https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68639
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68637
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68589
--- Comment #6 from David Bacon ---
I haven't run into this issue on Linux either, only on Cygwin.
dB
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68637
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6 Regression] Wrong|Wrong -Wattributes on array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68432
--- Comment #14 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #13)
> (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #10)
> > Series finally posted here:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg03020.htm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68432
--- Comment #15 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Created attachment 36882
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36882&action=edit
proposed patch
Here's an alternative to the 22-patch series, testing now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68474
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68521
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66685
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66558
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 66558, which changed state.
Bug 66558 Summary: Missed vectorization of loop with control flow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66558
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38595
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|rsa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28126
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|rsa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #6 from Joseph John ---
Frank, Any pointers you could give me on this how you solved the first issue
coming because of native LD? That could help me a lot.
I believe you still compiled with native LD but how did you progress the
"re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68640
Bug ID: 68640
Summary: foo restrict propagated to foo._omp_fn.0
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #7 from Joseph John ---
MY LD version is below:
-bash-4.3$ ld -V
ld: 92453-07 linker ld HP Itanium(R) B.12.60 IPF/IPF
Are you using the same version?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64919
--- Comment #15 from Joseph John ---
Hi John,
What is the LD version you have in the system.
MY LD version is below:
-bash-4.3$ ld -V
ld: 92453-07 linker ld HP Itanium(R) B.12.60 IPF/IPF
The reason for my question is if I use default configure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68291
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
This comes from -ftree-coalesce-vars in expand_function_start:
/* If we may coalesce this result, make sure it has the expected mode. */
if (flag_tree_coalesce_vars && is_gimple_reg (res))
{
t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68292
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
It's another failure mode of the underlying issue of PR middle-end/68291.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38312
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68291
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68533
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38312
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The current error message has changed :
>
> test.f90:7:6:
>
> co(i,j)=t1(i,k)*t2(j,k)
> 1
>
> Error: The function result on the lhs of the assignment at (1) must have
> the pointer attribu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65654
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hmm, I did not manage to get in the conversion to sreal this stage1 either. I
may still try for stage3, but this is not very critical. Since this is just
heuristic bookeeping bug and we do not ICE I would sug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68184
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68184
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Will take a look. This is ipa-pure-const bug. We have:
{anonymous}::FooBar::_ZThn8_N12_GLOBAL__N_16FooBar3fooEv (_3);
(i.e. we now devirtualize to call to thunk) and consequently we mark:
Function found to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49401
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2012-03-05 00:00:0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68599
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38312
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65726
--- Comment #9 from Andreas Tobler ---
Author: andreast
Date: Tue Dec 1 20:15:35 2015
New Revision: 231128
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231128&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-12-01 Andreas Tobler
PR libffi/65726
* Makefile.def (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68641
Bug ID: 68641
Summary: undefined variables implicitly considered to be zero
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68599
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Yea, this is a latent issue in the RTL loop optimizer. Essentially
-funsafe-loop-optimizations is getting too aggressive. We've essentially got
the same situation in RTL-land as we had in tree land for pr4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68577
--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Tue Dec 1 21:01:35 2015
New Revision: 231131
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231131&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR68577: Handle narrowing for vector popcount, etc.
Thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68577
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68642
Bug ID: 68642
Summary: GCC crashes on deep std::make_index_sequence
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68331
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 36885
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36885&action=edit
Abort solve_graph after num_edge passes threshold
This patch aborts solve_graph after stats.num_edges
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68331
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #5)
> libstdc++.sum:FAIL: experimental/filesystem/path/concat/strings.cc execution
The test doesn't pass when compiled from the command line with -fno-ipa-pta.
Fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65726
--- Comment #10 from Andreas Tobler ---
I will wait until gcc5 opens again and then I back-port this patch to gcc5 and
gcc49.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67778
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Shrink-wrapping should not put the prologue in the middle of a loop.
It can take a BB inside a loop as the block to put the prologue on,
but in that case (as in any other case) it duplicates all blocks
t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68331
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #6)
> (In reply to vries from comment #5)
> > libstdc++.sum:FAIL: experimental/filesystem/path/concat/strings.cc execution
>
> The test doesn't pass when compiled fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65380
--- Comment #19 from milan.plzik at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 36886
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36886&action=edit
Shell script, which compiles ChibiOS and indeed triggers gcc failure
Attached script should trig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66059
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wmhkebe at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68642
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68642
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. 100k is not "moderately large" it's far larger than any real parameter
pack is ever likely to be, and the primary purpose of index_sequence is to
index into parameter packs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68642
--- Comment #3 from wmhkebe at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> N.B. 100k is not "moderately large" it's far larger than any real parameter
> pack is ever likely to be, and the primary purpose of index_sequence is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68612
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I'd consider this a reasonable extension (not suitable for adding while
trunk is in bug-fixing mode, of course) for default (non-pedantic) mode,
similar to the extension to use C++-like rul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68302
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey ---
I still haven't been able to reproduce this. I have been trying to do so with
the gcc-5-branch. Aurelien, what host GCC version are you using when you build
a cross compiler? I am building on Ubuntu 12.04 w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68146
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68521
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68146
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68302
--- Comment #7 from Aurelien Jarno ---
I am using gcc 5.2 from Debian unstable to build the cross compiler. Please
also note that I have the same issue when using the native GCC 5.2 compiler on
a mips or mipsel system.
How can I help debugging t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67778
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
But it is shrink-wrapping that inserts the prologue into the loop.
Before pro_and_epilogue we have cfg like:
ENTRY
|
bb2
/ \
v v<+
bb3bb4\
| \ \
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68642
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That is one of the secondary uses of it, so that's fair enough!
The new implementation scales well to 100k, but won't be available until after
the 5.3 release, sorry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68302
--- Comment #8 from Steve Ellcey ---
Where in CC1 do you segfault? Can you show me the error message you get when
compiling the test program using the latest gcc-5-branch sources.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67778
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68643
Bug ID: 68643
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-prof/cold_partition_label.c
scan-assembler foo[._]+cold[._]+0
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68644
Bug ID: 68644
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-lt-2.c
scan-tree-dump-times ivopts "PHI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68645
Bug ID: 68645
Summary: FAIL: c-c++-common/attr-simd-3.c -std=gnu++11 (test
for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65717
--- Comment #5 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Wed Dec 2 01:28:26 2015
New Revision: 231142
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231142&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/65717
compiler: Fix array reflection when len doe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68646
Bug ID: 68646
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/lto/20081118
cp_lto_20081118_0.o-cp_lto_20081118_1.o link
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65717
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67778
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I cannot reproduce the problem, #c2, not with any flags I tried,
not with a 20151122 compiler either. Help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68647
Bug ID: 68647
Summary: __builtin_popcountll doesn't generate popcnt
instructions when targeting -mpopcnt on x86_32
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68600
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 36887
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36887&action=edit
A faster version
I took the example code found in
http://wiki.cs.utexas.edu/rvdg/HowToOptimizeGemm/ where the r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68648
Bug ID: 68648
Summary: [5/6][ARM] ICE: fail to generate BIC(immediate)
instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68649
Bug ID: 68649
Summary: note: code may be misoptimized unless
-fno-strict-aliasing is used
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68649
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67778
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #9)
> I cannot reproduce the problem, #c2, not with any flags I tried,
> not with a 20151122 compiler either. Help?
#c2 testcase, x86_64-linux compiler, -m32 -O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68650
Bug ID: 68650
Summary: Firefox compilation fails with Address Sanitizer
(error: undefined reference to 'dlerror')
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68169
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Dec 2 07:09:41 2015
New Revision: 231145
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231145&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH] Fix declaration of pthread-structs in s-osinte-rtems.ads (ada/68169
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67778
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #9)
> > I cannot reproduce the problem, #c2, not with any flags I tried,
> > not with a 20151122 compiler either.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68650
--- Comment #1 from Georg Koppen ---
To give a bit more context the flags used for compilation are:
export CFLAGS="-fsanitize=address -Dxmalloc=myxmalloc"
export CXXFLAGS="-fsanitize=address -Dxmalloc=myxmalloc"
export LDFLAGS="-fsanitize=addres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66022
Norm Jacobs changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||norm.jacobs at oracle dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68603
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Wed Dec 2 07:26:30 2015
New Revision: 231146
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231146&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR68603] Associate conditional C++ loop's back-jump with start, not b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68533
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 2 07:33:06 2015
New Revision: 231147
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231147&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/68533
* c-decl.c (get_parm_info): Use b->locus instea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68649
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |fortran
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinsk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68650
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This smells like -ldl is not being added to the link line when it should be and
that overriding of LDFLAGS causing that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68650
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The question is how is the binary linked.
If it uses -static-libasan or not. If it links dynamically against -lasan,
libasan.so.* should have DT_NEEDED and this shouldn't be an issue.
If it is linking static
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68649
--- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele
---
Grepping the list of 'note:' in our build process, it triggers for at least
these functions:
_gfortran_matmul_r8
_gfortran_reshape_4
_gfortran_reshape_c4
_gfortran_reshape_c8
_gfortran_reshape_r4
_gfor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68029
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Dec 2 07:42:58 2015
New Revision: 231150
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231150&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH] Fix PR68029
PR driver/68029
* opts-common.c (prun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68029
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
101 - 181 of 181 matches
Mail list logo
