https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79450
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79450
Bug ID: 79450
Summary: [5/6/7 Regression] wrong code with loop at -O1
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #24 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Actually, the volatile attribute conflicts with the intent(in) of the final
variable. But making the function result variable 'integral' volatile, does the
job. Thanks for the suggestion. And sorry again for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79055
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78381
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79449
Bug ID: 79449
Summary: ppc builtin expansion of strncmp can cross page (4k)
boundary where it should not
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79296
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|6.3.1 |6.3.0
Summary|[7 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79448
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #23 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 10:42:08AM +, bijan at chokoufe dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
>
> --- Comment #19 from Bijan Chokoufe ---
> So in the build with '-O2 -g' (de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79433
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I've started a discussion about changing the SD-6 recommendations.
One idea that came out of the discussion so far would be to make a GCC-specific
extension to __has_include. If the has-includes-expressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79433
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
#ifdef __has_include
#if __has_include()
#include
std::variant v;
#endif
#endif
int main(){ }
Compiling this program with g++ -std=c++14 (using libstdc++) gives:
In file included from /opt/wandbox/gcc-h
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mark at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
gcc (GCC) 7.0.1 20170209 (experimental)
$ cat t.c
#include
char *
gettext (char *__msgid)
{
return __msgid;
}
char *
fill (char *buf, size_t len, int count)
{
if (snprintf (buf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=75964
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So it's not only wrong code but also wrong diagnostic...
It's rather a consistent diagnostic, there could have been wrong code and no
diagnostic at all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79143
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79433
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15)
> Isn't it the same is true for any header that someone could create and not
> just about standard headers?
Yes.
__has_include can say the header is present (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79143
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 9 22:12:15 2017
New Revision: 245315
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245315&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79143
* pt.c (instantiate_class_template_1): Copy C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79447
--- Comment #1 from Damian Rouson ---
I just tested with a more recent build (7.0.1 dated 20170205) and see the same
behavior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79316
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11705
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P3
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79445
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=75964
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #2 from Georg-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79403
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79447
Bug ID: 79447
Summary: [F08] gfortran rejects valid & accepts invalid
internal subprogram submodule
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79316
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Feb 9 20:55:54 2017
New Revision: 245314
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245314&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79316 - default argument in deduction guide
PR c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79350
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Feb 9 20:55:54 2017
New Revision: 245314
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245314&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79316 - default argument in deduction guide
PR c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79184
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79443
--- Comment #4 from Dominik Vogt ---
No more than that, and the fix works.
(Except for the issue with cplx2.go that has been there from the start
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60181).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79446
Bug ID: 79446
Summary: Passing internal procedure as argument causes segfault
at runtime
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79433
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Marc Mutz from comment #14)
> You can hide behind the letter of the standard, but you cannot escape the
> simple fact that __has_include is the intended mechanism to check for
> library features
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79433
--- Comment #14 from Marc Mutz ---
You can hide behind the letter of the standard, but you cannot escape the
simple fact that __has_include is the intended mechanism to check for library
features that added a new header. Proof: You need to includ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79421
--- Comment #5 from Dominik Vogt ---
Patch available here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79421
The bug can be closed when the patch is applied.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70795
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70795
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Feb 9 18:16:00 2017
New Revision: 245312
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245312&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/70795
* cgraphunit.c (cgraph_node::add_new_functio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #60 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Proposed all-inclusive patch for this PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-02/msg00691.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79442
Ose Pedro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79421
--- Comment #4 from Dominik Vogt ---
Okay, that change fixes it without regressions. I'll post a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79433
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79442
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ose Pedro from comment #0)
> GCC 5 is supposed to provide full support for N3652, but the code below does
> not compile under GCC 5.4 (it does, however, compile under GCC 6.1).
It compiles fin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79443
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Created attachment 40708
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40708&action=edit
crypto patch
This patch may fix the crypto/sha256 problem.
Any other problems? `make check-target-libgo` s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79442
--- Comment #3 from Ose Pedro ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> It's true that C++14 support is incomplete in GCC 5, but this is very
> unlikely to change. In other words, this bug should be closed as RESOLVED
> FIXED by GCC 6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79442
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's true that C++14 support is incomplete in GCC 5, but this is very unlikely
to change. In other words, this bug should be closed as RESOLVED FIXED by GCC
6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79433
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #12 from Jonat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79443
--- Comment #2 from Dominik Vogt ---
Yes, that fixes it. Now there's another one in crypto/sha256. Do you want me
to open another bug report for that?
--
fallback_test.go:19:5: error: reference to undefined name 'useAsm'
if useAsm == false {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79445
Bug ID: 79445
Summary: Address clause on named number gives Assert_Failure in
the compiler
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79421
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
> And on a target not using function descriptors otherwise,
>
> #define TARGET_CUSTOM_FUNCTION_DESCRIPTORS 1
>
> affects only Ada?
It affects languages defining LANG_HOOKS_CUSTOM_FUNCTION_DESCRIPTORS to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79428
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79428
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Feb 9 17:07:26 2017
New Revision: 245309
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245309&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/79428
* c-parser.c (c_parser_omp_ordered): Call c_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79224
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
This is all bit about luck. We have big_speedup hack that lets us to bypass
inline-insns-auto when we know the combination caller+callee improve by given
precentage. Because we inline more, caller is now bigg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79443
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Created attachment 40707
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40707&action=edit
Possible patch
Can you check whether this patch fixes the problem? Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79444
Bug ID: 79444
Summary: Inconsistent use of DW_OP_piece for vector registers
on s390x
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79441
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79441
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79443
Bug ID: 79443
Summary: libgo/math test fails on s390x (undefined symbols
cosh, sinh, tanh, hasVX)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56727
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka ---
For the draft patch you need to check for aliases. If global symbol is indeed
the only way to reach the function, then the transformation is IMO valid.
As for tailcall, we have recursive_call_p predicate tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56727
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Yuri Gribov from comment #12)
> Inlining inline functions is fine due to ODR rule.
ODR doesn't apply just to inline functions. So all semantic interposition,
except for the case when both func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56727
--- Comment #12 from Yuri Gribov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> (In reply to Yuri Gribov from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #8)
> > > Well, if my argument is correct, then GCC generates wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56727
--- Comment #11 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Don't we also inline any beneficial inline functions at -O3 even if they
> could be interposed (definitely not suggesting we stop doing that, that
> would tot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56727
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Yuri Gribov from comment #9)
> (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #8)
> > Well, if my argument is correct, then GCC generates wrong code for the very
> > first example in comment #0.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79439
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79442
--- Comment #1 from Ose Pedro ---
To be more precise, it does not work under GCC 5.4.0, but does work under GCC
6.1.0. I haven't been able to find a GCC cloud service that provides 5.4.1, so
haven't been able to test that version.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69675
--- Comment #10 from Sebastian Pop ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> Yeah, seems to be gone with ISL 0.18 here as well... (but with 0.16.1 I can
> still reproduce it). ISL 0.18 doesn't do anything to the loop. ISL 0.16.1
> just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79442
Bug ID: 79442
Summary: GCC 5.4 does not fully support N3652 (Relaxing
constraints on constexpr functions)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
--- Comment #28 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to vehre from comment #27)
> Waiting on week for regression reports before closing.
From our side this is ok. No regression, except for the special problem
in PR79430 most likely unrelated to this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79413
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79431
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 Regression] ICE in |[6 Regression] ICE in get,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79429
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 Regression] ICE in |[6 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79413
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 9 14:26:40 2017
New Revision: 245304
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245304&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/79413
* gimplify.h (is_gimple_sizepos): Only test for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79429
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 9 14:06:58 2017
New Revision: 245303
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245303&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79429
* parser.c (cp_parser_omp_ordered): Don't che
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79432
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
int fn1 (void);
int __attribute__((returns_twice)) vfork (void);
void fn2 ()
{
int a;
a = fn1() + 2 + (vfork() + 1 + vfork());
}
live over two vfork calls.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79431
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 9 14:01:44 2017
New Revision: 245302
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245302&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/79431
* gimplify.c (gimplify_adjust_omp_clauses): Ign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79421
--- Comment #2 from Dominik Vogt ---
And on a target not using function descriptors otherwise,
#define TARGET_CUSTOM_FUNCTION_DESCRIPTORS 1
affects only Ada?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79436
--- Comment #7 from Richard Earnshaw ---
double __attribute__((optimize("fp-contract=off"))) x (double a, double b,
double c)
{
return a*b + c;
}
You might also need to mark the function as no-inline to prevent it being
inlined into functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79440
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79403
--- Comment #3 from Dominik Vogt ---
The files are symlinks in the build tree, mode 640 in the source tree (like
everything else) and are installed with "cp -p" which explains the broken
permissions. Most other things are installed "install -m 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79441
Bug ID: 79441
Summary: gnat.dg/pack9.adb fails since r 236279
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79439
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #5)
> current_file_function_operand probably needs to add a test for
> flag_semantic_interposition when the ABI mandates interpolation.
Maybe better just call decl_re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79439
--- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn ---
current_file_function_operand probably needs to add a test for
flag_semantic_interposition when the ABI mandates interpolation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79411
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79439
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79432
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Richard Bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79421
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71351
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spop at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79439
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
-fpic does the trick. Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79439
--- Comment #2 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #1)
> What command line options does this need?
Sorry, I used -O2 -fpic.
Indeed, GCC seems to perform target-independent optimizations based on an
assumption th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79413
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79439
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
What command line options does this need? I get different assembly
(also with GCC 6), since GCC recognises that rec can never return:
.globl rec
.type rec, @function
rec:
.LCF1:
0:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79403
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70390
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0.1
Summary|[6/7 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69728
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
removing the assert doesn't fix it (ISL complains). This is all ISL stuff I
don't understand, somebody else needs to look at this - the SCOP is quite
regular.
Confirmed with ISL 0.18.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69675
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Yeah, seems to be gone with ISL 0.18 here as well... (but with 0.16.1 I can
still reproduce it). ISL 0.18 doesn't do anything to the loop. ISL 0.16.1
just did some IV transforms it seems:
[scheduler] orig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79434
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79440
Bug ID: 79440
Summary: internal compiler error: in fold_convert_loc, at
fold-const.c:2373
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79413
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 40704
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40704&action=edit
gcc7-pr79413.patch
Untested fix. Let's see what Ada will say to this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #22 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> With make -k you continue irrespective of the fact that some targets could
> not have made.
Without '-k' 'make check' stops at
make[5]: *** No rule to make target `test_omega95.f90', needed by
`te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79428
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes. Please add them to c-c++-common where possible (and test on top of the
PR79429 patch, because otherwise #pragma omp ordered will fail in C++ for a
different reason).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79428
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
I think that's because in c_parser_omp_ordered we ate the pragma with
c_parser_consume_pragma, so the next token is CPP_PRAGMA_EOL, but e.g. in
c_parser_pragma the pragma tokens have not been eaten yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=75964
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79428
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
So should I fix the one spot and add the testcases?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79413
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The DECL_EXPR is there, the problem is that gimplify_type_sizes doesn't do
anything about it, because is_gimple_sizepos says it is ok:
101 return (expr == NULL_TREE
102 || TREE_CONSTANT (e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #21 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #20)
> Is this really a regression?
>
> I have run 'make check -k' with gfortran 5.4.0, 6.3.0, and a patched trunk
> at revision r245279. I see respectively 25
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
