https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64479
Bug ID: 64479
Summary: wrong optimization delayed-branch for SH
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64477
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64478
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64478
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64478
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Sorry, Andrew,
a deadlock in the Ada exception handler is an Ada BUG
by definition.
Even if YOU can't fix it easily.
The memory could be pre-allocated as the call stack
and we should make it to the point
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64478
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #9)
> I still dont see what's wrong with tsan here, the signal could
> easily be from a kill -SIGSEGV .
Because this is while executing in the synchonous signal form
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64478
--- Comment #11 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Sorry.
again the test case c380004
just with this little addition
begin
Test ("C380004",
"Check evaluation of discriminant expressions " &
"when the constraint depends on a disc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63494
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38319
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38724
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Segfault caused by |Segfault caused by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64478
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61250
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin13 |x86_64-apple-darwin1(3|4)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50077
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin10, |x86_64-apple-darwin1*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60913
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Summary|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55603
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
PR 60913 is closely related and contains a more complicated test case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38319
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #0)
> alloc_comp_assign_4.f90 nested constructors(line 56)
With current trunk I see additional leaks in lines 28 and 29. Those are again
due to not auto-d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64388
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg01990.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64480
Bug ID: 64480
Summary: List designated initializer triggers
-Wmissing-field-initializers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60255
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64481
Bug ID: 64481
Summary: [5 Regression] r219076 breaks bootstrap
(x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64388
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-01-03, at 10:01 AM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
> A patch is posted at
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg01990.html
Can't revie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48918
--- Comment #3 from Anh Vo ---
Great. Thank you for your effort.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56126
Olaf van der Spek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olafvdspek at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64482
Bug ID: 64482
Summary: No Exceptions Improvements
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64482
Olaf van der Spek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64460
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill ---
I ran a git bisect and it didn't narrow it down much but I hope this helps.
After the list of candidates, I am posting the full git bisect log.
Bisecting: 27 revisions left to test after this (roughly 5 step
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55192
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64483
Bug ID: 64483
Summary: FAIL: 18_support/exception_ptr/64241.cc (test for
excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63779
--- Comment #4 from Václav Zeman ---
I think I am experiencing same or similar issue with GCC 4.8.2 on Oracle
Solaris 11.2 Express (i386). This is a snippet from log4cplus build. Almost all
of these are related to __gthread* symbols but I also ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63779
--- Comment #5 from Václav Zeman ---
Created attachment 34369
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34369&action=edit
assembler source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63779
--- Comment #6 from Václav Zeman ---
Created attachment 34370
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34370&action=edit
preprocessed source for global-init.cxx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63779
--- Comment #7 from Václav Zeman ---
Created attachment 34371
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34371&action=edit
resulting .o file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63552
Ian Harvey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian_harvey at bigpond dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64484
Bug ID: 64484
Summary: TSAN reports lock-order-inversion in c940006, c940011
and c940012
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20150103 (experimental) [trunk revision 219158] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O1 -c small.c
$ gcc-4.9 -Os -c small.c
$
$ gcc-trunk -Os -c small.c
small.c:26:1: internal compiler error: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64481
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64469
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tg at mirbsd dot org
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64471
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64485
--- Comment #1 from Zhendong Su ---
The following (somewhat simpler) test case triggers the same ICE:
-
int a, b, c;
int
fn1 ()
{
return a || b;
}
static void
fn2 (int p)
{
if (p)
c = fn1 ();
for (;;)
;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64469
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64457
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64456
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63596
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60669
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63552
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Ian Harvey from comment #6)
> Note that using a type bound procedure (versus a procedure component) as an
> actual argument is an extension to Fortran 2008.
Can you pinpoint this in the standard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40211
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64486
Bug ID: 64486
Summary: Failure building cross compiler for arm-eabi
(system.ads)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64486
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
You need a GCC 5 gnat to begin with.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64486
simon at pushface dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63539
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63539
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Author: pinskia
Date: Sat Jan 3 22:50:48 2015
New Revision: 219165
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219165&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-03 Andrew Pinski
Bug #63539
* Makefile.def (flag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63552
--- Comment #8 from Ian Harvey ---
For clarity - there is a difference between a procedure as an actual argument
and a procedure reference (something with parentheses and maybe arguments
following) that is part of an expression that is an actual
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64487
Bug ID: 64487
Summary: internal compiler error: in fold_offsetof_1, at
c-family/c-common.c:9857
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62250
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sun Jan 4 01:22:54 2015
New Revision: 219171
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219171&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/62250
* lib/gfortran.exp: Add libatomic library
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62250
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56126
--- Comment #5 from Michael Bruck ---
@Olaf
"5.3.4 New
13 [Note: unless an allocation function is declared with a non-throwing
exception-specification (15.4), it indicates failure to allocate storage by
throwing a std::bad_alloc exception (Claus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63494
Bud Davis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bdavis at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63494
--- Comment #4 from Bud Davis ---
my comment sounded snarky; not intended. I did not know that you were also
reducing this test case !!!
This page was 'stale' in my browser when i added the comment.
--bud
58 matches
Mail list logo
