https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68466
--- Comment #1 from angelo ---
Sorry, forgot to mention compiler i am using to build:
$ gcc --version
gcc (Debian 5.2.1-21) 5.2.1 20151003
Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying condit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
Bug ID: 68467
Summary: libgcc, compilation for target m68k-linux breaks in
linux_atomic.c, #define COMMA ,
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
--- Comment #1 from angelo ---
Created attachment 36792
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36792&action=edit
build log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68466
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66432
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Nov 21 08:24:13 2015
New Revision: 230702
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230702&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/66432
* tree-inline.c (copy_debug_stmt): If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66432
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Nov 21 08:26:00 2015
New Revision: 230703
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230703&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/66432
* tree-inline.c (copy_debug_stmt): If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65413
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64579
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #14 from Chen Gang ---
For gcc version 6.0.0 20151121 (experimental) (GCC), this issue is still
existant. I shall try to fix it within this month (2015-11-30).
Hope I can succeed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66573
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68468
Bug ID: 68468
Summary: frv toolchain build error
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68290
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||68434
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68468
--- Comment #1 from Waldemar Brodkorb ---
Created attachment 36793
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36793&action=edit
full build log from build system
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68468
--- Comment #2 from Waldemar Brodkorb ---
This happens even with --enable-sjlj-exceptions.
This small hack let me create a compiler which I am trying to
use to resurrect uClibc support:
diff -Nur gcc-git.orig/libgcc/config.host gcc-git/libgcc/co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68469
Bug ID: 68469
Summary: warn_unused_result attribute ignored for templates
return templates
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68466
angelo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68432
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68466
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68432
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Started with r230487
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63635
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #15 from Chen Gang ---
For me, comment #9 is the reasonable fixing way. In real world, C/C++
programmers will/should not use #pragma in this way (use #pragma in place of
the statement following an if, while, do, switch, or label).
An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63491
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68466
angelo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68466
--- Comment #6 from angelo ---
Created attachment 36794
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36794&action=edit
gcc configure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68466
--- Comment #7 from angelo ---
Created attachment 36795
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36795&action=edit
gcc build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42979
--- Comment #3 from Chen Gang ---
For "The taskwait directive may not be used in place of the statement following
an if, while, do, switch, or label."
if "if, while, do, switch, or label" is just flowed with a code block which let
"#pragma omp t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #16 from Chen Gang ---
Our C++ has no this issue. For precisely saying: cc1 has the issue, but cc1plus
has no the issue (if use g++ build c programs, it has no issue; if use gcc
build c++ programs, it has no issue, either).
But still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66573
--- Comment #7 from Joshua Green ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #6)
> bb-reorder changes the conditional branch so that the fallthrough path
> is the most likely. It now also does this for -O1. This is faster on
> essentially
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68466
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68432
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
The problem is with the size/speed-dependent FAILs.
I've been working on a fix, but unfortunately it's going to
be quite invasive (though hopefully makes things cleaner).
++-4.9.x
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4_9-branch/configure
--prefix=/opt/software/x86_64/gcc-4.9.x --program-suffix=-4.9.x
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --enable-checking
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.4 20151121 (prerelease) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-v&#
pl --without-isl
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20151121 (experimental) (GCC)
The compiler has DF checking enabled, but it might be not needed to reproduce.
Tested revisions:
r230703 - ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68227
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66320
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ryan.burn at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68464
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68464
ryan.burn at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resoluti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68470
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|amd86 |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68464
--- Comment #3 from ryan.burn at gmail dot com ---
Also, the test case attached to 223901 compiles fine for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68471
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 36797
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36797&action=edit
another testcase, with __builtin_apply()
$ gcc -mmitigate-rop testcase.c
testcase.c: In function 'foo':
testcase
nary-230703-lto-fortran-checking-yes-rtl-df/
--without-cloog --without-ppl --without-isl
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20151121 (experimental) (GCC)
Tested revisions:
r230703 - ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68470
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Known to wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68473
Bug ID: 68473
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: in contains_point, at
diagnostic-show-locus.c:340 after error
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
vn/gcc-trunk//configure --enable-checking=yes,rtl,df
--enable-languages=c,c++,lto,fortran
--prefix=/mnt/svn/gcc-trunk//binary-230703-lto-fortran-checking-yes-rtl-df/
--without-cloog --without-ppl --without-isl
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20151121 (experimental) (GCC)
Tested revisions:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66573
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Joshua Green from comment #7)
> and I see no reason why expecting the "else" block should a priori be
> preferable in either case.
GCC does some fairly involved prediction (in predict.c).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52828
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
inux-gnu/6.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: /mnt/svn/gcc-trunk//configure --enable-checking=yes,rtl,df
--enable-languages=c,c++,lto,fortran
--prefix=/mnt/svn/gcc-trunk//binary-230703-lto-fortran-checking-yes-rtl-df/
--without-cloog --without-ppl --without-isl
Thread model:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50329
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45689
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66573
--- Comment #9 from Joshua Green ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8)
> GCC does some fairly involved prediction (in predict.c). It isn't
> "a priori".
>
> > (It's also not clear HOW this could be "faster
> > on essentially all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68476
Bug ID: 68476
Summary: microblaze: compilation of btSoftBody.cpp doesn't
terminate with optimisation
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68477
Bug ID: 68477
Summary: error: type variant differs by TYPE_STRING_FLAG.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68466
--- Comment #9 from angelo ---
Hi Andreas,
thanks. Not sure if i have to open another bug tracking. Now, with headers in
sysroot, issue is solved so this bug can stay closed, but i get another error.
/home/angelo/archivio/aziende/sysam/buildall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68442
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The following patch
--- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/interface.c 2015-10-30 17:52:25.0 +0100
+++ gcc/fortran/interface.c 2015-11-21 23:48:11.0 +0100
@@ -3475,7 +3475,9 @@ gfc_arglist_ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68470
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68478
Bug ID: 68478
Summary: flexible array members have complete type
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53548
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49788
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67882
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|SUSPENDED
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49065
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48344
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45208
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49065
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68479
Bug ID: 68479
Summary: Dynamic loading multiple shared libraries with
identical static libstdc++ breaks streams
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54959
Tom Tromey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68298
Aditya Patil <0362ae15 at opayq dot com> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||0362ae15 at opa
65 matches
Mail list logo
