https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100175
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100187
--- Comment #3 from 康桓瑋 ---
Hey, the __remove_fn helper lambda __pred in ranges_algo.h#L1259 also has this
issue, we need to forward the return type of the operator==.
You can see https://godbolt.org/z/ro34WYGnW for the failure case, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100197
Bug ID: 100197
Summary: g++ emits spurious Wstring-compare warnings on
strcmp()
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96983
--- Comment #32 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Michael Meissner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3cf04d1afa8a4955a0a9a395dd21ce1b6484aa78
commit r12-54-g3cf04d1afa8a4955a0a9a395dd21ce1b6484aa78
Author: Michael Meissner
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100108
--- Comment #11 from Rin Okuyama ---
Segher, let me thank you again!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #23 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
With the mainline compiler
git log -1 --oneline
0c0bdcc60cf (HEAD -> master, origin/trunk, origin/master, origin/HEAD)
libgomp.fortran/depobj-1.f90: Fix omp_depend_kind
the Gambit build run
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99586
--- Comment #4 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ---
Thank you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92010
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88754
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100175
--- Comment #2 from Miklos Karacsony ---
Commented too soon above, the ICE is back this time it happened when I've tried
to build Mesa:
[1775/2477] Compiling C++ object
'src/gallium/drivers/swr/3eb908b@@swrAVX@sha/rasterizer_core_backend_single
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100183
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Cannot reproduce either with
GNU Fortran (SUSE Linux) 10.2.1 20200825 [revision
c0746a1beb1ba073c7981eb09f55b3d993b32e5c]
nor with
GNU Fortran (GCC) 10.3.1 20210420
May need narrowing down to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95468
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1b265d910f27743dc3ea8e4fde6c292df220fb9f
commit r9-9456-g1b265d910f27743dc3ea8e4fde6c292df220fb9f
Author: Patrick Palka
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96282
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fef6ee0790de58f16128a0de87571ba7e04b8320
commit r9-9455-gfef6ee0790de58f16128a0de87571ba7e04b8320
Author: Patrick Palka
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100154
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #7)
> Do you think the following is the right thing?
Correction:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/check.c b/gcc/fortran/check.c
index 82db8e4e1b2..e1ec1c610e8 100644
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #22 from Iain Sandoe ---
so it looks like the contents of r10 are being trashed by the call to
___UTF_8_put (the first call goes through the dylib lazy symbol resolution and
that leaves r10 with a value pointing to some mutex).
When
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100154
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #4)
> as ptr_returning_func() (a function reference with data pointer result) is a
> variable in the sense of the Fortran standard (F2018:R902)?
Do you thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84476
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0, 8.3.0, 9.2.0
Ever confi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100154
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #50651|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100196
Bug ID: 100196
Summary: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in reduce_binary_ca, at
fortran/arith.c:1364
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100195
Bug ID: 100195
Summary: ICE in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.c:15095
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100154
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 50651
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50651&action=edit
WIP patch
This patch reuses variable_check() and as a bonus fixes the declarations
of the subroutin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #21 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #19)
> (In reply to lucier from comment #18)
> > I can't see to build mainline on this machine, it fails with
> Yeah, there have been some patches pushed in early to GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100194
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
Compiles these variants :
$ cat z2.f90
subroutine s(x)
real, contiguous :: x(..)
call t(x)
contains
subroutine t(y)
real :: y(..)
end
end
$ cat z3.f90
subroutine s(x)
real, contiguou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100194
Bug ID: 100194
Summary: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in
gfc_trans_create_temp_array, at
fortran/trans-array.c:1351
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100193
Bug ID: 100193
Summary: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in
alloc_scalar_allocatable_for_assignment, at
fortran/trans-expr.c:10837
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100192
Bug ID: 100192
Summary: Typos in testsuite files, dg-options etc.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100186
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
> Yes, we do, support back to 4.8.x was part of the switch to C++11 language
> decision.
Can you please document that requirement?
I really don't get it, we decided to move to a more recent C++ standard, bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100186
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||f4bug at amsat dot org
--- Comment #10 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100190
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85185
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
--- Comment #11 from Andre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100190
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
#define S390EP 0x10008
memset((char *)S390EP, 0, 6);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95291
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100178
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |inline-asm
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100175
--- Comment #1 from Miklos Karacsony ---
I've played around with this gcc version and it looks like the ICE was caused
by a faulty glibc commit. As soon I've replaced glibc with the version I've
used before the ICE was gone. Please close this bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100186
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> > The fact that something is in C++11 doesn't mean we can assume it in GCC,
> > while GCC 4.8.x which we still want to support had roughly complete C++11 FE
> > s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91241
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xavier at cremaschi dot fr
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89605
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #17)
> (In reply to lucier from comment #16)
> > I have figured out how to build and then run the app in lldb to reliably
> > reproduce the error.
> I will try later on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to lucier from comment #18)
> I can't see to build mainline on this machine, it fails with
>
> ../../../gcc-mainline/gcc/rtl.h:4547:42: error: use of undeclared identifier
> 'TARGET_ISA_64BIT'
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
--- Comment #18 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
I can't see to build mainline on this machine, it fails with
../../../gcc-mainline/gcc/rtl.h:4547:42: error: use of undeclared identifier
'TARGET_ISA_64BIT'
&& GET_MODE_PRECISION (int_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98615
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a63035ae262078cd70927b06a2bd3ee94cc6e56e
commit r12-48-ga63035ae262078cd70927b06a2bd3ee94cc6e56e
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Mon J
-zlib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20210421 (experimental) [master revision
7f9b7ccf0c1:344da81f015:5445da1a94bb4df752209e54f4aa21702609a20a] (GCC)
[539] %
[539] % gcctk -O2 -S -o O2.s small.c
[540] % gcctk -O3 -S -o O3.s small.c
[541] %
[541] % wc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100186
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
> The fact that something is in C++11 doesn't mean we can assume it in GCC,
> while GCC 4.8.x which we still want to support had roughly complete C++11 FE
> support, I think the libstdc++ side wasn't there ye
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100186
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100017
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I can only fix the case where the target (in the build tree) is found
first and then its #include_next finds the host (installed on the
host).
But that seems to be the case that's breaking the canadian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100190
Bug ID: 100190
Summary: warning on s390x: writing 1 byte into a region of size
0 [-Wstringop-overflow=]
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44677
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eyalroz1 at gmx dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100184
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100189
Bug ID: 100189
Summary: rejects valid conditional operators involving
conversions to arrays of unknown bound (P0388)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100186
--- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn ---
For example, in GCC 6:
#if defined(_GLIBCXX_HAS_GTHREADS) && defined(_GLIBCXX_USE_C99_STDINT_TR1)
namespace std _GLIBCXX_VISIBILITY(default)
{
_GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
/**
* @defgroup thread
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100186
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And opinions differ on whether "define it but make it useless" or "don't define
it" is the right answer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100186
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100178
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84476
Martin Ankerl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||martin.ankerl at gmail dot com
--- Comme
LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20210421 (experimental) [master revision
7f9b7ccf0c1:344da81f015:5445da1a94bb4df752209e54f4aa21702609a20a] (GCC)
[530] %
[530] % gcctk -O1 -S -o O1.s small.c
[531] % gcctk -O3 -S -o O3.s small.c
[532] %
[532] % wc O1.s O3.s
14 31 324 O1.s
35
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100187
--- Comment #2 from 康桓瑋 ---
Or more consistent, just -> bool.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100017
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100187
--- Comment #1 from 康桓瑋 ---
Same with is_permutation helper lambda __comp_scan in ranges_algo.h#L807:
auto __comp_scan = [&] (_Tp&& __arg) {
return std::__invoke(__pred, __proj_scan,
std::forward<_Tp>(__arg));
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100186
--- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 50650
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50650&action=edit
pre-processed source for lto-wrapper.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100187
Bug ID: 100187
Summary: ranges::search_n helper lambda misses forwarding
return type
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100149
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 03:48:24PM +, brtnfld at hdfgroup dot org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100149
>
> --- Comment #3 from Scot Breitenfeld ---
> For future reference, gfortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100164
--- Comment #18 from David Edelsohn ---
Because the _M_try_acquire patch was not yet committed to trunk when I tested
and bootstrap on trunk now is broken due to other, unrelated patches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97051
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.4
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97051
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0c89b88daa8dffb956c77b4f22e914f42757f707
commit r10-9745-g0c89b88daa8dffb956c77b4f22e914f42757f707
Author: Patrick Palka
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99453
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100185
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99453
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c2fc1702cb3a3d5cc9c40de47f63b4c8f3f1d09c
commit r12-46-gc2fc1702cb3a3d5cc9c40de47f63b4c8f3f1d09c
Author: Philippe Blain
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100186
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100186
Bug ID: 100186
Summary: lto-wrapper.c assumes std::thread
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100185
Bug ID: 100185
Summary: transparent_union fails when the union has a
destructor
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100184
Bug ID: 100184
Summary: Detect variables which are only "used" in updating
themselves
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100149
Scot Breitenfeld changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.3.0
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100182
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100182
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 50649
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50649&action=edit
gcc12-pr100182.patch
Untested patch for this particular peephole2. But, 1) I'm not sure it is 100%
safe even
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100017
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
>From IRC:
It works if I add -nostdinc++ manually to the compile line that fails then I
don't get the error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100182
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In addition to r7-1112 r8-3856 also added some similar peephole2s.
I'm afraid I'm getting lost in them, in several other peephole2s there the
store that is optimized away is an atomic store and that is quite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100152
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98143
--- Comment #1 from Christophe Lyon ---
Current trunk generates for MVE:
ldr r3, .L3+16 @ 5 [c=12 l=4] *thumb2_movsi_vfp/5
vldr.64 d6, .L3 @ 7 [c=8 l=4] *mve_movv8hi/8
vldr.64 d7, .L3+8
ldr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100164
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100164
--- Comment #16 from Thomas Rodgers ---
The _M_try_acquire() change should be on master and gcc-11 now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96380
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] ICE |[10/11 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96380
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:001c63d15e31bc0a1545426d889a0b9f671b4961
commit r12-42-g001c63d15e31bc0a1545426d889a0b9f671b4961
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100172
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99332
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100180
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #2)
> On trunk, the error message is:
> FAIL: experimental/net/internet/address/v6/members.cc (test for excess
> errors)
> Excess errors:
> /aci-gcc-fsf/builds/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100180
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:34976f3bf8ff146e31b1ccee9351c5803604d7ae
commit r9-9454-g34976f3bf8ff146e31b1ccee9351c5803604d7ae
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100180
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f0d22d31ceb1373f17045f2527ef2f2251d93be8
commit r10-9744-gf0d22d31ceb1373f17045f2527ef2f2251d93be8
Author: Jonathan Wake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94475
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100181
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #8)
> (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #7)
> > (I could not reproduce the LLVM 9 issue in PR94278 back then.)
>
> Hmm, but didn't you say in the LLVM issue
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100183
Bug ID: 100183
Summary: Segmentation fault at runtime when passing an internal
procedure as argument
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100180
--- Comment #2 from Christophe Lyon ---
On trunk, the error message is:
FAIL: experimental/net/internet/address/v6/members.cc (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/aci-gcc-fsf/builds/gcc-fsf-gccsrc/obj-arm-none-eabi/gcc3/arm-none-eabi/thumb/v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95486
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95486
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4806f9157a26cfd66c083bcc01596ff33009c0d6
commit r10-9743-g4806f9157a26cfd66c083bcc01596ff33009c0d6
Author: Patrick Palka
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100179
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I have a patch for this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100180
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think I need to backport another piece.
This should not have happened on trunk though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100164
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Rodgers ---
>From the most recent patch -
+_GLIBCXX_ALWAYS_INLINE bool
+_M_try_acquire() noexcept
+{
+ for (;;)
+ {
+ auto __err = sem_trywait(&_M_semaphore);
+ if (__err && (er
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100182
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In this particular case it is the sync.md:398 peephole2:
(define_peephole2
[(set (match_operand:DF 0 "memory_operand")
(match_operand:DF 1 "any_fp_register_operand"))
(set (mem:BLK (scratch:SI))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97600
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100164
--- Comment #14 from David Edelsohn ---
Thanks for the patch. This now removes the failure that semaphore_impl is not
found.
Because the platform semaphore code never was exercised due to the bug in the
macro, there are more latent bugs.
/tmp/
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo
