https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88352
--- Comment #2 from Jay ---
The linked bug was amd64. This is x86.
I'm not sure they are the same. Maybe.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #22 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I think it is important to find out why there are those differences in line
> numbers. Is libbacktrace broken on Solaris, or not used at all, something
> different?
AFAICS they only occur with optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86121
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86497
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84251
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||no...@turm-lahnstein.de
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86973
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Summar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87075
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Summar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88383
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Summary|ICE calling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88384
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #2 from Martin Seb
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: s...@li-snyder.org
Target Milestone: ---
hi -
gcc 20181205 gets an ICE compiling this code. (8.2.1 compiles it without
error.)
thanks,
sss
--
template
struct xtest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88384
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88384
Bug ID: 88384
Summary: __alignof__ of an rvalue is different between C and
C++
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85770
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85770
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Dec 6 00:40:08 2018
New Revision: 266839
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266839&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/85770
* gcc.target/i386/pr85770.c: New
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85770
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=87028
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87028
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Dec 5 23:10:08 2018
New Revision: 266833
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266833&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/87028
* calls.c (get_attr_nonstring_decl): Avoid setti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88383
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88383
Bug ID: 88383
Summary: ICE calling _builtin_has_attribute(r, aligned(N))) on
an overaligned reference r
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88362
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
I would think for the same reason why attribute aligned applies to the
reference and not to the type it refers to. If it makes sense for the
following to declare an overaligned reference to an ordinary int ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88382
Bug ID: 88382
Summary: undocumented GNU C extension: C++ raw string literals
permitted in GNU C
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88381
Bug ID: 88381
Summary: __builtin_thread_pointer missing documentation,
defined as implicit_p
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88364
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Probably easiest to omit the clobber if there is a reference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88362
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> so that we get consistent behavior for reference members. __alignof__ should
> return the corresponding alignment. For example, in th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52869
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The exception specification seems to be processed too early, before the other
class members are in scope. This slight variation of comment 5 still fails on
trunk:
struct S {
void g() noexcept(noexcept
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88320
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88332
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88380
Bug ID: 88380
Summary: Sequence of not-explicitly initialised, initialised,
variable length generates no initialiser
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88064
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87531
petschy at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||petschy at gmail dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87350
--- Comment #6 from Bernhard Kaindl ---
Created attachment 45167
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45167&action=edit
Safe fix: Before copying work, check if the vectors have been allocated. If
not, input wasn't valid.
Fixes CV
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88357
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88357
--- Comment #6 from G. Steinmetz ---
Sure, this is now pr88379.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88379
Bug ID: 88379
Summary: ICE in resolve_assoc_var, at fortran/resolve.c:8750
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88332
--- Comment #11 from pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks, I had forgotten.
Seurer, could you update to r265741 or later and check if that cures the issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87350
Bernhard Kaindl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernhard.kaindl@thalesgroup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88332
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
You have
/* { dg-error "alignment of 's' is greater" "" { target pdp11*-*-* } } */
(the "" was added in r265741, the source tree I looked at wasn't up-to-date).
dg.exp says this is
# dg-error regexp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85569
Pavel Roskin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||proski at gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88359
--- Comment #7 from Geert linders ---
Hi Pinskia,
Which minimum version of avr-gcc is suitable?
Cheers - Geert
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2018 10:21
To: geert.lind...@hotmail.com
Subject: [Bug target/88359
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88372
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88359
--- Comment #6 from Geert linders ---
Hi Pinskia,
Which minimum version of avr-gcc is suitable?
Cheers - Geert
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2018 10:21
To: geert.lind...@hotmail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88357
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to G. Steinmetz from comment #4)
> Thanks for working on these issues.
Gerhard,
Can you migrate z2.f90 to its own PR? It is going to
require much more effort to fix. My first attempt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88367
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45166
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45166&action=edit
gcc9-pr88367.patch
Possible untested patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88378
Bug ID: 88378
Summary: notes for template deduction errors mention "[with U =
U]"
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88376
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88362
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
I think the attribute on references needs to work the same way as on pointers
so that we get consistent behavior for reference members. __alignof__ should
return the corresponding alignment. For example, in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87615
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor ---
It's actually, ipa_polymorphic_call_context::get_dynamic_type that causes
problems here. I'll prepare a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88146
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva ---
So, no, it's not a copy ctor, but apparently we're reusing the logic that
synthesizes them for other non-default ctors.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88367
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In GCC 8 we had:
else if (code == POINTER_PLUS_EXPR)
{
/* For pointer types, we are really only interested in asserting
whether the expression evaluates to non-NULL. */
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88320
--- Comment #9 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #8)
> FWIW, clang trunk currently gives the same erroneous suggestion:
>
> :4:19: error: use of undeclared identifier 'aresults'; did you mean
> 'aresult'?
> int are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88332
--- Comment #9 from pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Comment? I thought the comment is the null string after the regexp to match.
Should it read { target { pdp11-*-* } } with the extra braces?
Other examples show up both with the braces and withou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88377
Bug ID: 88377
Summary: ICE in gfc_omp_clause_copy_ctor, at
fortran/trans-openmp.c:614
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88376
Bug ID: 88376
Summary: ICE in is_illegal_recursion, at fortran/resolve.c:1689
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88357
--- Comment #4 from G. Steinmetz ---
Thanks for working on these issues.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88362
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
It's not very clear to me what an aligned attribute on a reference, or a
check of the alignment of a reference, should mean anyway.
Note that in some places, [[]]-style attributes appertain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88320
--- Comment #8 from David Malcolm ---
FWIW, clang trunk currently gives the same erroneous suggestion:
:4:19: error: use of undeclared identifier 'aresults'; did you mean
'aresult'?
int aresult = aresults +1;
^~~~
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88367
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88320
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88332
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
"target pdp11*-*-*" is the _comment_ argument to dg-error here as written;
that's why it is displayed in the summary like that, too. I don't see why
it doesn't fail on most systems though, hrm.
FWIW, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88369
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45165
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45165&action=edit
gcc9-pr88369.patch
Only those two and not the 4 other ones?
Does the following patch help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72842
Will Wray changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wjwray at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think it is important to find out why there are those differences in line
numbers. Is libbacktrace broken on Solaris, or not used at all, something
different?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85726
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #20 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #18 from Eric Botcazou ---
> (> These are often just off-by-one errors in the line numbers; I believe I
>> have a patch around somewhere to fix at least some of those...
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #19 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 45163
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45163&action=edit
Preliminary patch for regular sparc output patter test failures
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88146
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88064
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Wed Dec 5 15:53:03 2018
New Revision: 266829
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266829&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Use unsigned arithmetic for demoted vector plus/minus/mu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86637
--- Comment #10 from Arseny Solokha ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> Fixed?
Yes, it fixes all three today's testcases, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86393
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63184
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Dec 5 14:55:59 2018
New Revision: 266827
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266827&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-12-05 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/63184
* c-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88375
Bug ID: 88375
Summary: Vague source location for bad initialization
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88368
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63184
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88373
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Summary|parse error in te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88374
Bug ID: 88374
Summary: crash when stepping into for loop where iterators are
created and compared with gdb
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88373
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88373
Bug ID: 88373
Summary: parse error in template argument list when using
bitwise not with -std=c++2a switch
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88372
Bug ID: 88372
Summary: alloc_size attribute is ignored on function pointers
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88368
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, 4.9 accepts it, but so does 5.5 which contains r209907
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88364
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88208
--- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Wed Dec 5 14:16:08 2018
New Revision: 266825
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266825&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Provide SPARCv9 MAXALIGN in gcc.target/sparc/attr-aligned.c (PR
testsuite/88208
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88371
Bug ID: 88371
Summary: Gratuitous (?) warning regarding an implicit
conversion in pointer arithmetic
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88370
Bug ID: 88370
Summary: acc_get_cuda_stream/acc_set_cuda_stream:
acc_async_sync, acc_async_noval
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88368
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
r209907 is the first one that rejects it this way, before that the preprocessed
source I'm trying doesn't compile because of some __is_trivially_assignable
changes, so it is possible 4.9 accepted this with 4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88369
Bug ID: 88369
Summary: [9 regression] g++.dg/vect/pr33426-ivdep.cc etc. FAIL
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88369
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88368
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88368
Bug ID: 88368
Summary: Improper ``use of deleted function''
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85870
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Bet the line number is high enough that we jump over some threshold and stop
counting ranges or columns or whatever at that point. David, can you please
have a look?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85870
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64242
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88353
MCCCS changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86393
MCCCS changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mcccs at gmx dot com
--- Comment #5 from MCCCS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87048
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88367
--- Comment #5 from Pavel ---
Jonathan, sorry, attached.
Richard,
I forgot to show the structures:
struct kmapset_map {
struct kref kref;
unsignedsize;
struct kmapset_set *set;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88367
--- Comment #4 from Pavel ---
Jonathan, sorry, attached.
Richard,
I forgot to show the structures:
struct kmapset_map {
struct kref kref;
unsignedsize;
struct kmapset_set *set;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87571
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88367
--- Comment #3 from Pavel ---
Created attachment 45160
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45160&action=edit
preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86827
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Adjusted testcase that fails also with -m64:
> struct A { unsigned char a[84]; };
> struct B { unsigned char b[216]; };
> struct C { union { struct A c; struct B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88367
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
