https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68341
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68348
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
A bit shorter:
struct C {
constexpr C() : w(), x(), y() {}
constexpr double fn() const noexcept;
double w;
double x;
double y;
};
constexpr double C::fn() const noexcept { return w; }
C foo()
{
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68173
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov ---
GCC on trunk is 50 times slower than LLVM-3.7 in -O0 mode on this test. In -O2
mode GCC is only 20% slower than LLVM-3.7 in the same mode and faster than
LLVM-3.7 with -O0.
About 80% of compile time GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68410
--- Comment #3 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sandra
Date: Wed Nov 18 19:45:47 2015
New Revision: 230563
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230563&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-18 Sandra Loosemore
PR target/68410
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68410
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66059
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Adrian Wielgosik from comment #9)
> TOTAL : 0.97 0.01 0.99
> 119627 kB
By passing in the length of the first sequence instead of using si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65424
--- Comment #3 from Robert Clausecker ---
I checked this again on a computer with more RAM and compilation does indeed
terminate
after 23 minutes. On the original machine, the compiler most likely swapped a
lot contrary
to my original report in w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68173
--- Comment #8 from Robert Clausecker ---
I checked this again on a computer with more RAM and compilation does indeed
terminate
after 23 minutes. On the original machine, the compiler most likely swapped a
lot contrary
to my original report in w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65424
--- Comment #4 from Robert Clausecker ---
Sorry, comment was posted to the wrong bug. I have trouble using your
bug reporting software, the “automatically go to next bug after making
a change” behaviour is weird and unintuitive.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66059
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> The version I came up with is very close to Xeo's at stackoverflow. I tried
> something more like yours and it used a LOT more memory.
>
> Here's what I tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68420
Bug ID: 68420
Summary: Errors with go escape analysis
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67548
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68420
boger at us dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||ppc64le, x86_64
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67548
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68232
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68422
Bug ID: 68422
Summary: compile-time cost of sizeof... is exponential
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: compile-time-hog
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68421
Bug ID: 68421
Summary: unused copy of global register variable into another
gpr
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68422
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|compile-time cost of|compile-time cost of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66059
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I've opened PR 68422 for the sizeof... inefficiency.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68423
Bug ID: 68423
Summary: override/final doesn't cause error in templated class
without base
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64835
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68423
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You get an error as soon as you instantiate the templates. I don't know if the
standard requires an error even for uninstantiated templates, but there are
LOTS of things g++ doesn't diagnose in uninstantiat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68221
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68403
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67868
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68424
Bug ID: 68424
Summary: static_cast(0.29 * 100) == "28"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68425
Bug ID: 68425
Summary: Enhanced error message when an array is initialized
with too many elements
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65083
--- Comment #3 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Wed Nov 18 22:13:44 2015
New Revision: 230578
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230578&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add out-of-line versions of some functions (PR c/65083).
PR c/65083 no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65083
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68421
--- Comment #1 from Peter Bergner ---
This seems somewhat related to PR24644 which was "fixed". That bug showed we
do not want to copy global registers to other "tmp" registers and use them from
the "tmp" reg. In this case, at least we're still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68424
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |target
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68424
--- Comment #2 from Alex Piliev ---
#include
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
std::cout << static_cast(0.28 * 100) << std::endl;
std::cout << 0.29 * 100 << std::endl;
std::cout << static_cast(0.29 * 100) << std::endl;
std::cout << static_cas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43996
--- Comment #19 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Nov 18 22:51:39 2015
New Revision: 230579
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230579&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-18 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/43996
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59910
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Nov 18 22:55:17 2015
New Revision: 230580
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230580&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-18 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/59910
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68408
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68408
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||sparc-elf
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43996
--- Comment #20 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Nov 18 22:58:47 2015
New Revision: 230581
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230581&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-18 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/43996
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41757
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50642
--- Comment #13 from Jon Grant ---
Hello
Could this be committed to the trunk please?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #45 from Jon Grant ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #39)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #38)
> > It could even be the case that the "potential NULL" code gets
> > put into some backwater flag away from -W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68424
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43996
--- Comment #21 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #20)
> Author: kargl
> Date: Wed Nov 18 22:58:47 2015
> New Revision: 230581
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230581&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> 2015-11-18
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61313
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43996
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43996
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59910
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68426
Bug ID: 68426
Summary: Simplification of SPREAD with a derived type element
causes ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68426
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68198
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Nov 19 00:33:27 2015
New Revision: 230586
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230586&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH][PR tree-optimization/68198] Avoid CFG explosion due to threading
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68198
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68415
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||talebi.hossein at gmail dot com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66827
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I am traveling now so I cannot double check your hint.
What do you suggest?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68401
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61313
--- Comment #2 from PaX Team ---
do you have a few examples of expected input/output path pairs perhaps?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68427
Bug ID: 68427
Summary: GCC (G++) flunks legal ANSI-C code
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68428
Bug ID: 68428
Summary: [6 Regression] [graphite] ICE in
outermost_loop_in_sese w/ -O2 -floop-strip-mine or -O2
-floop-nest-optimize
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50642
--- Comment #14 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jon Grant from comment #13)
> Hello
> Could this be committed to the trunk please?
Not everybody reads all messages in bugzilla. Patches go to gcc-patches. See
comment #8. CC Gerald (see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68425
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68429
Bug ID: 68429
Summary: [concepts] ICE in in
placeholder_extract_concept_and_args, at
cp/constraint.cc:1401
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68295
Peifeng Liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liupeifeng at live dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68295
--- Comment #6 from Peifeng Liu ---
Just a clue: when processing float/double consts/variables in the source code
files, this issue is very likely to be reproduced.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68393
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68430
Bug ID: 68430
Summary: std::is_constructible::value == true for
unconstructable type T
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68401
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68431
Bug ID: 68431
Summary: Regression in GCC-6.0.0's optimizer
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68432
Bug ID: 68432
Summary: [6 Regression] internal compiler error: in
expand_insn, at optabs.c:6947
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68401
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65751
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68401
--- Comment #4 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> I am still not convinced. IMO enhancements have only two realistic status:
> WONTFIX or ASSIGNED.
not sure, project that do not engage with their co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47040
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47191
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Severity|normal
201 - 273 of 273 matches
Mail list logo
