https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79728
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79735
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79671
--- Comment #22 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #20)
> which fails also on x86_64-linux at -O2. And that testcase regressed with
> r223126. Now whether this is valid C++, no idea, placement new is messy.
This te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79729
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79729
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13049
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2007-07-09 05:21:45 |2017-2-27
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12258
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12944
Bug 12944 depends on bug 10852, which changed state.
Bug 10852 Summary: Old for-scoping rules improperly used?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10852
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33260
Bug 33260 depends on bug 10852, which changed state.
Bug 10852 Summary: Old for-scoping rules improperly used?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10852
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10852
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10541
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10118
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8182
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7356
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Incidentally, Clang suffers from the same problem, as do most other compilers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7356
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to fa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7313
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41921
Bug 41921 depends on bug 7221, which changed state.
Bug 7221 Summary: wrong linkage of typedef-named classes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7221
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29843
Bug 29843 depends on bug 7221, which changed state.
Bug 7221 Summary: wrong linkage of typedef-named classes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7221
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7221
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6905
--- Comment #3 from owner at bugs dot debian.org ---
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this Bug report.
This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.
Your message is be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79742
Bug ID: 79742
Summary: ARM sched pipeline selection problems
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6905
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79741
--- Comment #3 from Jim Michaels ---
strange, this seems to work. small source. but big complicated source breaks.
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
int main(int argc,char**argv) {
typedef struct {int i1;intmax_t i2;} ST;
std::vec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79741
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79741
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
And the exact options you are using?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79739
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79741
Bug ID: 79741
Summary: errors about struct members being of type size_t when
it's not, other strange errors. cached source too.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79712
--- Comment #8 from PeteVine ---
Seeing as unrolling does such a great job on aarch64, surpassing clang, should
we leave the ARM issue bunched together with this one?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79740
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r245752.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79740
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79739
--- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 40839
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40839&action=edit
Combined to one file.
Compile slightly reduced file with gfcortran -fopenmp cafmain.f90
7.0.1 20170227 (experimental) [trunk revision 245760] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O3 small.c
small.c: In function ‘main’:
small.c:15:1: internal compiler error: in VN_INFO_GET, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:407
}
^
0xddcc76 VN_INFO_GET(tree_node*)
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c:406
0xdb52c8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79739
Bug ID: 79739
Summary: ICE with some interesting code
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79737
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79738
Bug ID: 79738
Summary: Documentation for __attribute__((const)) slightly
misleading
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/7.0.1/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 7.0.1 20170227 (experimental
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79736
Bug ID: 79736
Summary: Please submit a full bug report: unable to create
precompiled headers
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71568
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71568
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Feb 27 20:17:17 2017
New Revision: 245763
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245763&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71568 - SFINAE forming pointer to member function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66970
kim.walisch at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kim.walisch at gmail dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79559
--- Comment #7 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Using version gcc-7-20170226, above cases compile on my environment, too.
But pr79729 does not (yes, appending to this pr would have been better).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79735
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Becker ---
Filed based on
g++ (GCC) 7.0.1 20170226 (experimental)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79735
Bug ID: 79735
Summary: C++14: syntax error in attribute deprecated silently
ignored
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77661
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79671
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On February 27, 2017 5:46:44 PM GMT+01:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79671
>
>Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79559
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
*** Bug 79729 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79729
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79731
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|error-recovery |ice-checking
Priority|P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79731
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |error-recovery
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79733
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79677
--- Comment #12 from Orion Poplawski ---
Adding -Wno-format-security does indeed work. Thank you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79677
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is not a GCC bug, the general rule is that the options that enable
suboptions don't change those (either way) if that option has been specified
explicitly.
So, -Wformat -Wformat-security -Wno-format does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79734
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79734
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79677
--- Comment #10 from Orion Poplawski ---
I'm not sure how I'm practically supposed to handle this. In this case, for
one sub-directory upstream adds -Wno-format to the flags:
./Utilities/KWIML/test/CMakeLists.txt:set(CMAKE_${lang}_FLAGS
"${
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79733
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79732
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
No warning issued, but it doesn't look valid?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79732
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79731
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79730
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79730
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with
commit 2be90eed86f43591d0e182b258156356abb7f18f
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 6 14:05:54 2011 +
2011-07-06 Richard Guenther
PR tree-optimization/49645
* c-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79733
Bug ID: 79733
Summary: ICE in int_mode_for_mode, at stor-layout.c:406
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79734
Bug ID: 79734
Summary: ICE: verify_gimple failed
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79732
Bug ID: 79732
Summary: ICE in set_ssa_default_def, at tree-dfa.c:327
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79677
--- Comment #9 from Orion Poplawski ---
Ah, just got the -Wno-format
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79677
--- Comment #8 from Orion Poplawski ---
Created attachment 40838
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40838&action=edit
/builddir/build/BUILD/cmake-3.7.2/Utilities/KWIML/test/test.c
/usr/lib64/ccache/gcc -DKWIML_LANGUAGE_C -DKWI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79677
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #5)
> With gcc 7.0.1-0.10.fc26 I'm starting to see errors like:
>
> cc1plus: error: -Wformat-security ignored without -Wformat
> [-Werror=format-security]
>
> If th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79730
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79731
Bug ID: 79731
Summary: ICE: verify_gimple failed
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79730
Bug ID: 79730
Summary: ICE tree check: expected var_decl, have function_decl
in finish_decl, at c/c-decl.c:5063
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79677
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or perhaps makefiles filtering away -Wall or using -Wno-all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79729
Bug ID: 79729
Summary: ICE in ix86_print_operand, at config/i386/i386.c:18231
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79677
Orion Poplawski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||orion at cora dot nwra.com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70057
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79671
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71749
Claudiu Zissulescu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||claziss at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79728
Bug ID: 79728
Summary: ice in setup_pressure_classes, at ira.c:912
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79544
--- Comment #2 from Pat Haugen ---
Author: pthaugen
Date: Mon Feb 27 16:06:13 2017
New Revision: 245762
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245762&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79544
* config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c (struct altivec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.5 |8.0
--- Comment #61 from Jeffrey A. Law
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79727
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79671
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The MEM[(struct parser_binder *)&D.614964 + 4B] = f;'s ultimate origin is:
if (D.589607 != 0B)
{
iftmp.77 = try
{
MEM[(struct parser_binder *)D.589607] = f;
^^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79727
Bug ID: 79727
Summary: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 doesn't seem to match any
comments
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79726
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69617
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79723
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79726
Bug ID: 79726
Summary: Type conversion not vectorisde
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79681
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 40837
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40837&action=edit
gcc7-pr79681.patch
This seems to work though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79725
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79681
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Of course !in_gimple_form.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79681
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I was thinking about
--- fold-const.c.jj12017-02-17 18:29:24.0 +0100
+++ fold-const.c2017-02-27 14:49:13.816203253 +0100
@@ -3862,6 +3862,39 @@ make_bit_field_ref (location_t loc, tree
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #24 from Thomas Koenig ---
Could be a good idea to add a version with -mfma to the flags for AVX2.
I'll see what I can do. It might be too late for gcc 7, and I also
don't have an AVX2 machine to test on.
Might also be a good idea t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79725
Bug ID: 79725
Summary: Sinking opportunity missed if complex type is changed
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79724
Bug ID: 79724
Summary: please respect calling gnat tools configured with
--program-suffix and --program-prefix
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57353
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79681
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
A problem with that information loss due to make_bit_field_ref and its callers
during folding is that there could e.g. be multiple fields that fall into the
range (e.g. inside of union) etc.
The IMHO best fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79722
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79723
Bug ID: 79723
Summary: Another case of dropped gs: prefix
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79722
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
-mavx2 does not enable fma. Did you try with -mfma, or with a suitable -march
flag?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79671
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14)
> Seems to be
>
> void move_assign(function10& f)
> {
> if (&f == this)
> return;
>
> { try {
> if (!f.empty()) {
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79722
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
