https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64260
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42108
--- Comment #65 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42108
>
> --- Comment #64 from Tobias Burnus ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63608
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
But the testcase looks completely artificial and this ICEs only because the
compiler is configured with --enable-checking.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62151
--- Comment #16 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For calls of distribute_notes with from_insn != NULL, I kind of understand why
it is vulnerable, at least when handling REG_DEAD notes.
When we distribute REG_DEAD note of one register from FROM_I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60871
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Honza, any progress on this? People are regularly hitting this ICE in 4.9.x...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42108
--- Comment #66 from Salvatore Filippone ---
As far as I remember(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #65)
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > Fortran 66 compilers did. For instance, "DO i = 2, 1" would then be e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57523
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61906
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58722
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63832
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 34246
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34246&action=edit
Preprocessed source
Preprocessed source, compile with -O2 -Wall:
../../../gcc-svn/trunk/libgcc/crtstuff.c: In fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64260
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63832
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|WORKSFORME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64255
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64262
Bug ID: 64262
Summary: [5 Regression] Several LTO failures after r218609 when
compiling with -fpic.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64258
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64259
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64000
tobias.polzer+gcc at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34053|0 |1
is obsolete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58969
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz ---
(In reply to Richard Smith from comment #2)
> (In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #1)
> > Hmm, issue seems to be in too restrictive decl_maybe_constant_var_p
> > function.
>
> I don't know how the GCC code is s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59859
Bug 59859 depends on bug 64258, which changed state.
Bug 64258 Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (on loop
optimization?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64258
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59586
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||csoeder at akamai dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64258
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64262
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64262
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64263
Bug ID: 64263
Summary: ICE where adddi3_aarch64 does not satisfy its
constraints after r217546
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64263
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64264
Bug ID: 64264
Summary: [5 Regression] s390 bootstrap fails in ada
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build, ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64264
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63399
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm*
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64263
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ktkachov at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64110
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64105
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
4.8 rejected this testcase, possibly because a feature is not implemented.
So not sure how this can count as a regression (regressions are things that
have a known-to-work version)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64123
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64163
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64265
Bug ID: 64265
Summary: r217669 broke tsan
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64172
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64204
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64205
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64240
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64240
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58623
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to bin.cheng from comment #3)
> Patch sent at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02209.html
> On latest trunk, the patch generates below assembly for the example:
>
> .cpu g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266
Bug ID: 64266
Summary: Can GCC produce local mergeable symbols for
*.__FUNCTION__ and *.__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ function.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64267
Bug ID: 64267
Summary: [DR 482] Qualified declarators in redeclarations
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63288
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57523
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55405
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53966
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64267
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It seems Clang 3.1 used to give a warning, but Clang 3.2 promoted it to an
error for GCC and EDG compatibility. They must have changed it again for DR482.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55459
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: doko at gcc dot gnu.org
seen with 20141211, r218620, failing to configure libgcc:
configure:3427: /home/doko/gcc/gcc-snapshot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61328
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14541
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #21)
> Created attachment 34215 [details]
> Link errors output for aarch64
>
> > Which one exactly? That is, what is the failing link output?
>
> All of them AFAICS. I'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64269
Bug ID: 64269
Summary: ICE with -O3 enabled on Ubuntu 14.04
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64190
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #2)
> Everywhere I guess.
I'm not getting this warning neither on x86_64-linux nor on i686-linux,
otherwise I would not have committed the patch. Any information abou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64269
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64269
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
But the testcase is invalid:
markus@x4 tmp % frama-c -val -val-signed-overflow-alarms -precise-unions
-obviously-terminates -no-val-show-progress -machdep x86_64 test_case_7213.c
[kernel] preprocessing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14541
--- Comment #23 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #22)
> (In reply to ktkachov from comment #21)
> > Created attachment 34215 [details]
> > Link errors output for aarch64
> >
> > > Which one exactly? T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61917
Andrey Tarasevich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tarasevich at cs dot
uni-saarland.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61917
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Yes, I think that is the same bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63288
--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> Started with r210492.
In that case the issue might be latent at least in 4_9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64099
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64263
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64270
Bug ID: 64270
Summary: packed fields
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64270
Damien Ruscoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||damien.ruscoe at imgtec dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56212
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53293
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52587
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48164
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64270
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64262
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64*, x86*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64160
--- Comment #6 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Ulrich,
> if (reg_overlap_mentioned_p (operands[3], operands[7])
> || reg_overlap_mentioned_p (operands[3], operands[8]))
>FAIL;
Thanks - that is indeed a better solution to the bug.
> B.t.w. i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64099
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
For r217826 vs. r217827 the assembly differences show a larger stack frame
while the optimized dump differences are net positive (more memory CSE happens
and loads get removed - which might increase register
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63854
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44054
--- Comment #21 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Author: manu
Date: Thu Dec 11 15:13:33 2014
New Revision: 218627
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218627&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2014-12-11 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR fortran/44
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64269
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64268
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44054
--- Comment #22 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
I think the two remaining issues are:
1) Multiple locations (%C/%L) in diagnostics
2) Support !GCC$ diagnostic (pragmas)
For (2), I'm not planning to work on it since it seems all the common support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
Bug ID: 64271
Summary: Minimal patches to bootstrap on NetBSD
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
--- Comment #1 from Kai-Uwe Eckhardt ---
Created attachment 34254
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34254&action=edit
libstdc++-patch2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
--- Comment #2 from Kai-Uwe Eckhardt ---
Created attachment 34255
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34255&action=edit
libstdc++-patch3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
--- Comment #3 from Kai-Uwe Eckhardt ---
Created attachment 34256
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34256&action=edit
libcilkrts1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
--- Comment #5 from Kai-Uwe Eckhardt ---
Created attachment 34258
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34258&action=edit
libgfortran-weak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
--- Comment #4 from Kai-Uwe Eckhardt ---
Created attachment 34257
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34257&action=edit
libcilkrts-thread
cilk uses a non-posix function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
--- Comment #6 from Kai-Uwe Eckhardt ---
Created attachment 34259
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34259&action=edit
test_summary
All gfortran tests fail to run due to bug #39570
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42108
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9/5 Regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48244
--- Comment #9 from Kai-Uwe Eckhardt ---
I have submitted the necessary patches and test_result.log as #64271
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64272
Bug ID: 64272
Summary: useless "called from here" for inline failed
error/warning
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Kai-Uwe Eckhardt from comment #0)
> Created attachment 34253 [details]
> libstdc++-patch1
>
> Bootstrap of 5.0 fails on NetBSD, but with the patches in NetBSD's package
> system
> pkgsrc it bui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Kai-Uwe Eckhardt from comment #0)
> Created attachment 34253 [details]
> libstdc++-patch1
This introduces an ABI change.
Also, if _CTYPE_BL represents the "blank" character class, I would exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64271
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Please submit them by posting them to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org.
And please CC libstd...@gcc.gnu.org for the three libstdc++ patches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28662
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64190
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I'm not getting this warning neither on x86_64-linux nor on i686-linux,
> otherwise I would not have committed the patch. Any information about
> the platform you are getting the warning on would be apprec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54687
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64247
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|program result depends on |malloc alignment and -mavx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64273
Bug ID: 64273
Summary: Add support for "#pragma warning" etc.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44054
--- Comment #23 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #22)
> 2) Support !GCC$ diagnostic (pragmas)
That's now PR64273.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64273
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64268
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-linux-gnu |powerpc-linux-gnu,
|
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
