https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84034
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Sat Jan 27 06:44:25 2018
New Revision: 257120
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257120&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-27 Bernd Edlinger
PR diagnostic/84034
* di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84040
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84040
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Jan 27 06:28:15 2018
New Revision: 257119
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257119&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/84040
* sched-deps.c (sched_macro_fuse_insns
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82994
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746
--- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-01-26 8:29 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> By the xfail? Can the PR be closed?
I'll have to investigate...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I don't have a recent gcc-6 set of test results but the bug is fixed in
> gcc-7 and gcc-8.
By the xfail? Can the PR be closed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58931
--- Comment #5 from Aaron Graham ---
Created attachment 43261
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43261&action=edit
Patch to check for overflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
I don't have a recent gcc-6 set of test results but the bug is fixed in
gcc-7 and gcc-8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83342
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #6 from Domin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66833
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Summary|[4.9/5.1/6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81122
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> (In reply to Ben Woodard from comment #10)
> > Also note:
> > https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/742775
> >
> > My reading of:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81122
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ben Woodard from comment #10)
> Also note: https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/742775
>
> My reading of:
> https://wg21.link/lwg2381
>
> is that if the first part of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56691
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The test in comment 3 has likely been fixed by revision r222361 (pr60322).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83835
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56691
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vladimir.fuka at gmail dot com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84074
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84039
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84048
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83881
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60322
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||frank.otto at pci dot
uni-heidelb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58043
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56010
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #9)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> >> This kernel AT_PLATFORM name should strip the '+' off:
> >> .platform = "power7+", -> "power7"
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83870
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84074
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56765
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> On my environment, all tests compile now without an ICE.
Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83873
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83633
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84074
Bug ID: 84074
Summary: Incorrect indexing of array when actual argument is an
array expression and dummy is polymorphic
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83936
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84055
--- Comment #6 from Kip Warner ---
Hey Martin. Yes, you are right. I see it now in cl_platform.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84073
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
See also
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/Further-Interoperability-of-Fortran-with-C.html#Further-Interoperability-of-Fortran-with-C
> Using assumed-shape, assumed-rank and deferred-shape array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84071
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is related to PR 81443. Can you see if the 7.3 release has it
fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84073
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84071
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83712
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83955
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
--- Comment #26 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
A little bit more info:
It appears the parameter asmhdr in this function is at the center of this:
func (tools gccgoToolchain) gc(b *Builder, a *Action, archive string, importcfg
[]byte, asmhd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84027
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84030
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84055
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Here's what I see in attachment #43249:
$ cat -n minimal.ii | grep -E -e 'typedef *[^ ]+ *cl_uint' -e uint32_t | grep
typedef
66 typedef unsigned int __uint32_t;
186 typedef __uint32_t uint32_t;
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83946
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Jan 26 21:31:37 2018
New Revision: 257110
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257110&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Fix safe-indirect-jump-[18].c
Thist patch merges the safe-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84034
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #52 from H.J. Lu ---
*** Bug 69846 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69846
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69846
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84036
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83956
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83956
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jan 26 20:47:32 2018
New Revision: 257107
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257107&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/83956 - wrong dtor error with anonymous union
* me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55258
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83530
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84073
Bug ID: 84073
Summary: In -fc-prototypes fixed (nonzero) length strings are
mapped to plain char in prototype.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84055
--- Comment #4 from Kip Warner ---
Thanks Martin. I'm curious where the __int32 type was even coming from.
cl_platform.h has the following typedef, among others that use it...
typedef unsigned __int32cl_uint;
...but no where can I f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #48 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Mike Lothian from comment #47)
> With the patch you've committed to gcc master, applied on top of GCC 7.3 I'm
> now seeing the following error building Clang:
I don't think this is related to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84072
Bug ID: 84072
Summary: [meta-bug] -mindirect-branch=thunk issues
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84055
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83998
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83998
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Jan 26 19:33:16 2018
New Revision: 257104
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257104&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-26 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/83998
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84046
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If you want aggregate with size 1 and isn't used to store information, use
typedef struct { char : 1; } zero;
instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84046
--- Comment #3 from Martin Uecker ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Confirmed. I think the C language doesn't specify this since zero-sized
> arrays are a GNU extension and thus in C no zero-sized types/decls exist?
>
> So no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83503
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83502
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84053
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84071
Bug ID: 84071
Summary: [7/8 regression] nonzero_bits1 of subreg incorrect
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84051
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> and then I get
>
> > gcc-7 t2.s t1.c -flto
> /tmp/ccGhH7Cp.o:(.data+0x0): undefined reference to `Handler'
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> > gcc-7 t1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83776
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #4)
> Isn't this a duplicate of pr84047? My patch on that seems to fix this bug
> as well.
>
> I think we should merge these PRs somehow.
This bug was introduced by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84050
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763
--- Comment #47 from Mike Lothian ---
With the patch you've committed to gcc master, applied on top of GCC 7.3 I'm
now seeing the following error building Clang:
[294/954] /usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-g++ -m32 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64
-D_GNU_SOURC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84064
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I wasn't ever happy with the discrepancy between the computation of TO_ALLOCATE
in the layout code and ALLOCATE within ix86_expand_prologue. It seemed ripe to
fall into this kind of problem. sigh.
If ALL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83776
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
I posted a patch for a similar issue reported in bug 83776
(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg02144.html). It handles
MEM_REFs and diagnoses the test case in comment #0 (I must have missed that
wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84063
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 43259
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43259&action=edit
proposed UNTESTED patch
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> I don't think we want to be adding new c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80567
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Version|7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84070
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81610
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|bogus fix-it hint for a |[8 Regression] bogus fix-it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84070
Bug ID: 84070
Summary: Incorrect assignment to allocatable character variable
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78969
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-05-23 00:00:00 |2018-1-26
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84065
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84069
Bug ID: 84069
Summary: missing strlen optimization after constant memcpy with
offset
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83845
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
posix
gcc version 8.0.1 20180126 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83846
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82249
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jan 26 17:10:24 2018
New Revision: 257101
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257101&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84036 - ICE with variadic capture.
PR c++/82249
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84036
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jan 26 17:10:24 2018
New Revision: 257101
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257101&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84036 - ICE with variadic capture.
PR c++/82249
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84045
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601
--- Comment #24 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #23)
> What would create those BIT_FIELD_REFs so early though? They should stay as
> COMPONENT_REFs.
I thought you'd never ask... why our friend fold_truth_andor_1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83896
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83896
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Jan 26 16:47:22 2018
New Revision: 257100
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257100&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/83896 - ice in get_string_len on a call to strlen wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84045
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
What would create those BIT_FIELD_REFs so early though? They should stay as
COMPONENT_REFs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83954
--- Comment #8 from Dan Bonachea ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #7)
> This should silence the warning.
> Index: lto-symtab.c
> ===
> --- lto-symtab.c(revision 2570
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84046
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83956
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84044
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84044
>
> --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
1 - 100 of 208 matches
Mail list logo
