https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69775
felix.esch.42+dev at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||felix.esch.42+dev at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70617
--- Comment #5 from Jan Smets ---
Reduced test case by creduce
struct UINT;
typedef struct { UINT TYPES } eType;
fn1(eType) {
gcc version 5.3.1 20160411 (GCC)
= gcc-5-branch @ 0efe1cc72d37ff1173b52cf6bc3f17bd0ccb59f3
target = x86_64-unknown
-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160411 (experimental) [trunk revision 234874] (GCC)
$
$ g++-trunk -c small.cpp
small.cpp:11:37: error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70625
--- Comment #4 from Arseny Solokha ---
1. % armv7a-hardfloat-linux-gnueabihf-gcc-4.9.3 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=armv7a-hardfloat-linux-gnueabihf-gcc-4.9.3
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/armv7a-hardfloat-linux-gnuea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70357
cesar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70357
--- Comment #2 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cesar
Date: Mon Apr 11 23:21:28 2016
New Revision: 234889
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234889&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR tree-optimization/70357
* gimpli
=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160411 (experimental) [trunk revision 234874] (GCC)
$
$ g++-5.3 -c small.cpp
$ clang++ -c small.cpp
$
$ g++-trunk -c small.cpp
g++-trunk: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (program cc1plus)
Please submit a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70630
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70594
--- Comment #19 from Nathan Sidwell ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #17)
> I still don't understand why/how this is causing problems, if
> -fcompare-debug only cares about the order of decls. The copied decls
> shouldn't appear anywh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70610
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
uhhh... here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg00482.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70610
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70627
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70594
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For the testcases in this PR probably:
--- gcc/tree-sra.c 2016-04-09 13:21:06.111510703 +0200
+++ gcc/tree-sra.c 2016-04-11 23:11:41.253126047 +0200
@@ -1537,17 +1537,12 @@ compare_access_positions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70594
--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill ---
I still don't understand why/how this is causing problems, if -fcompare-debug
only cares about the order of decls. The copied decls shouldn't appear
anywhere in the output, and other decls should still have
-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160411 (experimental) [trunk revision 234874] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -m32 -O0 small.c
$ gcc-4.9 -m32 -Os small.c
$
$ gcc-trunk -m32 -Os small.c
small.c: In function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70630
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70632
Bug ID: 70632
Summary: Wrong function name resolution using variadic template
and additional template parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70381
--- Comment #7 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Mon Apr 11 19:45:35 2016
New Revision: 234884
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234884&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-04-11 Michael Meissner
PR target/70381
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70631
Bug ID: 70631
Summary: Warn about redundant comparisons with -Wlogical-op
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70630
Bug ID: 70630
Summary: [6 regression] sparc bootstrap failure:
sparc.c:4919:6: error: suggest explicit braces to
avoid ambiguous 'else'
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70613
--- Comment #1 from Jim Wilson ---
I see that the patch for bug 65945 was back ported to the gcc-5 branch, which
required a partial backport of the patch for bug 44282, which added abi version
9. The original patch for 44282 is missing the doc c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69197
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70629
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Reso
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70629
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Compiling with -std=gnu89 worked, thanks!
Regards,
Prathamesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70620
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
FYI, the change in behavior is that ipa-devirt or what changes the destructor
call into __builtin_unreachable () and anything can happen then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70620
--- Comment #3 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> Your code is equivalent to:
>
> delete reinterpret_cast(static_cast(new E));
>
> which means the conversion is not done safely, and you get a D* that doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65479
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70628
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70629
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70629
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69197#c4 also.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70629
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Are you compiling 176.gcc with -std=gnu89 also?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70629
Bug ID: 70629
Summary: 176.gcc fails to build with -O0 -flto with undefined
reference to is_reserved_word
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68756
--- Comment #8 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 38240
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38240&action=edit
tentative patch for second snippet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68756
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #6)
> (In reply to vries from comment #5)
> > Failure no longer reproducible after r232812, "new scop schedule for
> > isl-0.15"
>
> There are four snippets
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70624
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth.at.gcc at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70628
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70545
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70628
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
Created attachment 38239
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38239&action=edit
auto-host.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70628
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70628
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70626
--- Comment #2 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 38238
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38238&action=edit
counter example
I looked at the standard again, and it says that the reduction clause should be
assoc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70150
--- Comment #13 from psturm at computervoice dot com ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> Patches are posted at
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00929.html
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00995.html
https
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70620
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70628
Bug ID: 70628
Summary: [5/6 regression] ICE in get_reg_rtx, at
emit-rtl.c:1025
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65950
Gian-Carlo Pascutto changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcp at sjeng dot org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70627
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70626
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70627
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reducing now (at 4.5MB right now).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69841
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #5)
> I don't know enough about the C++ standard to know whether this patch is
> reasonable to backport to GCC 5. Jason, do you have an opinion?
I'd be pretty nervo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65479
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
Yes, it seems likely that this is due to this patch being missing from GCC 5.3:
http://reviews.llvm.org/D11552
The fix is present in trunk, so this should be fixed with a backport.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70627
--- Comment #2 from jseward at acm dot org ---
Created attachment 38236
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38236&action=edit
Unified_cpp_dom_animation0.ii.bz2
Testcase .ii.bz2, compressed so as to get it under the 1MB limit :-(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70627
--- Comment #1 from jseward at acm dot org ---
sewardj@dundee[6X]:~/MOZ$ c++ -c Unified_cpp_dom_animation0.ii -Wall
-Wc++11-compat -Wempty-body -Wignored-qualifiers -Woverloaded-virtual
-Wpointer-arith -Wsign-compare -Wtype-limits -Wunreachable-co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70609
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The problem is due to my lazy approach to copying the file:
__gnu_cxx::stdio_filebuf sbin(in.fd, std::ios::in);
__gnu_cxx::stdio_filebuf sbout(out.fd, std::ios::out);
if ( !(std::ostream(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70626
Bug ID: 70626
Summary: bogus results in 'acc parallel loop' reductions
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70627
Bug ID: 70627
Summary: internal compiler error: verify_type failed
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70625
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #2)
> (In reply to ktkachov from comment #1)
> > I see the PR70623 ICE with 4.9 and 5 at -O2 on arm-none-eabi.
> > Do you have any other relevant gcc conf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70625
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #1)
> I see the PR70623 ICE with 4.9 and 5 at -O2 on arm-none-eabi.
> Do you have any other relevant gcc configure options that trigger this?
Talking about this particular
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #19 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Mon Apr 11 13:47:40 2016
New Revision: 234881
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234881&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR70117, ppc long double isinf
gcc/
PR target/70117
* buil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #18 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Mon Apr 11 13:46:51 2016
New Revision: 234880
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234880&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR70117, ppc long double isinf
gcc/
PR target/70117
* buil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #57 from Roger Orr ---
Created attachment 38232
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38232&action=edit
Stripped down intermediate file
I've managed to reproduce the problem without including any proprietary code -
cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70398
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70614
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spop at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70609
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70607
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|GNU/Linux x86_64|
Host|GNU/Linux x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70607
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think Marc's point is that GCC is doing what DR 1137 says ... but it looks as
though the DR resolution never made it into C++11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #55 from Roger Orr ---
Note - I should have added that I am not at all sure the fix above is
*correct*, simply that it prevents accessing the freed entry.
I don't know enough about how the code works to know whether the value obtaine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70133
--- Comment #13 from davidwillmore at gmail dot com ---
Thank you very much!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #54 from Roger Orr ---
Unfortunately the patch does not help: the cached 'from' pointer is a pointer
into the old maps entry -- the one which has now been deallocated.
The first test, main_file_p, now (correctly) fails.
The second t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70625
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=70625
Bug ID: 70625
Summary: [4.9/5 Regression] Memory exhaustion when building
specific snippet at -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: memo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70621
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70615
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This is another case of PTRMEM_CST leaking from the FE to the gimplifier (the
other is PR70621, but in this case it is not even during error-recovery).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69841
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70133
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70133
--- Comment #11 from James Greenhalgh ---
Author: jgreenhalgh
Date: Mon Apr 11 10:16:26 2016
New Revision: 234877
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234877&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[Patch AArch64 3/3] Fix up for pr70133
gcc/
PR target/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70133
--- Comment #10 from James Greenhalgh ---
Author: jgreenhalgh
Date: Mon Apr 11 10:14:59 2016
New Revision: 234876
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234876&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[Patch AArch64 2/3] Rework the code to print extension strings (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70624
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70624
Maxim Ostapenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m.ostapenko at samsung dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70624
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is not very recent change. Has Darwin itself changed incompatibly?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70610
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70614
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70624
Bug ID: 70624
Summary: [6 Regression] Several hundred asan failures with 6.0
on x86_64-apple-darwin10.8
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70577
Kirill Yukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70577
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> I think -1 is the right answer, these are flexible array-like arrays,
> where one could e.g.
> struct tail0 *p = malloc (sizeof (struct tail0) + 131072 * sizeof (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70615
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70616
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70620
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70621
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70622
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70623
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70173
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Apr 11 07:26:36 2016
New Revision: 234874
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234874&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libcc1: Clean compiler-name.h (PR70173)
Since the file is generated
93 matches
Mail list logo
