very appreciated. I can't imagine
what it would be like to debug GCC.
Which stable version of GCC should I look for that will be the newest to carry
your fix? I'm gu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69810
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The patch introducing the EXTQI stuff did
-(define_insn ""
- [(set (match_operand:CC 2 "cc_reg_operand" "=x,?y")
- (compare:CC (sign_extend:HI (match_operand:QI 1 "gpc_reg_operand"
"r,r")
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69810
--- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn ---
The following patch fixes the ICE
Index: rs6000.md
===
--- rs6000.md (revision 232439)
+++ rs6000.md (working copy)
@@ -322,7 +322,7 @@
(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69810
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66337
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
--- Comment #8 from Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69898
Bug ID: 69898
Summary: Possibility for function with cv-qualifier-seq be
adjusted to function pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc/configure --prefix=/home/absozero/trunk/root-gcc
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160221 (experimental) [trunk revision 233594] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -O2 abc.c
$ gcc-trunk -Os abc.c
$ gcc-t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63545
--- Comment #5 from The Written Word
---
4.9.3 exhibits the same problem on 11.23/IA and 11.31/IA.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28901
--- Comment #31 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #29)
> > > + || filename_cmp (main_input_filename,
> > > +DECL_SOURCE_FILE (decl)) == 0)))
> >
> > Better
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69892
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43361
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69897
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69897
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Huh?
>Trying to bootstrap an environment by building just the host tools,
Why don't you just do "make all-host" instead of disabling any thing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69891
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69881
--- Comment #17 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 37749
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37749&action=edit
prerequisite patch to make c_std headers compile
not perfect, but probably an improvement...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69897
Bug ID: 69897
Summary: Unable to disable libbacktrace for target
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69893
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66605
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #19 from Domi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69290
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69550
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69892
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
The example in comment #3 shows a missed optimization:
if (valid_3(D) != 0)
could be optimized to if(true) or if(false), whichever is most convenient
(__builtin_unreachable() might also be a possibility).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69896
Bug ID: 69896
Summary: [6 Regression] wrong code with -frename-registers @
x64_64
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63867
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Domin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69892
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Well, gcc warns without the assignment in the loop, e.g.:
markus@x4 tmp % cat bool_.ii
int a;
int main() {
bool valid;
while (valid) {
a++;
// valid = false;
}
if (a != 1)
__builtin_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69881
--- Comment #16 from Bernd Edlinger ---
> But it does not look like the c_std headers are currently working.
> I've got symlinks to non-existing c_std header files:
>
> ccomplex
> cfenv
> cinttypes
> cstdalign
> cstdbool
> cstdint
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52651
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Domin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51765
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Isn't this PR fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59463
--- Comment #5 from dank at kegel dot com ---
Turns out in my case it was caused by duplicate entries in
LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Go figure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69892
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> On the other hand, pass_early_warn_uninitialized is before that, and should
> have warned, not sure why it failed...
Ah, no, it is only the late pass that looks at P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63232
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> It works for me on 5-branch and trunk. Confirmed fixed :-)
Do we need to add the test to the gfortran tests?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63232
--- Comment #3 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Dominiq,
It works for me on 5-branch and trunk. Confirmed fixed :-)
Cheers
Paul
On 21 February 2016 at 17:12, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45076
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69881
--- Comment #15 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #12)
> > Index: c_std/cstddef
> > ===
> > --- c_std/cstddef (revision 233581)
> > +++ c_std/cstdde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69892
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
:
# valid_1 = PHI
if (valid_1 != 0)
goto ;
else
goto ;
:
valid_3 = 0;
goto ;
CCP notices that valid_1 is either undefined or 0 and simplifies it to 0. There
are several PRs where CCP pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68289
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Related to pr64273.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63232
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45078
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69895
Bug ID: 69895
Summary: [5/6] dependency of gcc-plugin.h not installed on
m68k-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69894
Bug ID: 69894
Summary: [6 Regression] dependency of gcc-plugin.h not
installed on aarch64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69040
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Sudip from comment #3)
> A gentle ping..
> Any idea when this might get resolved.
>
> regards
> sudip
I thought I'd get to it this week, but didn't. Maybe the next week.
Thanks for your p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69550
--- Comment #19 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
So what's your decision regarding this? Knowing it would help deciding how to
handle it in Julia.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69893
Bug ID: 69893
Summary: [6 Regression] Conflicting declarations in
and
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69890
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #62 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Mikhail Maltsev from comment #60)
>
> BTW, how to fix this in SPEC? I also noticed this problem with 416.gamess
See PR 53086.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69892
Bug ID: 69892
Summary: Missing -Wuninitialized warning
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52531
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57365
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52531
--- Comment #13 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Sun Feb 21 12:48:49 2016
New Revision: 233594
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233594&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-21 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/5736
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57365
--- Comment #6 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Sun Feb 21 12:48:49 2016
New Revision: 233594
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233594&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-21 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/57365
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69573
--- Comment #18 from Chen Gang ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #17)
> Patch committed in r233564.
Sorry for replying late (I am in holiday during these days, and no any x86
environments). Your patch is OK to me. But I guess, providing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69891
Bug ID: 69891
Summary: wrong code with -mstringop-strategy=libcall @ i686
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69890
Bug ID: 69890
Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/chkp-* on x86_64-apple-darwin15
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69851
--- Comment #8 from Benjamin Bannier ---
Thanks for the fast turn-around, that patch fixed the original issue like
expected. I encountered another similar issue in the same code base which still
causes an ICE, see 69889.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69889
Bug ID: 69889
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: in assign_temp, at function.c:961
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #61 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Another oddity of the "optimization" introduced by r232508 is the following
test (borrowed from https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01356.html)
[Book15] f90/bug% cat pr69368_1_a.f90
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69888
Bug ID: 69888
Summary: ICE: SIGSEGV in decide_alg (i386.c:26169) due to
infinite (?) recursion with -minline-all-stringops
-mmemset-strategy=no_stringop:-1:noalign
Product:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69881
--- Comment #14 from Bernd Edlinger ---
OK, I built the ecos cross compiler now.
It works. But eCos headers don't work well with C99 because of
duplicate symbols with inline functions, so I have to use -std=c89,
but that started with gcc-5, so t
59 matches
Mail list logo
