http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60505
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60650
--- Comment #5 from Yvan Roux ---
Validation shows that it still fails for arm-none-linux-gnueabihf. I didn't
investigate further yet.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60716
Bug ID: 60716
Summary: gcc cannot detect static recursive function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60716
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60713
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60712
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60708
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60708
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60708
--- Comment #2 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Well, no - the error that 4.7 gives is caused by my using a C++14 deduced
return type for a function there. 4.9 supports those with --std=c++1y.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60707
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Already xfailed for mips. You may want to check history to see if it's
applicable to xfail on hppa as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60706
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to John David Anglin from comment #0)
> Executing on host:
> /test/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/../../gfortran -B
> /test/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/../../
> -B/test/gnu/gcc/objd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60704
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60700
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60717
Bug ID: 60717
Summary: Wrong code with recursive procedure with unlimited
polymorphic dummy argument
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60706
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Like this. If that works for you it's pre-approved. Only implements the
special-case (the gmp path would probably have a lot of testsuite fallout?).
I don't have a suitable target to test this on where the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60604
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60481
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60653
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60529
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60500
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60483
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60526
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34723
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Priority|P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57732
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Blocks|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59925
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60191
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60692
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59967
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Priority|P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60162
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|N
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60363
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|cris-axis-elf |cris-axis-elf,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60410
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60436
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60481
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60483
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60363
--- Comment #10 from bin.cheng ---
Patch sent at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg00857.html , but it
need to wait for stage 1.
I will xfail it for now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60500
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Component|middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60505
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60526
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60529
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60567
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60604
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60609
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60644
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i686-pc-linux-android
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60653
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #18)
> sparc-sun-solaris2.10 is a primary arch, making P1 for now. As sparc
> implements
> the hook Joseph mentions is this merely a testsuite issue (sparc being
> "slo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60656
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60655
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60659
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60657
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60644
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
The fix in gcc-patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg01428.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60620
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60620
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60604
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P3
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski --
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P4
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60604
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
ABI changing option makes it a differen triplet IMHO (but it's always a hard
guess as to exactly what variants/multilibs are supposed to be in this list).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #63 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
On i386-pc-solaris2.9, I get the same PASSes and XFAILs as before:
Unsupported rounding for real(16)
380 0 52
PASS: gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90 -Os execution tes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60653
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #5)
> However if I try the same with csint.f90 that's produced I get a different
> set of error messages but not the same failure. Slightly bizarre.
> * $Id: cs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60718
Bug ID: 60718
Summary: Test case gfortran.dg/select_type_4.f90 fails on ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60719
Bug ID: 60719
Summary: With --program-prefix=$target_alias
--program-suffix=-$version install-driver breaks
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60719
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Guarding the two seemingly slightly different cases with
"$(GCC_INSTALL_NAME)" != "$(target_noncanonical)-gcc-$(version)"
and
"$(GCC_INSTALL_NAME)" != "$(GCC_TARGET_INSTALL_NAME)"
would work, but this is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58880
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60717
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60647
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Mar 31 12:28:33 2014
New Revision: 208957
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208957&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-31 Martin Jambor
PR middle-end/60647
* tree-sra.c (cal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60647
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60720
Bug ID: 60720
Summary: clisp fails to build with -flto: internal compiler
error: tree check: expected array_type, have
record_type in array_ref_low_bound, at expr.c:6941
Prod
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60720
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60718
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger ---
I think, instructions 40 and 44 are transposed between
select_type_4a.f90.209r.asmcons:
(insn 40 38 43 6 (set (mem/f/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 102 sfp)
(const_int -4 [0xfffc])) [3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60708
--- Comment #3 from Ville Voutilainen ---
So, to clarify, this is not accepts-invalid, nor is it a 4.7->4.9 regression
with regards to whether the function should be accepted. If I change the test
to
be purely C++11, it ICEs on 4.7 and 4.8 as well
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60551
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Clarification: 'a.cc' should be named as 'a.hh' as it's a header included in
many other .cc files.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60720
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
We miss to wrap uses of non-automatic vars inside MEM_REFs for global
initializers
(we do that for the IL already).
Doing this raises the question whether we shouldn't simply special-case
global var referenc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60363
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Agreed, let's xfail the test on the affected targets for now and look to fix
the missed threading optimization during the next stage1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60721
Bug ID: 60721
Summary: xcoral fails to build with LTO: internal compiler
error: verify_flow_info failed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60721
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60650
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Mon Mar 31 14:21:58 2014
New Revision: 208961
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208961&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Adjust testcase for softfp cases.
PR target/60650
2014-03-31 Ram
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60722
Bug ID: 60722
Summary: __builtin_choose_expr() does not allow 'CONST_EXP'
using const variable
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60653
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 32499
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32499&action=edit
Reduced Fortran test case (use .f or .f90 suffix)
Reduced test case attached. Compile on arm-linux-gnueabihf with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60653
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60650
--- Comment #7 from Yvan Roux ---
The same kind of issue is reported on the same build, but with a different set
of options. I'm reducing the testcase (still too big...)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60700
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Mar 31 15:24:56 2014
New Revision: 208962
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208962&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add a testcase for PR rtl-optimization/60700
PR rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60704
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60700
--- Comment #4 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Mar 31 16:21:30 2014
New Revision: 208963
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208963&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport revision 201326
gcc/
PR rtl-optimization/60700
201
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57637
--- Comment #11 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Mar 31 16:21:30 2014
New Revision: 208963
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208963&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport revision 201326
gcc/
PR rtl-optimization/60700
20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60700
--- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Mar 31 16:24:28 2014
New Revision: 208964
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208964&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add a testcase for PR rtl-optimization/60700
PR rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60700
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60654
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
Sever
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60716
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60247
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|ATxmega processor |avr
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60709
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60715
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> I'm pretty sure there's an existing bug report about this
Agreed. What about bug 57891?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60715
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57891
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||filip.roseen at gmail dot com
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60650
--- Comment #8 from Yvan Roux ---
Created attachment 32500
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32500&action=edit
2nd reduced testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60650
--- Comment #9 from Yvan Roux ---
the new command line is :
cc1 -O2 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -march=armv7-a xfs_bmap_util.i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60707
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 3/31/2014 4:27 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Already xfailed for mips. You may want to check history to see if it's
> applicable to xfail on hppa as well.
I just noticed that this bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60270
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Mar 31 18:46:23 2014
New Revision: 208966
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208966&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-31 Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Jonathan Wakely
PR libstdc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60270
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo