https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68303
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jan.kratochvil at redhat dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68308
Bug ID: 68308
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected integer_cst,
have var_decl in decompose, at tree.h:5105
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68062
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
> Does this patch
>
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c
> index 2ac3828..8b57875 100644
> --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c
> +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68308
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68305
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68306
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68304
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |rtl-optimization
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68307
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68302
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.3
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68298
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68294
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68296
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58497
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Nov 12 09:00:37 2015
New Revision: 230216
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230216&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-12 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/58497
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68268
--- Comment #6 from isearcher at 126 dot com ---
I "make distclean",and make again. Everything goes well. And gfortran is made.
The problem is solved. thanks for the advice.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68305
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68293
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68268
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I "make distclean",and make again. Everything goes well. And gfortran is made.
> The problem is solved. thanks for the advice.
You're welcome!
Further advice, 4.8.0 is quite old and unsupported: y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68309
Bug ID: 68309
Summary: [C++14] Expanding a captured parameter pack with
std::forward(args) fails.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68288
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68296
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68293
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sch...@linux-m68k.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68300
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
From class.c:
1629 /* Return true, iff class T has a non-virtual destructor that is
1630accessible from outside the class heirarchy (i.e. is public, or
1631there's a suitable friend. */
1632
1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68293
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu |aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68310
Bug ID: 68310
Summary: [6 Regression] Invalid read of size 1 in
options-save.c:3521
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68288
--- Comment #2 from lucdanton at free dot fr ---
(In reply to TC from comment #1)
> This behavior looks correct to me. (Clang behaves identically.)
>
> 0e1_e+0 is a valid pp-number, so per max munch it must be parsed that way,
> as a single prepr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68310
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68305
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
clang compiling gcc trunk dated 20151112 says
../../src/trunk/gcc/ipa-icf.c:3041:73: warning: multiple unsequenced
modifications to 'class_id' [-Wunsequenced]
Sour
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68309
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68309
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Without headers:
namespace std {
template _Tp forward(int);
template class initializer_list {
int *_M_array;
unsigned long _M_len;
};
}
using namespace std;
template void print(Ts... args) {
[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68312
Bug ID: 68312
Summary: [6 Regression] Memory leaks in cilkplus
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68312
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 36696
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36696&action=edit
valgrind2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68283
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68134
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68312
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68310
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
PR 67484 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68286
--- Comment #4 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Should be fixed by r230238.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68293
--- Comment #6 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Should be fixed by r230238.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68291
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Should be fixed by r230238.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67265
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Nov 12 11:55:11 2015
New Revision: 230245
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230245&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/67265
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_adjust_sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67265
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Nov 12 11:59:23 2015
New Revision: 230247
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230247&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/67265
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_adjust_sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67265
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Nov 12 12:01:40 2015
New Revision: 230249
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230249&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/67265
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_adjust_sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68286
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68271
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Ny need to keep this PR opened?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68271
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes, so that we don't forget to apply a real fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68271
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
--- Comment #19 from Domin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68306
Ulrich Weigand changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68062
--- Comment #8 from Ulrich Weigand ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> I think there was some inconsistencies in C vs. C++ FEs in this area (but as
> usual I don't remember exactly but I remember Uli complaining about it again
> at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50221
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63932
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66408
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68305
--- Comment #4 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu Nov 12 12:59:05 2015
New Revision: 230252
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230252&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR tree-optimization/68305
* tree-vect-slp.c (ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68062
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015, uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68062
>
> --- Comment #8 from Ulrich Weigand ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67784
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Can you please attach -details dumps of the pass instance that does this?
It is done in fre pass.
> Note that the large number '5368709811' (0x1fff) might point
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67220
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 36697
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36697&action=edit
tree dump
It is compiled with -O2 -mx32.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68313
Bug ID: 68313
Summary: "using" shadows declaration
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67784
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The reason is as stated in comment#1: it's necessary to examine the token
after "if ( 1 ) ;" to see if it's the "else" keyword; if it were "else",
that token would be within the C99/C11 blo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68247
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
RFC: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg01492.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68247
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68306
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Nov 12 14:02:44 2015
New Revision: 230260
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230260&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-12 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/68306
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68306
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68192
Torbjörn Gard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tgard at opentext dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68192
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67478
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-ibm-aix*
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68314
Bug ID: 68314
Summary: [6 Regression] Invalid read in
build_pbb_minimal_scattering_polyhedrons
(graphite-sese-to-poly.c:148)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68314
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68306
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68313
Johannes Schaub changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||schaub.johannes@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68315
Bug ID: 68315
Summary: ivdep has no effect in parloops
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68035
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Nov 12 15:16:00 2015
New Revision: 230263
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230263&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR ipa/68035
PR ipa/68035
* ipa-icf.c (void sem_item:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68035
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67784
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68313
wd11 at leicester dot ac.uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |5.1.0
--- Comment #2 from w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68316
Bug ID: 68316
Summary: GCC C++ compiler cannot compile a program using RDESED
intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68312
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
One another:
algrind --leak-check=yes --num-callers=100 --trace-children=yes
--suppressions=/home/marxin/Programming/gcc2/gcc.supp --error-exitcode=111 -q
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc2/objdir/gcc/xgcc
-B/hom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56158
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Nov 12 17:08:42 2015
New Revision: 230267
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230267&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Extend valid values of iostream bitmask types
PR libstdc++/5615
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56158
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk, probably worth backporting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68316
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68291
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68291
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68316
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jeffrey Walton from comment #0)
> Adding a __has_include to guard appears to open another can of
> worms:
>
> $ g++ -mrdseed rdseed.cxx -o rdseed.exe
> rdseed.cxx:4:45: error: missing
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 36698
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36698&action=edit
C source code
I just tried to compile the attached code with gcc trunk dated 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68317
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68316
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey Walton ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> As the comment says, you need to include not
OK, thanks. Here we were told to follow Intels docs:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68081. We had
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68318
Bug ID: 68318
Summary: ICE on duplicate entry declarations
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68318
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Somehow similar for functions :
$ cat z3.f90
module m
contains
real function f1()
entry e()
end
real function f2()
entry e()
end
end module
$ gfortran -g -O0 -Wall -fcheck=all -c z3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68316
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The documentation Marc referred to doesn't say anything about which header to
use. If you followed what it says in the #error you quoted it would have
worked.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68319
Bug ID: 68319
Summary: ICE on using interface with included entry
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68319
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Same issue with interface of a function.
Compiles if interface is effectivly not used :
$ cat z1x.f90
module m
interface
subroutine s
entry e
end
end interface
contains
subr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67784
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Note that I've found an ICE-on-invalid:
void
h ()
{
int T;
for (typedef int T;;)
if (1)
;
T *x;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67784
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
And another that seems to be caused by something else and isn't fixed by my
patch:
void
h ()
{
for (typedef int T;;)
if (1)
;
T *x;
x = 0;
}
I'm opening a separate PR for this one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68320
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68320
Bug ID: 68320
Summary: internal compiler error: in declspecs_add_type
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68321
Bug ID: 68321
Summary: wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu (in 64-bit mode)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68318
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68292
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68292
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
--- Comment #10 from Joseph S. Myers ---
I have verified that the patch in comment#7, (a) on its own and (b) together
with my patch, does not cause any regressions on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. My
inclination would be that this patch should go in, wit
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
