: posix
gcc version 7.0.1 20170204 (experimental) [trunk revision 245182] (GCC)
$
$ g++-trunk -std=c++11 -c small.cpp
small.cpp:4:17: internal compiler error: unexpected expression âfâ of kind
overload
struct alignas (f) S {};
^
0x8d4f9e cxx_eval_constant_expression
../../gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79379
Bug ID: 79379
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE with #pragma GCC ivdep
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79375
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 40669
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40669&action=edit
Fix
I will properly test and then propose this patch to address this bug on Monday.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78345
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|error-recovery |
Priority|P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79375
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79378
Bug ID: 79378
Summary: lambda init-capture adds const
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79377
Bug ID: 79377
Summary: [6/7 Regression] ICE with increment operator in
-fpermissive mode
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79358
--- Comment #12 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #4)
> I.e. this is a Glibc related problem? The test machine has Glibc-2.18.
Yes. The system you are using needs a Glibc upgrade. The patch mentioned in
comment 2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79375
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79376
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79376
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch submitted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-02/msg00348.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79376
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, wrong-code
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79376
Bug ID: 79376
Summary: wrong lower bound with %s and non-constant strings in
-Wformat-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79344
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79335
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
Assignee|una
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79375
Bug ID: 79375
Summary: gcc/ipa-prop.c:203:32: runtime error: reference
binding to null pointer of type 'struct vec' after
revision r244802
Product: gcc
Version: 7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79373
--- Comment #7 from Steven Pigeon ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Once undefined behavior happens all bets are off of any behavior of the
> program.
>
> In this case the function is in lined and the optimizers see i cannot
> o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79373
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Once undefined behavior happens all bets are off of any behavior of the
program.
In this case the function is in lined and the optimizers see i cannot overflow
the multiply so it removes the loop check.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79373
--- Comment #5 from Steven Pigeon ---
The problem is not the function that overflows. It's the loop that calls them
that never stops. I don't see how that's "resolved": the overflow in the
function should not affect the loop that calls it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78346
--- Comment #8 from reagentoo at gmail dot com ---
Thank you very much! Good work!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72864
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78663
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44042
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hermantenbrugge at home dot nl
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79374
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78958
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #6 from ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #25 from v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78672
Bug 78672 depends on bug 68887, which changed state.
Bug 68887 Summary: [6 regression] gfortran.dg/coarray/event_[12].f90
-fcoarray=lib -O2 -lcaf_single -latomic fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68887
What|Remo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68887
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70697
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68887
Bug 68887 depends on bug 70696, which changed state.
Bug 70696 Summary: [Coarray] ICE on EVENT POST of host-associated EVENT_TYPE
coarray
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70696
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70696
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79373
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Use -fwrapv if you want predictable behaviour from integer overflow (both that
and -fsanitize=undefined are mentioned at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79373
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19794
Bug 19794 depends on bug 77445, which changed state.
Bug 77445 Summary: [7 Regression] Performance drop after r239219 on coremark
test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77445
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77445
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79368
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79091
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79368
--- Comment #2 from Volker Reichelt ---
I was using r244478 from 2017-01-15.
I'll retry with today's version.
The command line was just plain "g++ -c".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79356
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|s390x, powepc64le-linux |s390x-*-*, powepc*-*-*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468
--- Comment #36 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Don't be silly. I've fixed all regresseions that have shown up, except the
> one on Sparc because you refused to accept changes to the Sparc backend.
Well, this is somewhat contradictory with your previ
40 matches
Mail list logo
