https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66828
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Tue Jul 28 06:54:50 2015
New Revision: 226298
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226298&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-07-28 Thomas Preud'homme
PR tree-optimization/66828
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67042
Bug ID: 67042
Summary: gcc/hwint.h:250:19: runtime error: left shift of
8589934588 by 32 places cannot be represented in type
'long int'
Product: gcc
Version: unk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67037
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67034
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67035
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67030
--- Comment #15 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yeah, that problem is fixed.
Now bootstrap fails due to:
gcc/vec.h:307:3: error: attempt to free a non-heap object 'intersecting'
[-Werror=free-nonheap-object]
::free (v);
^
But that mus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67030
--- Comment #16 from Marek Polacek ---
Yeah, that doesn't look related to this warning at all. Thanks for checking.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65766
Louis Krupp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t56xjcu6dh at snkmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65766
--- Comment #3 from Louis Krupp ---
Created attachment 36080
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36080&action=edit
Proposed patch
The problem is with substrings of allocatable string components of derived
types. The code seems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67037
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67037
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66827
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53132
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|paolo.carlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67041
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66062
--- Comment #4 from Sujoy ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #3)
> gcc-4.8 isn't supported anymore.
> I cannot reproduce the issue with 4.9.3 or above.
Thanks for checking. Yes, looks like this got fixed with PR65680.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67043
Bug ID: 67043
Summary: [6 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: deb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66062
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67043
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64402
Yaakov Selkowitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.9.2 |5.2.0
--- Comment #1 from Yaakov Selk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67043
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Does the testcase you reduced this from end up generating different code?
No. (It was reduced from the Linux kernel: kernel/locking/rtmutex.c).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67027
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67027
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67043
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 36081
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36081&action=edit
unreduced testcase
Unreduced testcase is attached.
% gcc --save-temps -c -fno-partial-inlining -O3 -fco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67028
notasas at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||notasas at gmail dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921
--- Comment #22 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #21)
> Transfer.4 _is_ null in the case we segfault. So the guard us clearly wrong.
>
OK, let's try something else.
Are you positive transfer.4 is null?
I don't s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921
--- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015, mikael at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921
>
> --- Comment #22 from Mikael Morin ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67043
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921
--- Comment #24 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #22)
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #21)
> > Transfer.4 _is_ null in the case we segfault. So the guard us clearly
> > wrong.
> >
> OK, let's try someth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67026
--- Comment #3 from Anders Granlund ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Actually wait. I think this is invalid and clang is incorrect in not
> rejecting it. Because you have a call to a non constexpr in a constexpr
> function; doe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67032
--- Comment #8 from Josh Kelley ---
Adding -mno-mmx prevents the error. Thank you very much for your help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66135
ensadc at mailnesia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ensadc at mailnesia dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66851
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66851
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2015-07/msg01090.html
Author: vries
Date: Tue Jul 28 07:54:04 2015
New Revision: 226300
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226300&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Handle dou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927
--- Comment #9 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #8)
> Patch submitted as http://reviews.llvm.org/D11552.
Wow. Very nice speedup for such a simple patch.
Would be great if could be cherry-picked directly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66859
JD changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||5.1.0, 5.2.0
--- Comment #1 from JD ---
Same issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67044
Bug ID: 67044
Summary: ICE on valid code
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66098
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steffen.muething at iwr dot
uni-he
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66711
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44672
pbregener at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pbregener at gmail dot com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67030
--- Comment #17 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #16)
> Yeah, that doesn't look related to this warning at all. Thanks for checking.
Yeah, turns out that was due to a private patch of mine.
Clean trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66521
--- Comment #4 from ctice at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 36082
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36082&action=edit
Tentative patch to fix this issue.
I believe the attached patch will fix this problem. I would appre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #33 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to alalaw01 from comment #32)
> and the optimized tree is:
>
> foo ()
> {
> int vect_sum_9.6;
> int stmp_sum_9.5;
> vector(4) int vect_sum_9.4;
> const vector(4) int vect__8.3;
> const i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67045
Bug ID: 67045
Summary: [ICE][PPCLE64] internal compiler error: in
choose_multiplier, at expmed.c:3373
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67045
--- Comment #1 from Gary Funck ---
Additional info, this failed when trying to build the stage 2 target libgcc.
make[3]: Leaving directory '/home/gfunck/gcc-trunk/bld/powerpc64le-unknown-linu
x-gnu/libgcc'
Makefile:15864: recipe for target 'all-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67018
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
The fix was accepted and committed upstream in the LLVM compiler-rt project.
Jakub, is applying this patch to GCC's libsanitizer ok?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67018
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jul 28 20:07:48 2015
New Revision: 226327
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226327&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67018
* tree.c (cp_tree_equal): Allow local paramet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67018
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #10)
> The fix was accepted and committed upstream in the LLVM compiler-rt project.
> Jakub, is applying this patch to GCC's libsanitizer ok?
After proper testing it i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66962
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Eric Niebler from comment #9)
> Jason, is there anything I can do in my code to avoid the quadratic
> explosion while we wait for Andrew to fix the bug?
In concepts, !(A && B) is not equivalent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66962
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #15)
> So, converting A || B to !(!A && !B) will avoid the explosion at the cost of
> limiting subsumption.
Or even !!(A || B).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67046
Bug ID: 67046
Summary: Segmentation fault when a preprocessor directive
follows the argument to _Pragma
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64375
Yaakov Selkowitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yselkowi at redhat dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67019
Casey Carter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66963
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
This is by design. __builtin_choose_expr requires an integer constant
expression which must be evaluated before the type of the result can be
known; __builtin_constant_p is for optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67021
Casey Carter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |
--- Comment #1 from Casey Carter ---
Th
tried this with gcc HEAD 6.0.0 20150728 here:
http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/8EVR4wM7TqLBTrVG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67047
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
So the enum is an unsigned type so UINTMAX_MAX +1 is 0 as it is always
representable due to the rules of unsigned types and wrapping. Unless I
miss-understand how this is supposed to work and the wrapping ru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67047
--- Comment #2 from Anders Granlund ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> So the enum is an unsigned type so UINTMAX_MAX +1 is 0 as it is always
> representable due to the rules of unsigned types and wrapping. Unless I
> miss-underst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67047
--- Comment #3 from Anders Granlund ---
It seems like the increment of the enumerator x triggered the use of the
following compiler extension:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/_005f_005fint128.html
This without any error messages. That is not
HEAD 6.0.0 20150728 here:
http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/BXXfLL4WOU5lBOfk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67049
Bug ID: 67049
Summary: sh64-elf: internal compiler error: in df_uses_record,
at df-scan.c:3001
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Jul 29 03:33:10 2015
New Revision: 226335
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226335&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-07-28 Bill Schmidt
PR sanitizer/63927
* saniti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67015
--- Comment #4 from Tim Shen ---
Author: timshen
Date: Wed Jul 29 03:45:35 2015
New Revision: 226336
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226336&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/67015
* include/bits/regex_compiler.h (_Compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67045
Gary Funck changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67022
Alexander changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alm at sibmail dot ru
--- Comment #4 from Al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67045
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64919
--- Comment #10 from Alexander ---
Have you try to examine core (dwarf-4) produced with this gcc configuration?
Trying this has no luck with gdb-7.x (it is not working at all)
One solution for me is a globally fallback to dwarf-2 (and use gdb 6.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67015
--- Comment #5 from Tim Shen ---
Author: timshen
Date: Wed Jul 29 04:30:25 2015
New Revision: 226337
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226337&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2015-07-29 Tim Shen
PR lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67015
Tim Shen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927
--- Comment #15 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Author: trippels
Date: Wed Jul 29 06:32:09 2015
New Revision: 226338
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226338&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Use fast unwinder for PowerPC
2015-07-29 Markus Trippelsdorf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66963
--- Comment #6 from Nicolai Stange ---
Thank you for your clarifications, Andrew and Joseph.
As far as I am concerned, this bug can be marked as resolved/rejected/whatever
you like.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67043
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Mmmh, that seems to be because luid are not up-to-date. Running
df_recompute_luids before can_move_invariant_reg makes the issue go away.
78 matches
Mail list logo
