https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82346
--- Comment #8 from krzysio.kurek at wp dot pl ---
Wouldn't this bug affect all gcc compilers? I have 5, 6 and 7 installed, and
only 5 is affected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82337
--- Comment #10 from Ivo Raisr ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #9)
I confirm this fixes the problem also in the original full-blown source.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66601
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65461
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65041
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71727
--- Comment #4 from Christophe Lyon ---
Author: clyon
Date: Wed Sep 27 23:52:58 2017
New Revision: 253242
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253242&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR71727 fix -mstrict-align
2017-09-27 Christophe Lyon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82347
Bug ID: 82347
Summary: Class Name Injection and Constructor Typenames
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82343
Mark changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42244|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82172
--- Comment #21 from Gubbins ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #20)
> Your failure happens even w/o LTO, am I right?
> But yes, the problem looks very similar to what happens for ld.bfd.
You are right.
Does anyone know how I would rais
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81509
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:59:56PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81509
>
> --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> pr45513 and pr54072 could be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80210
--- Comment #16 from Peter Bergner ---
While investigating the new failure in Comment 15, I modified the test case
slightly to move the #pragma to the beginning of the test case. I found I get
another similar looking ICE, but which isn't the sam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82346
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The condition for std::to_string being declared in gcc-5 is:
#if __cplusplus >= 201103L && defined(_GLIBCXX_USE_C99)
So presumably _GLIBCXX_USE_C99 is false. If you're using glibc 2.26 you might
have hit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80210
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81509
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
pr45513 and pr54072 could be duplicates.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82346
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82338
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
12 hours reducing leads to this C++ code:
extern "C" {
void a();
void *memset(void *, int, unsigned long);
}
struct b {
int c;
int d;
} e[5000], *f;
int g;
int h;
int i;
int j, k;
void l(int);
int m;
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82302
--- Comment #9 from krzysio.kurek at wp dot pl ---
I think I located the issue, it works fine on my machine, but using I found an
error using glslangValidator.
Please try pulling and compiling again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68924
--- Comment #3 from Peter Cordes ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #2)
> Does anything bad happen if you remove the #ifdef/#endif for
> _mm_cvtsi64_si128? (2 files in the testsuite would need updating for a
> proper patch)
It's just a wr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82346
--- Comment #5 from krzysio.kurek at wp dot pl ---
$ g++-5 -std=c++11 main.cpp -o string -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++-5
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/5/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82346
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82346
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Can you provide the exact output of g++ then?
Can you provide the exact output of g++ -v then?
Sorry for the typo.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82346
krzysio.kurek at wp dot pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resoluti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82346
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82346
Bug ID: 82346
Summary: String is not detected as a part of std
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82339
--- Comment #5 from Peter Cordes ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> I always wondered if it is more efficient to have constant pools per function
> in .text so we can do %rip relative loads with short displacement?
There's no rel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
Correction... the patch does not work with a simple
example such as
program main
!$OMP PARALLEL NUM_THREADS(4)
print *,"Hello, world"
!$OMP END PARALLEL
end program main
Some more digging to do...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81509
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
A patch has been submitted. See
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2017-09/msg00124.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82337
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Revised and tested patch posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-09/msg01836.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82324
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 42250
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42250&action=edit
Proposed patch
This patch is an attempt at getting rid of the lock-order
inversion. It seems to do the right
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82339
--- Comment #4 from Peter Cordes ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #0)
> At least on i7-5960X in the following testcase:
>
> baz is fastest as well as shortest.
> So I think we should consider using movl $cst, %edx; shlq $shift, %rdx
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69493
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82258
--- Comment #9 from Christophe Lyon ---
I get:
1 2 1 0 -2 -3
-4
3 4 5 0 7 8
9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82345
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82345
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
When I compare the performance of this similar program on a text file of 4
million lines I see gcc performs slightly better:
#include
#include
#include
int main(int , char**argv) {
std::ifstream in(a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82345
--- Comment #3 from Eugene ---
Created attachment 42249
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42249&action=edit
source code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82345
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82345
--- Comment #1 from Eugene ---
Source file https://yadi.sk/d/FqXH-4Y63NGeSw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82345
Bug ID: 82345
Summary: low performance (comparing to clang)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63392
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82341
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82337
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 42248
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42248&action=edit
Proposed patch
Here's what I'm testing -- looks like it fixes this particular case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82337
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
I think we can do something simpler by just keeping these abnormal SSA names
out of the basis chains in the table. Working on a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82342
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82344
Bug ID: 82344
Summary: [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 435.gromacs ~10%
performance regression with trunk@250855
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82012
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68924
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Does anything bad happen if you remove the #ifdef/#endif for _mm_cvtsi64_si128?
(2 files in the testsuite would need updating for a proper patch)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82159
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Sep 27 14:19:57 2017
New Revision: 253230
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253230&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82159
* gimplify.c (gimplify_modify_expr): Don't op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82340
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82339
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81398
d25fe0be@ changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82337
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82343
Bug ID: 82343
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault - template
recurrency, SFINAE
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82341
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82342
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82095
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82115
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82138
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82148
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82340
--- Comment #2 from Pascal Cuoq ---
Richard:
> I don't see how a volatile compound literal could make any sense or how
> you'd observe the side-effect of multiple stores to it
Well, I have the same question about volatile variables the addres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82342
Bug ID: 82342
Summary: [8 regression] i386/pr82260-2.c fail
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82341
Bug ID: 82341
Summary: [8 regression] i386/pr80732.c fail
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82327
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81657
Andrey Guskov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrey.y.guskov at intel dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82339
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
--- Comment #2 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Could this still be fixed / filtered out in the ThreadSanitizer somehow?
Should it be moved to the sanitizer component?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82340
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |c
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82172
--- Comment #20 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Gubbins from comment #19)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #18)
> > Issue solved, ld.bfd is responsible.
>
> Unfortunately, the same test program also crashes when built and linked on
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82339
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42243
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42243&action=edit
gcc8-pr82339.patch
Patch for -Os where movl $cst, %eXX; shlq $shift, %rXX is 1 byte shorter than
movabsq $(cst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82340
Bug ID: 82340
Summary: volatile ignored in compound literal
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82172
Gubbins changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave.gittins at gmail dot com
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82339
Bug ID: 82339
Summary: Inefficient movabs instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
--- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, david at westcontrol dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
>
> David Brown changed:
>
>What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
David Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david at westcontrol dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82337
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82338
Bug ID: 82338
Summary: valgrind error in inherit_in_ebb
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82336
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82333
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|7.0 |8.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82331
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82329
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82172
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #18 from Martin Lišk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82327
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82326
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Agreed. One could allow changes in signedness as extension.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82321
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
85 matches
Mail list logo
