https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65823
Bug ID: 65823
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE in gcc.c-torture/execute/stdarg-2.c
-O0/-O1 for arm
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65822
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.5
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65821
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65824
Bug ID: 65824
Summary: [6 Regression] execution failures for stdarg/va-arg
testcases for aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65818
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65823
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Compiler version: 6.0.0 20150417 (experimental) 222178 (GCC)
Platform: armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf
configure flags: --with-arch=armv7-a --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 --with-float=hard
--enable-languages=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65788
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, with this I can reproduce it. Not really suitable to create a testcase
though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65824
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Version|5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65823
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #60 from Dominik Vogt ---
Works on s390x.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65649
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65788
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 35374
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35374&action=edit
patch
Patch I am testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65825
Bug ID: 65825
Summary: Cannot change attributes intrinsic
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65802
--- Comment #9 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue Apr 21 08:43:07 2015
New Revision: 59
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=59&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Mark ifn_va_arg with ECF_NOTHROW
2015-04-21 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65802
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65826
Bug ID: 65826
Summary: mark ifn_va_arg as ECF_LEAF
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65826
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65825
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65823
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65823
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Minimal test-case test.c:
...
#include
long x;
void
f3 (int i, ...)
{
va_list aps[10];
va_start (aps[4], i);
x = va_arg (aps[4], long);
va_end (aps[4]);
}
...
or preprocessed:
...
typede
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65825
--- Comment #2 from Roger Ferrer Ibanez ---
> Well, if so, why are you do you want to declare ubound as intrinsic besides
> pushing gfortran to its limit?
I did not intend to push gfortran anywhere. It actually happened by chance.
Kind regards,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65823
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
original dump:
{
struct va_list aps[10];
struct va_list aps[10];
__builtin_va_start ((struct &) (struct *) &aps[4], i);
x = VA_ARG_EXPR ;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65827
Bug ID: 65827
Summary: LRA use smaller reg class than original reg for reload
and it spill fail if reg class no hard reg available
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65828
Bug ID: 65828
Summary: [LTO] ICE in streamer_get_builtin_tree, at
tree-streamer-in.c:1127
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65828
--- Comment #1 from Steven Noonan ---
If you want a nice tarball with a ready-to-go repro case, I've put it here:
https://www.uplinklabs.net/files/lto-65828.tar.xz
Should just be able to run something like:
$ /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65828
--- Comment #2 from Steven Noonan ---
I just noticed that libtool appears to be stripping some of the arguments in
LDFLAGS when invoking GCC:
/bin/sh ../libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -flto -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes
-Werror=declaration-afte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65815
--- Comment #3 from andras.aszodi at csf dot ac.at ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> Hm? This compiles just fine for me:
>
> #include
> const std::array q1 = {1.0, -1.0, 1.0};
> const std::array q2{{1.0, -1.0, 1.0}};
>
> So can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65815
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to andras.aszodi from comment #3)
> The problem manifests itself if the array is a member variable in a class
> and initialised "inline". Details in my new comment below.
There are no details anyw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65815
--- Comment #5 from andras.aszodi at csf dot ac.at ---
If the array is a class member and it is initialized in-class then the
"single-brace" syntax gets flagged. Please try the following example:
// - file clarrinit.cc --
#include
#include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65815
--- Comment #6 from andras.aszodi at csf dot ac.at ---
You were too quick, I was too slow... please re-check :-)
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #4)
> (In reply to andras.aszodi from comment #3)
> > The problem manifests itself if the ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65815
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|WAITI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801
--- Comment #17 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #16)
> What is printed with -Wno-error=narrowing ?
Try it yourself?
Just a warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801
--- Comment #18 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #16)
> What is printed with -Wno-error=narrowing ?
I'm also a bit afraid of how setting pedantic-errors in this way interacts with
the #pragma GCC diagnos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801
--- Comment #19 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #17)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #16)
> > What is printed with -Wno-error=narrowing ?
>
> Try it yourself?
> Just a warning.
Thanks,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The problem with -fpermissive is that it doesn't just allow things like
narrowing that are valid in C++03 but also allows all kind of ancient
constructs that no sane person wants.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65649
--- Comment #4 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 35376
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35376&action=edit
Patch resend
Darn - apparently the previous version of this patch suffered from TAB/space
corruption. So here i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65788
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 21 12:38:32 2015
New Revision: 66
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=66&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-21 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/65788
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65828
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65788
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65828
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I remember PR65583, but not anything else in that area.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65650
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 21 12:52:43 2015
New Revision: 67
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=67&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-21 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/65650
* tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65828
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
ICE in streamer_get_builtin_tree doesn't ring a bell for me, sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65830
Bug ID: 65830
Summary: -Wno-shift-count-negative -Wno-shift-count-overflow
don't work with const ints
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65830
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65650
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65831
Bug ID: 65831
Summary: gcov does not output 0% coverage files
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-profi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65832
Bug ID: 65832
Summary: Inefficient vector construction
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65832
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
typedef int v4si __attribute__((vector_size(16)));
v4si bar (int *i, int *j, int *k, int *l)
{
return (v4si) { *i, *j, *k, *l };
}
looks reasonable (no spills at least, stray move for the return value).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65832
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
typedef unsigned char v16qi __attribute__((vector_size(16)));
v16qi baz (int i0, int i1, int i2, int i3,
int i10, int i11, int i12, int i13,
int i20, int i21, int i22, int i23,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
Stupachenko Evgeny changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||evstupac at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65833
Bug ID: 65833
Summary: Attempting to convert 128 bit integers to 128 bit
decimal floating-point results in an unresolved symbol
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
--- Comment #48 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Stupachenko Evgeny from comment #47)
> The patch caused significant regressions (see below) on spec2000 INT
> benchmarks compiled with options “-fPIE -pie -O2 -ffast-math -mfpmath=sse
> -m32 -ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780
--- Comment #49 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Stupachenko Evgeny from comment #47)
> The patch caused significant regressions (see below) on spec2000 INT
> benchmarks compiled with options “-fPIE -pie -O2 -ffast-math -mfpmath=sse
> -m32 -march=co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65834
Bug ID: 65834
Summary: give error for #if with no expression at the previous
location
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65823
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #5)
> The nop introduced during gimplification is not meant to be there. This
> patch gets rid of it:
I've build an arm compiler with the patch, and tested execute.e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65649
--- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 35379
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35379&action=edit
this time with a %0xlx
Hi Guys,
*sigh* this has not been my day. The previous two patches both had a sma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56743
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Apr 21 16:13:54 2015
New Revision: 71
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=71&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-21 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/56743
* io/list_rea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65835
Bug ID: 65835
Summary: bootstrap failure: multiple invalid conversions from
‘const char*’ to ‘char*’ [-fpermissive] in winnt.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65836
Bug ID: 65836
Summary: [6 Regression] gnat fails to build on
aarch64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56743
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Apr 21 16:33:27 2015
New Revision: 72
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=72&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-21 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/56743
* gfortran.dg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65835
--- Comment #1 from tprince at computer dot org ---
Building by casting const char* to char *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56743
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56744
Bug 56744 depends on bug 56743, which changed state.
Bug 56743 Summary: Namelist bug with comment and no blank
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56743
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65836
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65836
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This might be the same bug as 65824.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65681
Tom Honermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65234
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Apr 21 18:23:20 2015
New Revision: 74
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=74&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-21 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/65234
* io/format.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65234
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Apr 21 18:28:39 2015
New Revision: 76
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=76&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-21 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/65234
* gfortran.dg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65234
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65684
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65818
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #42 from Richard Henderson ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #39)
> no, __sync was simply an implementation of psABI back when it was new... I'm
> not aware of any additions, enhancements or guarantees that were added when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65820
Paul Robinson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
Bug ID: 65837
Summary: [arm-linux-gnueabihf] lto1 target specific builtin not
available
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65821
--- Comment #4 from chihin ko ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> What version works correctly? (please provide the testcase as attachment as
> well)
< 0><0x000b> DW_TAG_compile_unit
DW_AT_producer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65821
--- Comment #5 from chihin ko ---
Created attachment 35381
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35381&action=edit
test case 1/1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65838
Bug ID: 65838
Summary: DWARF type units should have DW_AT_comp_dir when
needed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61580
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65839
Bug ID: 65839
Summary: xmethods need updating once gdb decides how to fix
18285
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65840
Bug ID: 65840
Summary: type of result of at least some libstdc++ xmethods is
different than real operator
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65840
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Well does this matter in practice? In does set "*p = 1" work when xm is
disable and when it is enable? If the behavior is the same then it does not
matter in practice.
Or does p &*p work both with and with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65840
--- Comment #2 from Doug Evans ---
I think it should be more than just a matter of working in practice.
A user may get confused by the difference in the type and wonder if time needs
to be spent investigating the difference. Tools shouldn't do t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65839
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65840
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65839
--- Comment #2 from Doug Evans ---
Re: changing xmethods.
The thought was that they'd be changed in an upward compatible manner,
but it's good to know we have a bit of freedom. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61580
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The problem in this case is that newlib only defines C99 functions for C99 or
C++11, but the _GLIBCXX_USE_C99 tests in acinclude.m4 are compiled with
-std=gnu++98.
As discussed previously (on the mailing l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65841
Bug ID: 65841
Summary: Seg fault on intrinsic assignment to allocatable
derived type with allocatable component
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #57 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Apr 22 01:32:14 2015
New Revision: 222305
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222305&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/65076
* passes.def (early_optimizations): Add pass_dse.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65842
Bug ID: 65842
Summary: combine is overly cautious when operating on side
effect operands references
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65818
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The code snippet:
...
case 'f':
case 'e':
case 'E':
case 'g':
case 'G':
(void) __builtin_va_arg(ap, double);
total_width += 307;
break;
...
translates
92 matches
Mail list logo
