https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67066
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> Fixed on trunk.
>
> The filesystem library is now enabled on the gcc-5-branch too, but I'm not
> making this change there. Just don't use --enable-concept-chec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
>
> --- Comment #22 from Bill Schmidt ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67379
Bug ID: 67379
Summary: libgcc2.c negation of -2147483648 cannot be
represented in type 'int'
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67371
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
The fix might be as simple as:
diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
index 1eacb8be9a44..7016b347a79c 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
@@ -4324,7 +4324,6 @@ poten
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67371
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67380
Bug ID: 67380
Summary: constexpr: Comparison of pointers to member array
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67365
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50955
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52272
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67066
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't think the --help output is the right place to explain it. My preference
would be to simply deprecate the option anyway.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67379
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67377
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67005
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Can you please backport to GCC 5 as well?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67371
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Well, my patch survives regression testing and fixes the issue.
But unfortunately it leads to accept invalid cases like:
constexpr int f1() {
throw;
return 0;
}
or
constexpr void f2() {
throw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67371
--- Comment #7 from Casey Carter ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #6)
> Well, my patch survives regression testing and fixes the issue.
>
> But unfortunately it leads to accept invalid cases like:
>
> constexpr int f1() {
> t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67365
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67381
Bug ID: 67381
Summary: genmatch does not honor the order of patterns
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67382
Bug ID: 67382
Summary: RTL combiner is too eager to combine (plus (reg 92)
(reg 92)) to (ashift (reg 92) (const_int 1))
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67382
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #0)
> compiles to unoptimized code on x86_64-linux-gnu with -O2:
>
> movl$-1, %edx
> movl$-4, %eax
> subq$24, %rsp
> addl%
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67383
Bug ID: 67383
Summary: reload_cse_simplify_operands fails on ARMV7-M
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67381
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67381
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Ah, because it doesn't consider a match to be "same" as a non-match.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67383
--- Comment #1 from david.cock at inf dot ethz.ch ---
Fails in exactly the same manner on the following versions:
arm-none-eabi-gcc (GNU Tools for ARM Embedded Processors) 4.8.4 20140725
(release) [ARM/embedded-4_8-branch revision 213147]
arm-no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67383
--- Comment #2 from david.cock at inf dot ethz.ch ---
The problem does not occur in:
arm-none-eabi-gcc (GNU Tools for ARM Embedded Processors) 4.6.2 20121016
(release) [ARM/embedded-4_6-branch revision 192487]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
--- Comment #25 from Bill Schmidt ---
Ah, thank you for the clarification. So does this require
-fvect-cost-model=unlimited on all targets? If so, then I'll move on;
otherwise I'll have a look at the Power-specific cost issues.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
--- Comment #26 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #25)
> Ah, thank you for the clarification. So does this require
> -fvect-cost-model=unlimited on all targets? If so, then I'll move on;
> otherwise I'll have a look a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67382
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67280
--- Comment #2 from cbaylis at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Minimum optimisations to reproduce this are -O1 -fipa-icf-functions -fipa-sra.
These options also allow the bug to be reproduced on trunk (with -O2 the bug is
latent, I haven't investigated why).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53852
--- Comment #18 from Sebastian Pop ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #17)
> since today on trunk this also triggers for options such as -floop-block,
> which didn't trigger this before.
Because as of yesterday both -ftree-loop-lin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67384
Bug ID: 67384
Summary: [concepts] More fun with deduction constraints
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67383
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67283
--- Comment #12 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: alalaw01
Date: Fri Aug 28 15:04:17 2015
New Revision: 227303
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227303&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Revert: completely_scalarize arrays as well as records
g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67305
--- Comment #3 from Jiong Wang ---
>From the tree dump .pre, I understand the tree shape is improved as we deleted
one redundant Phi, but we also noticed there is one regression, we are turning
_6 = bl_20 >> 6
into something like:
_5 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67280
--- Comment #3 from cbaylis at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-08/msg01791.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67305
--- Comment #4 from Jiong Wang ---
And the very complicated address is generated by combine pass, it runs very
happy by doing the following serious of combination:
Trying 22, 23 -> 24
Successfully matched this instruction
Trying 20 -> 24:
Succes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67385
Bug ID: 67385
Summary: READELF_FOR_TARGET isn't used in gcc configure
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: boot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67386
Bug ID: 67386
Summary: missing diagnostic on a use of an undeclared function
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66752
--- Comment #18 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Aug 28 16:23:12 2015
New Revision: 227307
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227307&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH][lto/66752] Fix missed FSM jump thread
PR lto/66752
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66752
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67387
Bug ID: 67387
Summary: ICE with LTO firefox build - verify_type failed
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67305
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66214
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67387
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67388
Bug ID: 67388
Summary: cannot compile function with SAVE in it with gfortran
option -finit-real
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67386
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> GCC isn't completely consistent in diagnosing references to undeclared
> functions. In the test case below, it issues an error for on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67388
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59537
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||urbanjost at comcast dot net
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67367
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=67363
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67305
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|target
--- Comment #6 from Segher B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53668
--- Comment #1 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Fri Aug 28 20:46:43 2015
New Revision: 227311
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227311&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/53668
* intrinsic.c (add_functio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53668
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|missed-optimization |
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67389
Bug ID: 67389
Summary: [6 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/builtins-11.c (test for
excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67367
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 06:58:25PM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> I wonder if these have been lurking since day 1.
>
I haven't gone looking for the or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67386
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks. I think I may have misinterpreted the C90 rules that describe implicit
function declarations. The C90 text says:
If the expression that precedes the parenthesized argument list in a function
call co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67390
Bug ID: 67390
Summary: [6 regression] FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr64312.C -O1
(test for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: memo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67390
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67381
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sch...@linux-m68k.org
--- Comment #3 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67389
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67367
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 36265
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36265&action=edit
A preliminary patch - not final
This patch catches the segfault and we end up with an EOF error. It bothers me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510
--- Comment #10 from Chen Gang ---
Need use gimple_location(stmt) for it. The stmt is the variable in
gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c before call fold_binary(). But unlucky, it is not passed
into fold_binary(), we can not get it directly.
After try a tempo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67367
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 36266
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36266&action=edit
Better than preliminary
This patch returns the correct code from raw_read and we get the "Is a
directory"
error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65488
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|patch |
--- Comment #4 from vries at
63 matches
Mail list logo
