https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81807
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83138
Bug ID: 83138
Summary: ICE: Segfault expanding function parameter pack in
subsequent sibling pack declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keyw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82050
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83137
Bug ID: 83137
Summary: Member function pointer template parameter not
constant expression when set to nullptr
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
3.3s for GNU Fortran (GCC) 8.0.0 20170829 (experimental) [trunk revision
251395]
1.3s for GNU Fortran (GCC) 8.0.0 20171123 (experimental) [trunk revision
255090]
0.4s for version with Fortran wrapper of C function strtof()
So, with Jerry's patch gfortran is now only a little slower than
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83064
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I looked at the IL from the Fortran FE and it clearly uses a single memory
> area for tmp for each outer loop iteration. That is, the memory is allocated
> by the caller.
I confirm that using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83091
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83091
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Nov 23 22:55:05 2017
New Revision: 255125
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255125&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/83091
* gcc-interface/decl.c (gnat_to_gnu_entit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83134
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Nov 23 21:35:27 2017
New Revision: 255122
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255122&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/83134 Ensure std::__not_ converts B::value to bool
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83136
Bug ID: 83136
Summary: static class template member: invalid application of
‘sizeof’ to incomplete type
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79072
--- Comment #20 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Thu Nov 23 21:02:48 2017
New Revision: 255120
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255120&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-11-23 Paul Thomas
Backported from trunk
PR fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83135
Bug ID: 83135
Summary: Routines in submodules treat protected variables from
other modules as public
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82621
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
*** Bug 81291 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81841
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 23 20:16:38 2017
New Revision: 255115
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255115&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/81841
* parse.c (parse_spec): Allow ST_OMP_THR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81291
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83091
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The tentative patch solves all the -g errors.
Great, thanks for the feedback.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83015
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka ---
ytrium also bootstraps for me. I see you use release checking for stage1 that
may be the trigger, I will try it now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83134
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83134
Bug ID: 83134
Summary: std::negation uses !B::value instead of
!bool(B::value)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83091
--- Comment #4 from simon at pushface dot org ---
The tentative patch solves all the -g errors.
My report in comment 1 is solved by patches for pr 82816 and pr 82875.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83114
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=78549
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8 Regression] Very slow|Very slow formatted
|f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83132
--- Comment #2 from Jan Tušil ---
The 'struct' version can be simplified to:
struct E;
struct ::E {};
Which gives the following error:
2:12: error: global qualification of class name is invalid before '{' token
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81291
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83069
--- Comment #6 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
(In reply to Siddhesh Poyarekar from comment #5)
> This fixes the problem for me. freq_max < 1, i.e. freq_max of one of the
> bbs in the function means that it ends up having a profile count larger than
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83069
--- Comment #5 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
This fixes the problem for me. freq_max < 1, i.e. freq_max of one of the bbs
in the function means that it ends up having a profile count larger than 2^30
since the freq_max gets reset to 16. Dropping
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82050
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42697
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42697&action=edit
pr82050.c
Here it is.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yyc1992 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #33 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83110
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81722
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81807
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36313
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu Nov 23 17:52:05 2017
New Revision: 255109
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255109&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-11-23 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/36313
* m4/maxl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78549
--- Comment #27 from Jerry DeLisle ---
This should be fixed now fairly well. At this point there are not a lot of
major issues in our own libgfortran library. I will leave this bug report open
for a while if any issues arise.
Here is my latest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83064
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On November 23, 2017 6:30:34 PM GMT+01:00, "dominiq at lps dot ens.fr"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83064
>
>--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres
>---
>> As I said in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83110
--- Comment #2 from Yichao Yu ---
What might be invalid about the source?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82459
Andrew Senkevich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew.n.senkevich at gmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83114
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker.cheng at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83114
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.3 |6.6
Summary|[7/8 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83123
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
In the first case (with the extend to SImode) the extend is combined
with the AND, to an AND in SImode. After that, the 3-insn combination
of the two shifts with the AND is something combine knows how t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83064
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> As I said in the other bug we're seeing
>
>real(real64), dimension(nsplit) :: tmp
>
> as "shared" amongst the outer loop iterations.
>
> ...
>
> Not sure if you need to mark compute somehow t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78549
--- Comment #26 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Nov 23 17:19:18 2017
New Revision: 255108
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255108&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-11-23 Jerry DeLisle
Backport from trunk
PR l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81869
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83133
Bug ID: 83133
Summary: Superflous x86 test instructions in generated
assembly.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83132
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83132
Bug ID: 83132
Summary: Error while redeclaring an enum with extra
qualification
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81317
--- Comment #28 from Randy MacLeod ---
Alex, thanks for confirming, I was worried that it was one of the _perfectly_
sensible local patches we have in YP. ;-)
FYI, a local toolchain expert has started working on this defect so stay tuned
/ keee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83129
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83069
--- Comment #4 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
Reduced C test case:
#define MAX 98
void foo (unsigned long *res, unsigned long in)
{
for (unsigned long a = 0; a < MAX; a++)
for (unsigned long b = 0; b < MAX; b++)
for (unsigned long c =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82050
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
I attempted to copy&paste from comment #0, but couldn't reproduce the ICE
(possibly a spaces vs tabs thing?)
Jakub: please can you attach the reproducer file, and I'll take this. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83098
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83098
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If you are into make check, then self test already passed, right?
Thus, can this be closed as fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83116
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
No idea where though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83131
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83131
Bug ID: 83131
Summary: c-c++/common/attr-nonstring-3 failure for strcmp tests
on PowerPC
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83128
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83127
--- Comment #3 from ghjghj530-bubu at yahoo dot de ---
Changed my testcode to int main(). The error stil occurs.
The system is Windows 7, 64 bit, mingw.
Is use the GCC in a company-specific enviroment with some customized
linkersripts.
We first
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83116
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81888
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83111
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83111
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Nov 23 14:08:12 2017
New Revision: 255097
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255097&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
2017-11-23 Oleg Endo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83111
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Nov 23 14:06:15 2017
New Revision: 255096
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255096&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/83111
* config/sh/sh.md (udivsi3, divsi3, si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83130
--- Comment #1 from Krzysztof Jakubowski ---
someFunc() at the bottom is unnecessary.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83130
Bug ID: 83130
Summary: Compilation error related to 'using', template
instantiations and default constructors
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83129
Bug ID: 83129
Summary: calloc zero initialization is not taken into account
by gcc
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83015
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83128
Bug ID: 83128
Summary: Unable to optimize {m,c}alloc when strings builtin are
used
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83064
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #4 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83127
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It links fine on GNU/Linux using a standard start function, int main().
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83127
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83126
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82973
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82974
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82975
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82989
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Works as expected in GCC 6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82989
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81888
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83124
--- Comment #2 from Yibiao Yang ---
Thanks and Very sorry for this wrong bug report.
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #1)
> The code has undefined behaviour.
> If you remove the -w, two of the warnings are:
> bad.c:5:10: warning: initializatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82253
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] ICE in |[6/7 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82253
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 23 11:26:32 2017
New Revision: 255095
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255095&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/82253
* expr.c (expand_assignment): For CONC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83127
Bug ID: 83127
Summary: Missing overload for operator << of std::stringstream
for old ABI
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82975
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83014
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83122
--- Comment #2 from Liu Hao ---
Yes it is hard to tell whether there is indeed loss of precision.
At the moment, the (only?) redictable way to silence the warning is to use a
bitwise and operation. That is, `ptr->b = (val >> 3) & (UINT64_MAX >>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83126
Bug ID: 83126
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in
transform_to_exit_first_loop_alt, at
tree-parloops.c:1713
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83121
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70773
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
--- Comment #21 from Ramana R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83125
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83123
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83122
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83121
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83120
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83097
--- Comment #4 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Actually, I think it's for big endian we could optimize memcmp_char4. In the
example Thomas posted on the mailing list, one must also check the sign of
memcmp, not just whether it's != 0. Fixed example:
#i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70773
PeteVine changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83111
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #5 from Tom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70773
--- Comment #19 from PeteVine ---
Created attachment 42694
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42694&action=edit
Better assembly after profiling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83121
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 42693
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42693&action=edit
reduced testcase
trippels@gcc67 ~ % g++ -g -flto -r -nostdlib -O2 test_environment.ii
node_buffer.ii
node
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83014
--- Comment #7 from ghjghj530-bubu at yahoo dot de ---
I tried debugging the GCC today (not my strong side).
I ended up to extracte the call to cc1plus.exe and started GDB with cc1plus.exe
as target.
If i just run the process the ICE still occurs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83117
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
Summary|FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83124
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82814
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Thu Nov 23 09:52:04 2017
New Revision: 255094
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255094&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-11-23 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/82814
* trans-types.c
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
