https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67964
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68032
Tim Shen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||timshen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67980
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|paolo.carlini at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56808
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68033
Bug ID: 68033
Summary: OpenMP: ICE with teams distribute
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63861
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68033
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
BT in trunk branch:
#0 c_tree_printer (pp=0x2518a50, text=0x7fffb650, spec=0x2513a61 "E",
precision=, wide=, set_locus=false, hash=false)
at ../../gcc/c/c-objc-common.c:174
#1 0x0177715c in pp_f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67068
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53796
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68027
--- Comment #4 from SztfG at yandex dot ru ---
I think this can be optimized in this way:
cmpl$100, %edi
jg a1
jne a2
jmp a3
without any label jumps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53796
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #15 from Janne Blomqvi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68034
Bug ID: 68034
Summary: Print warning when memset is optimized out
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67171
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Andre Vehreschild from comment #4)
> Hi Paul,
>
> please compare:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-10/msg00033.html
>
> to your fix. Sounds like we are doing the same.
>
> - Andre
>
> O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52622
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67171
--- Comment #6 from Andre Vehreschild ---
Hi Paul,
No it's not, but the patch for the other pr addresses a lot of things in the
allocate. Mostly about functions returning class objects, but I remember to
have changed some of the things your patc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53796
--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> AFAICT it remains unfixed. GFortran development resources being what they are,
> not all bugs can be promptly fixed.
> But what's the rush to close old unfixed bugs anyway? "Number of open bugs"
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52970
--- Comment #2 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> WORKSFORME from 4.8.5 up to trunk (6.0).
It looks like a dup of pr59488.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67609
--- Comment #12 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Unfortunately, the patch doesn't fix similar PR67124 and (dup) PR68011.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59488
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian.bush at nag dot co.uk
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52970
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68035
Bug ID: 68035
Summary: ipa performance issue when no procedures are present
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57360
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55179
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56626
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49565
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47235
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20151020 (experimental) [trunk revision 229078] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O1 -c small.c
$ gcc-5.2 -Os -c small.c
$
$ gcc-trunk -Os -c small.c
small.c: In function ‘fn1’:
small.c:4:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
fn1
11
popq%rbp
leaq-16(%r13), %rsp
.cfi_def_cfa 7, 16
popq%r13
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 8
iret
.L5:
.cfi_restore_state
callabort
.cfi_endproc
.LFE0:
.size fn, .-fn
.comm ip,8,8
.comm error,8,8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68032
ge...@schorsch-tech.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67443
--- Comment #19 from Dominik Vogt ---
This is a cleaner test case for s390/s390x. If there was a way to tell gcc
"all registers except the first three argument registers are not available",
the test should be fairly easy to convert to other targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67443
--- Comment #20 from Dominik Vogt ---
Created attachment 36553
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36553&action=edit
Dejagnu test case for s390/s390x.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57957
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66583
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67999
--- Comment #18 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
I guess nobody doubts that the current situation in gcc+glibc (and clang+glibc)
should be fixed as valid programs are miscompiled. And it's easy to imagine
security consequences of this when buffers h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67999
--- Comment #19 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
(In reply to Daniel Micay from comment #5)
> Objects larger than PTRDIFF_MAX are forbidden with musl (malloc, mmap and
> friends report ENOMEM and it's explicitly undefined to create them in
> another
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66583
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Oct 21 02:24:08 2015
New Revision: 229108
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229108&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66583
* init.c (innermost_aggr_scope): New.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68037
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68038
Bug ID: 68038
Summary: "Internal compiler error: Killed: program cc1" should
read "Virtual memory exhausted"
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68038
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67999
--- Comment #20 from Daniel Micay ---
> I think several issues are mixed:
A conforming C implementation requires either fixing both the compiler and libc
functions to handle > PTRDIFF_MAX objects or preventing them from being
allocated via stand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60976
--- Comment #24 from Giuseppe Ottaviano ---
> No, only on trunk. It depends on the additions in r225242, so to use the new
> alloc_traits.h you would only need the new code in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/libstdc%2B%2B-v3/include/std/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68039
Bug ID: 68039
Summary: Incorrect unused-result warning
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60976
--- Comment #25 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There was a G++ bug (now fixed) that made void_t not work, try this alternative
version:
template< class... > struct __voider { using type = void; };
template< class... _T0toN > using __void_t = typename
101 - 143 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
