https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66843
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini ---
Hi Patrick. Opening a new bug certainly is OK, in particular in this case where
we failed to just simplify the testcase originally submitted. Thus, when your
patch goes in, just resolve this one as fixed and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66801
--- Comment #18 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
% gdb --args /home/trippels/gcc_build_dir_/./gcc/xgcc --version
Reading symbols from /home/trippels/gcc_build_dir_/./gcc/xgcc...done.
(gdb) run
Starting program: /home/trippels/gcc_build_dir_/gcc/xgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66845
Bug ID: 66845
Summary: one more %si register function clobbering issue
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66845
--- Comment #1 from marcus at jet dot franken.de ---
Created attachment 35952
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35952&action=edit
testcase.c
delta minimized testcase.
gcc -c -O2 -fPIC
look for second call of RPCRT4_strndupA w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66782
--- Comment #16 from marcus at jet dot franken.de ---
I can confirm that this testcase fixed here and in Wine.
I have however found another issue with register clobbering and opened a new
bug 66845 for it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66845
--- Comment #2 from marcus at jet dot franken.de ---
compiler used is gcc version 5.1.1 20150707 [gcc-5-branch revision 225501]
(SUSE Linux) with the patch from bug 66782 applied.
t’ was previously declared
here
extern int setrlimit (__rlimit_resource_t __resource,
^
trippels@gcc2-power8 gcc % /home/trippels/gcc_build_dir_/./gcc/xgcc --version
xgcc (GCC) 6.0.0 20150712 (experimental)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66726
--- Comment #8 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kugan
Date: Sun Jul 12 11:22:42 2015
New Revision: 225722
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225722&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2015-07-12 Kugan Vivekanandarajah
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66846
Bug ID: 66846
Summary: parloops does not always mark loops for fixup if
needed
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66847
Bug ID: 66847
Summary: Derived class calling protected base ctor using C++11
{brace} init = spurious access denied error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66847
DB changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||db0451 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from DB ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66847
--- Comment #2 from DB ---
Created attachment 35955
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35955&action=edit
command line output after adding -v and -save-temps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66847
--- Comment #3 from DB ---
Created attachment 35956
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35956&action=edit
-save-temps output .ii file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63151
DB changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||db0451 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from DB ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66617
--- Comment #7 from DB ---
I just found a similar, possibly related issue with {brace} ctor call and
access specifiers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66847
As mentioned in the comment there, we're looking forward to movement on th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66847
--- Comment #4 from DB ---
It should be noted that although I have a commented-out {brace} ctor for the
final class in main(), that was just a test; both {brace} and (parenthesis)
init in that context produce the same behaviour. That is: dependen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66848
Bug ID: 66848
Summary: boehm-gc fails test suite on x86_64-apple-darwin15
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66848
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth ---
Created attachment 35957
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35957&action=edit
x86_64-apple-darwin14 binaries that reproduce regressions on
x86_64-apple-darwin15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66847
--- Comment #5 from DB ---
Another note is that, as per the other tickets, G++ seems to have multiple
possible causes of its confusion with brace-init:
* presence of virtual base in class hierarchy
* signature of calling class ctor vs base ctor
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66826
--- Comment #2 from Daurnimator ---
I recompiled glibc with debug symbols.
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
_dl_lookup_symbol_x (undef_name=0x77634775 "anything",
undef_map=0x77ffd998 <_rtld_local+2456>, ref=0x7ff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66838
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66838
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marcus at jet dot franken.de
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66845
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66848
--- Comment #2 from Jack Howarth ---
The seg fault in the thread_leak_test back traces as...
# lldb ./thread_leak_test
(lldb) target create "./thread_leak_test"
Current executable set to './thread_leak_test' (x86_64).
(lldb) r
Process 35899 laun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66848
--- Comment #3 from Jack Howarth ---
The seg fault in staticrootstexst back traces as...
# lldb ./staticrootstest
(lldb) target create "./staticrootstest"
Current executable set to './staticrootstest' (x86_64).
(lldb) r
Process 35905 launched: '
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66848
--- Comment #4 from Jack Howarth ---
The gctest hang backtraces as...
# lldb ./gctest
(lldb) target create "./gctest"
Current executable set to './gctest' (x86_64).
(lldb) r
Process 35911 launched: './gctest' (x86_64)
Switched to incremental mod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66848
--- Comment #5 from Jack Howarth ---
Created attachment 35958
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35958&action=edit
bzip2 compressed log of gctest walk in lldb from main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66848
--- Comment #6 from Jack Howarth ---
Created attachment 35959
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35959&action=edit
bzip2 compressed log of thread_leak_test walk in lldb from main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66848
--- Comment #7 from Jack Howarth ---
Created attachment 35960
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35960&action=edit
bzip2 compressed log of staticrootstest walk in lldb from main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66849
Bug ID: 66849
Summary: Incorrect multilib chosen with -mthumb
-mfloat-abi=hard
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66838
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66838
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66834
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Sutton ---
> I would expect a partial ordering to prefer the two-parameter overload in that
> case. But yeah, it's a separate issue.
The problem is that partial ordering doesn't apply to template
parameters whose argum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66841
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Sutton ---
The program is ill-formed. In this line:
requires Constructible() // ERROR HERE
There's no single declaration of Constructible that can be matched to those
template arguments. You would need one with thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66841
--- Comment #2 from Eric Niebler ---
This answer is deeply unsatisfying. I want valid expressions, not traits. And
if std::is_constructible doesn't do *exactly* what I want (and it doesn't) I
have to author my own trait, when what I want to do is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46193
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66850
Bug ID: 66850
Summary: Adding a forward declaration of a template containing
a template template parm causes ICE on valid code
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66850
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49960
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49960
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
--- Comment #12 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #11)
> Hi Patrick. Opening a new bug certainly is OK, in particular in this case
> where we failed to just simplify the testcase originally submitted. Thus,
> when you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52340
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66850
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
Related test cases:
template class> struct Sort;
template class Comparator>
struct Sort
{
template
struct less_than
{
Comparator a;
};
};
==
template struct integral_constant {};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66851
Bug ID: 66851
Summary: support double reduction in parloops
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66851
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35963
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35963&action=edit
Tentative patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66852
Bug ID: 66852
Summary: vmovdqa instructions issued on 64-bit aligned array,
causes segfault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66852
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey Walton ---
This also appears to be an issue with GCC 4.8 and 5.1. See
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/cryptopp-users/BlPiQ2eAWhg/IsX18wAT9ZAJ.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66852
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey Walton ---
> My apologies for *not* having a minimum working example.
If you want to duplicate it, then:
git clone https://github.com/weidai11/cryptopp.git
Open GNUmakefile, and change to (around line 3):
O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
Another testcase:
[hjl@gnu-tools-1 pr58066]$ cat x.i
struct in_addr
{
int s_addr;
};
typedef long unsigned int size_t;
extern void __snprintf (char *__restrict __s, size_t __maxlen,
const char *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66828
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
--- Comment #11 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Please make 64bit TLS patterns dependant on SP_REG, in the same way as 32bit
are.
52 matches
Mail list logo
