https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82787
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you provide the preprocessed source?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82790
Bug ID: 82790
Summary: [GCC 5, 6, 7] -Wuseless-cast doesn't detect
unnecessary removal of const
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82737
--- Comment #14 from Matti Bryce ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #12)
> (In reply to Matti Bryce from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> > > Confirmed with cross compiler, I reduce a test-case.
> >
> > I've a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79696
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2017-07-31 00:00:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82590
--- Comment #1 from bastl ---
Compiling gcc-7.2.0 with gcc-7.2.0
works fine.
What I did on this error and the other errors followed:
comment out the definitions cousing the errors like:
1.)
gcc/system.h:496:14: error: ambiguating new declaration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82002
--- Comment #9 from dansan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dansan
Date: Tue Oct 31 21:48:55 2017
New Revision: 254284
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254284&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/82002 Part 1: Correct ICE caused by wrong calculatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81702
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81702
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Oct 31 21:36:51 2017
New Revision: 254283
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254283&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 81702] Remove devirtualization assert
2017-10-31 Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82635
--- Comment #12 from Andreas Tobler ---
Will soon commit a fix, for gcc6/7/8 on FreeBSD > 9.3. Older gcc's and OS
releases will not be supported by this fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82333
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
This occurs because both fld and ff128 return the same constant (0), one using
it as a long double and the other as a _Float128. Having a 0 constant is not
important. If we return 1 in both functions, it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82789
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Nazarenko ---
(In reply to Alexander Nazarenko from comment #0)
Minor correction:
In code must be:
template
A l_and_r( A const l, A const r )
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82789
Bug ID: 82789
Summary: Invalid code generated for std::array element-wise
processing with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: lto
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70129
--- Comment #5 from chuck cranor ---
I don't think anyone would manually add "-isystem /usr/include" ...
but build systems that provide variables for third party headers that
may or may not be installed in /usr/include often trigger this.
e.g. i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82788
Bug ID: 82788
Summary: wrong code with -fstack-clash-protection
--param=stack-clash-protection-probe-interval=10 on
simple code
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82658
--- Comment #2 from mike.k at digitalcarbide dot com ---
I wanted to validate if this issue was presenting in the toolchains for other
architectures, so I tested a bit:
GCC 7.2.0 on x86-64 (-O3):
C:
movzx eax, BYTE PTR [rsp-1]
shr al
mov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70129
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Why do you need to use either option? /usr/include is already a system include
dir, so -isystem /usr/include serves no useful purpose.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70129
chuck cranor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chuck at ece dot cmu.edu
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81803
--- Comment #19 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Oct 31 18:27:52 2017
New Revision: 254275
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254275&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/81803
* lra-constraints.c (curr_i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68192
--- Comment #7 from Brian Groose ---
It turns out I was using binutils' nm when building gcc. I rebuilt gcc making
sure that only the AIX nm was available, and ld can now find the symbols.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82787
Bug ID: 82787
Summary: gnu gcc (4.8 - 7.1) cannot parse some system headers
in macOS (10.13)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82785
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82785
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Oct 31 17:29:26 2017
New Revision: 254274
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254274&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/82785
* gcc-interface/Makefile.in (m68k/Linux):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82247
--- Comment #5 from Joël Lamotte ---
I'll have to recheck when I have access to a proper computer, but that indeed
would explain this(weird) behavior.
My understanding was that for basic types, ADL would still work using global
namespace, which i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64234
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82785
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Thanks Matthias for reporting the issue and thanks Eric for working on it!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82785
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78829
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
_Alignof is alignment requirement (in all contexts), __alignof__ is
preferred alignment (so on 32-bit x86, for long long they are 4 and 8
respectively, because a long long in a structure is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82777
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82786
Bug ID: 82786
Summary: aarch64 frame patch caused a number of target specific
test failures.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Component: ada
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: doko at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
seen with trunk 20171031:
a-dispat.adb:33:06: "System.Linux" is not a predefined library unit
a-dispat.adb:33:06: "Ada.Dispatching (body)" depends on &
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82754
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82784
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 42506
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42506&action=edit
More minimal asan.c patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82784
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 42505
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42505&action=edit
asan.c patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82247
Casey Carter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Casey at Carter dot net
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82702
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
> We are not using directly lcov, but a replacement we rewrote in Rust.
> We can easily support reading from multiple gcov files instead of one
> (actually, we already support it when llvm is used, since it do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82784
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
So the way it's used is correct ... but why bother with the do {...} while(0)
in that case? It could just use {...} instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82614
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Marco Castelluccio from comment #8)
> Created attachment 42462 [details]
> Archive with GCNO and GCDA file generated with GCC 6
>
> This is an archive containing the GCNO and GCDA files generated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82784
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Some of these makes sense.
gcc/asan.c makes sense:
#define DEF_SANITIZER_BUILTIN(ENUM, NAME, TYPE, ATTRS) \
do { \
decl = add_builtin_fun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82085
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82784
Bug ID: 82784
Summary: Remove semicolon after "do {} while (0)" macros
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: oth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82771
--- Comment #1 from visit0r at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: visit0r
Date: Tue Oct 31 13:00:53 2017
New Revision: 254265
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254265&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[BRIGFE] Fix PR 82771.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/brig/ChangeL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82769
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81570
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrey.y.guskov at intel dot
com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82781
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.4.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81716
--- Comment #2 from sgunderson at bigfoot dot com ---
Still there in:
gcc version 8.0.0 20171017 (experimental) [trunk revision 253812] (Debian
20171017-1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82781
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82737
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Matti Bryce from comment #0)
> My .i file is (far) too big to be uploaded directly
Not if you compress it with zip, gzip, bzip2 or something similar.
(In reply to Matti Bryce from comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82776
--- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Testing a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82633
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82633
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Oct 31 11:55:19 2017
New Revision: 254257
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254257&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
GCOV: document behavior of -fkeep-{static,inline}-functions (PR
gcov-prof
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82783
Bug ID: 82783
Summary: gfotran ICEs when compiling polymorphic function call
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82694
--- Comment #10 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to amker from comment #9)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #8)
> > I think -fno-strict-overflow/-fwrapv should use the old behavior.
> > The kernel really needs a flag to c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82694
--- Comment #9 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #8)
> I think -fno-strict-overflow/-fwrapv should use the old behavior.
> The kernel really needs a flag to control pointer wrapping.
Well, GCC doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82694
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
I think -fno-strict-overflow/-fwrapv should use the old behavior.
The kernel really needs a flag to control pointer wrapping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82776
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> (In reply to amker from comment #4)
> > Well, one decision needs to be made is whether such bound information should
> > be covered by -faggressive-loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82776
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to amker from comment #4)
> Well, one decision needs to be made is whether such bound information should
> be covered by -faggressive-loop-optimizations. We already did this for
> undefined behavio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82772
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82737
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Matti Bryce from comment #7)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> > Confirmed with cross compiler, I reduce a test-case.
>
> I've attempted to reduce a test case, but after 2 days of r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82776
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Well, one decision needs to be made is whether such bound information should be
covered by -faggressive-loop-optimizations. We already did this for undefined
behavior of sign type and array bound.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82772
--- Comment #8 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Oct 31 10:36:33 2017
New Revision: 254255
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254255&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/82772
* config/alpha/sync.md (fetchop_co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82782
Bug ID: 82782
Summary: ICE: nested template alias and specialized template
with auto template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82737
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 42503
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42503&action=edit
Slightly reduced test-case
With following test-case, I see ICE with following cross-compiler:
../configure --en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82085
--- Comment #12 from Roland B ---
Done, reported as bug 82782. Thanks for your help!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82772
--- Comment #7 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Oct 31 10:34:55 2017
New Revision: 254254
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254254&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/82772
* config/alpha/sync.md (fetchop_co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82772
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Oct 31 10:33:12 2017
New Revision: 254253
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254253&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/82772
* config/alpha/sync.md (fetchop_co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82641
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82776
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78829
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Alignment.html should discuss the
relationship between GCC's __alignof__ and C11's _Alignof. Are they identical?
Should _Alignof be preferred when using C11? It could also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82772
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Joël Krähemann from comment #4)
> Hi,
> Yesterday I was trying to set up an alpha VM. Since I didn't build it I
> don't have access to the preprocessed source.
>
> As doing a qemu image with debia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82641
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82674
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Tue Oct 31 09:49:40 2017
New Revision: 254252
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254252&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Subject: [PATCH] rs6000: Fix crash with big stack clash interval (PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82781
Bug ID: 82781
Summary: Vector extension operators return wrong result in
constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82780
--- Comment #1 from sgunderson at bigfoot dot com ---
Here's a version that's valid C++:
class a {
};
template class c { c(c &&e) : a(static_cast
(e.d)) {} a d; };
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82360
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sgunderson at bigfoot dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82780
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82780
Bug ID: 82780
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE on compiling Boost
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82085
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini ---
Just to clarify why I think a separate bug report is more appropriate: if I
revert the small change I committed for this bug, the new testcase does *not*
trigger the ICE fixed here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82085
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini ---
Yes, please, open a new bug, it's a different issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82567
--- Comment #7 from Chinoune ---
Fixed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82772
--- Comment #4 from Joël Krähemann ---
Hi,
Yesterday I was trying to set up an alpha VM. Since I didn't build it I don't
have access to the preprocessed source.
As doing a qemu image with debian there were some problems with the kernel. The
pool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82567
Chinoune changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82670
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82779
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82778
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||collison at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82085
--- Comment #9 from Roland B ---
Here is the new minimal example (please let me know if this should go into a
new bug report):
// -
template
struct make_char_sequence;
template
struct make_char_sequence
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82779
Bug ID: 82779
Summary: [8 regression] On ppc64le bootstrap-ubsan causes "gcc
-dumpspecs" segfault
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82778
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42502
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42502&action=edit
gcc8-pr82778.patch
The following untested patch ought to fix it.
recog_memoized doesn't handle the important pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82085
--- Comment #8 from Roland B ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #7)
> Fixed trunk and 7.3.0 so far.
Awesome!
Sadly, my "real" code still produces an internal compile error. I will try to
create a new minimal example.
Until then, you c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82002
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
*** Bug 82485 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82485
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Component|tree-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82002
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
*** Bug 82712 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82712
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82778
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82776
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
94 matches
Mail list logo
