https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71020
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71179
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71184
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Target Milestone|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71190
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code, lto
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71744
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note the kernel has many of these locks too. Have you reported those cases to
them?
And yes I know about the number of cores increasing, trust me, I use a 96 (or
48 depending on if I am on single socket or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71744
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Nadav Har'El from comment #5)
> That is nothing more than an implementation bug.
Is it? The problem here is you need to start redesigning it to use lock-free
algorithms. I don't see a way of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71744
--- Comment #5 from Nadav Har'El ---
Some replies to Andrew's comments above:
1. As the number of cores continue to grow, libraries will also fix malloc
scalability issues, so concurrent malloc will no longer present a problem. The
code which le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71010
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71086
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71134
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Bootstrap does not work with a combined tree. Cross compiler works though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71079
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71191
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
> On AArch64 there are restrictions on what kind of instructions can go into
> these LL/SC loops using the exclusive instructions i.e. the LDAXR / STLXR
> instructions.
MIPS has a similar restriction. I kn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71748
--- Comment #1 from Zhendong Su ---
If we remove the template from the code, it'll be accepted:
$ g++-trunk -c -Wall -Wextra -std=c++11 good.cpp
$
$ cat good.cpp
struct A
{
virtual ~A () {}
};
struct B : public A
{
virtual ~B () {}
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71746
Furkan USLU changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #2 from Furkan USLU --
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20160703 (experimental) [trunk revision 237949] (GCC)
$
$ g++-4.6 -c -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -std=c++0x small.cpp
$
$ g++-trunk -c
/7.0.0/lto-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 7.0.0 20160703 (experimental) [trunk revision 237949] (GCC)
$
$ g++-trunk -c -std=c++11 small.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71746
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71746
Bug ID: 71746
Summary: Scope Variable Address (Stack) Mismatch
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70835
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70838
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 70835 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71744
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also if you are using C++ features you need to understand scalibility issues
might not be under your control so you should stop using those features.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71744
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
This cache:
/* The unseen_objects list contains objects that have been registered
but not yet categorized in any way. The seen_objects list has had
its pc_begin and count fields initialized at minimum,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71744
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |libgcc
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71744
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
unwind uses malloc which does have a lock too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71745
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Just checked with recent trunk, same error.
Dump looks interesting, the assignment statement is
converted to an endless loop:
{
integer(kind=4) S.0;
S.0 = 2147483645;
while (1)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71745
Bug ID: 71745
Summary: upper array bound huge(i) on 32-bit systems
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71744
Bug ID: 71744
Summary: Concurrently throwing exceptions is not scalable
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71743
--- Comment #3 from bastien penavayre ---
Created attachment 38826
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38826&action=edit
source file as example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71743
--- Comment #2 from bastien penavayre ---
Created attachment 38825
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38825&action=edit
gcc-6 -v test.c -c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71743
--- Comment #1 from bastien penavayre ---
Created attachment 38824
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38824&action=edit
gcc-5 -v test.c -c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71743
Bug ID: 71743
Summary: return with no value cannot be ignored [Possible
regression or undocumented change on
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-5.4.0/gcc/Warning-O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71741
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71739
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71609
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71738
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71736
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71276
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71737
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71278
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71277
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71736
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71541
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71591
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71562
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71600
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63484
Leif Leonhardy changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugfeed at online dot de
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61502
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alexander Cherepanov from comment #19)
> (In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #3)
> > Except within a larger object, I'm not aware of any reason the cases of
> > two objects follow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71734
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Sun Jul 3 16:40:22 2016
New Revision: 237950
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237950&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add 2 tests for PR middle-end/71734
simd3.f90 and simd4.f90 fail o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71742
Bug ID: 71742
Summary: Wrong formulation of "error: flexible array member in
otherwise empty struct"
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
Hello people,
the attached C-program can be used to reproduce a segmentation fault
found in libliberty/hashtab.c
I am using a libiberty tar-gzipped source version found in a recent Debian
Archive File (libiberty_20160215.tar.xz) where the first entry in ChangeLog is:
* 2016-01-27 Iain Buclaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71734
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 38822
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38822&action=edit
Testcases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71741
Bug ID: 71741
Summary: The program works 3 times slower compiled with g++
5.3.1 than the same program compiled with g++ 4.8.4
with the same command (i7-5820 Haswell)
Product
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67836
--- Comment #2 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
The Debian URL above provides a shorter instance of (probably) the same bug
within a single task.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71740
--- Comment #1 from lh_mouse ---
Explicitly specifying __cdecl or __attribute__((__cdecl__)) causes an ICE.
Specifying __stdcall or __fastcall, or not specifying one, does not produce an
ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71740
Bug ID: 71740
Summary: ICE when defining a pointer to the `memcpy()` function
with namespace scope using `auto` targeting i686
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71695
Martin Husemann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71739
Bug ID: 71739
Summary: ICE on valid C++11 code: tree check: expected
identifier_node, have tree_list in
private_is_attribute_p, at tree.c:6080
Product: gcc
Versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71738
Bug ID: 71738
Summary: ICE on valid C++ code: tree check: expected
record_type or union_type or qual_union_type, have
template_decl in lookup_template_class_1, at
c
58 matches
Mail list logo
