https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71224
--- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I think the warning is correct and here is why:
> If we look at the final code which is produced on the tree level:
>
> _3 = pthis_2(D)->length;
> _4 = _3 + 1;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71230
Bug ID: 71230
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE : in zero_one_operation, at
tree-ssa-reassoc.c:1230
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70677
--- Comment #2 from night_ghost at ykoctpa dot ru ---
all code samples from
https://github.com/night-ghost/minimosd-extra/tree/master/MinimOsd_Extra. When
I try to isolate a piece of code with a bug in one file, it is compiled
differently than in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70676
--- Comment #2 from night_ghost at ykoctpa dot ru ---
*** testcase for call+ret: (all code from
https://github.com/night-ghost/minimosd-extra/tree/master/MinimOsd_Extra),
compile with -fno-optimize-sibling-calls
#include
class SPI
{
public:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70738
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66461
--- Comment #22 from Jerry DeLisle ---
This patch, by itself, fixes the whole issue.
Regression tested on x86-64.
Mikael shook the old brain cells.
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/scanner.c b/gcc/fortran/scanner.c
index f4dedd69..6a7a5b68 100644
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66461
--- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #20)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #19)
> >
> > what I don't understand is that error itself,
>
> It comes from scanner.c's end_flag which is cleared on t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71229
Bug ID: 71229
Summary: cinternal compiler error: Segmentation fault, when
copying an array in a constexpr function
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66461
--- Comment #20 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #19)
>
> what I don't understand is that error itself,
It comes from scanner.c's end_flag which is cleared on the first match, but it
is set at some point later, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71228
Bug ID: 71228
Summary: Add a warning when a variable gets initialised with
itself
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71227
Bug ID: 71227
Summary: template friend function cannot be resolved
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71224
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think the warning is correct and here is why:
If we look at the final code which is produced on the tree level:
_3 = pthis_2(D)->length;
_4 = _3 + 1;
if (_3 > _4)
goto ;
else
goto ;
If pth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71226
Bug ID: 71226
Summary: ICE in fold_binary_loc, at fold-const.c:9252, from
constexpr function
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66461
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71224
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
Created attachment 38541
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38541&action=edit
Reduced test
Attaching complete minimal test, as the mechanically reduced test perhaps
removes a bit too much.
N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70738
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sun May 22 17:20:10 2016
New Revision: 236570
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236570&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Revert:
gcc/
PR target/70738
* common/config/i38
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71225
Bug ID: 71225
Summary: [7 Regression] Overeager instantiation of members of
non-template class nested in class template
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66319
--- Comment #12 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2016-05-22, at 4:36 AM, internetos at outlook dot com wrote:
> hI am porting GCC 6.1.0 to HP-UX 11.31 IA64, could anybody give me detailed
> instruction on how to construct similar change at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71103
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
This change is at least incomplete: it does not handle CONST. To see this
change the test case to
returnValue.response = response + 1;
Who is generating these SUBREGs? If it's in a push insn, we should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68377
Adrian Wielgosik changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||adrian.wielgosik at gmail dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71224
--- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
Oh, and also happens if I move the pointer + length adjustment into the loop.
---
void setlength(Array* pthis, size_t nlength)
{
Array aggr = {.length=pthis->length, .ptr=pthis->ptr};
for (size_t key
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71224
Bug ID: 71224
Summary: Looping over local copy of aggregate invokes undefined
behavior -Waggressive-loop-optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67973
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67973
--- Comment #22 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Sun May 22 08:53:32 2016
New Revision: 236565
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236565&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-22 Iain Sandoe
Dominique d'Humieres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66319
Han changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||internetos at outlook dot com
--- Comment #11 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71056
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 Regression]|[6 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40921
--- Comment #5 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Sun May 22 08:13:13 2016
New Revision: 236564
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236564&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-05-22 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
27 matches
Mail list logo
