https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71095
--- Comment #2 from Karol Wozniak ---
it seems to be same as:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70942
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71113
Bug ID: 71113
Summary: Adding "const" to value in constexpr constructor
places const object in .bss instead of .rodata
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71113
--- Comment #1 from Freddie Chopin ---
BTW, I've come to the code as above from a slightly different scenario -
initially I tried using references, but it was failing (placed in RAM, not in
flash) no matter what I did. Now I think that the two pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71072
--- Comment #2 from nicolas.boulenguez at free dot fr ---
Does examples/first_steps/ada_main.gpr trigger the failure?
And the same project with the C library removed?
Once you have a minimal reproducer, you may get the exact compiler invokations
w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71087
--- Comment #1 from Nick ---
I have debugged this further.
This bug only happens on Opteron with
:
- 2354
- 2382
- 6136
Only those architectures I have available.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71114
Bug ID: 71114
Summary: [7 Regression] Several test suite failures on
x86_64-apple-darwin* after revision r236090
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71114
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 38485
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38485&action=edit
Assembly for gcc.c-torture/execute/ashldi-1.c for r236089
Assembly for gcc.c-torture/execute/ashldi-1.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71114
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 38486
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38486&action=edit
Assembly for gcc.c-torture/execute/ashldi-1.c compiled with r236090
Assembly for gcc.c-torture/execute/a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71087
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71087
--- Comment #3 from Nick ---
Same error with this compilation:
gfortran -O2 -march=corei7 -mtune=corei7 -c zunhj.f
(still only on Opteron)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71114
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71087
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Same error with this compilation:
Where did you get your gfortran 6.1?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71087
--- Comment #5 from Nick ---
http://ftp.download-by.net/gnu/gnu/gcc/gcc-6.1.0/gcc-6.1.0.tar.bz2
md5sum is good:
8fb6cb98b8459f5863328380fbf06bd1
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/general/gcc.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71087
--- Comment #6 from Nick ---
http://ftp.download-by.net/gnu/gnu/gcc/gcc-6.1.0/gcc-6.1.0.tar.bz2
md5sum is good:
8fb6cb98b8459f5863328380fbf06bd1
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/general/gcc.html
2016-05-14 14:02 GMT+02:00 dominiq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71115
Bug ID: 71115
Summary: Missing warning: excess elements in struct initializer
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71115
--- Comment #1 from Benjamin Robin ---
Created attachment 38488
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38488&action=edit
Preprocessed by GCC source file t.c attached
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71115
--- Comment #2 from Benjamin Robin ---
Created attachment 38489
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38489&action=edit
Preprocessed by Clang source file t.c attached
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71115
--- Comment #3 from Benjamin Robin ---
If I preprocessed the source with clang then compile it with GCC, I do have the
warning. This looks like it is related to the way NULL is expanded.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71115
--- Comment #4 from Benjamin Robin ---
If I preprocessed the source with GCC then compile it with Clang, I do not have
the warning. Bug inside the compiler or the preprocessor ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71114
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71087
--- Comment #7 from Nick ---
And the exact same installation on XeonE5-266[5|0v3] works seamlessly.
So I wouldn't expect the tar, nor installation options to be the fault.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71087
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> And the exact same installation on XeonE5-266[5|0v3] works seamlessly.
> So I wouldn't expect the tar, nor installation options to be the fault.
Did you run the test suite on the Opteron platfo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71114
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Reduced test
#include
extern void abort(void);
extern void exit(int);
#define BITS 8
static unsigned long long const data[8] = {
0x123456789abcdefULL,
0x2468acf13579bdeULL,
0x48d159e26af37bc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71097
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat May 14 13:22:45 2016
New Revision: 236240
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236240&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/71097
* config/i386/i386.md (*movtf_inte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71047
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat May 14 15:29:13 2016
New Revision: 236241
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236241&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-14 Fritz Reese
PR fortran/71047
* exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71047
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|ka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #31 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 02:48:17PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 02:55:01PM +, fritzoreese at gmail dot com wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
> >
> > ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71020
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71087
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Nick from comment #0)
> Created attachment 38475 [details]
> Source code trigging bug
>
> - Compiling amos/zunhj.f in scipy package crashes with:
>
> zunhj.f:1:0:
>
>SUBROUTINE ZUNHJ(Z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71112
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is the full backtrace:
#0 mark_jump_label_1 (x=0x0, insn=0x76cc5340, in_mem=true,
is_target=false)
at /data1/src/gcc-cavium/toolchain-6/scripts/../src/gcc/jump.c:1095
#1 0x00945cfa in m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71112
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Big-endian:
(insn 5 4 6 (set (reg:DI 73)
(high:DI (symbol_ref:DI ("_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_" t.i:5 -1
(nil))
(insn 6 5 7 (set (reg/f:SI 76)
(unspec:SI [
(mem/u/c:SI (lo_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71112
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71116
Bug ID: 71116
Summary: Lambdas should not be literal types
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71117
Bug ID: 71117
Summary: [6.1 regression] Overeager application of conversion
to function pointer during overload resolution of call
to function object
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #32 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat May 14 19:52:46 2016
New Revision: 236244
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236244&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-14 Fritz Reese
Backport from trunk: r236242
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71047
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat May 14 19:52:46 2016
New Revision: 236244
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236244&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-14 Fritz Reese
Backport from trunk: r236242
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57335
--- Comment #14 from Orgad Shaneh ---
With 6.1, this doesn't only fail for static_assert. Even a simple function call
fails:
struct Bits {
unsigned char a : 7;
unsigned char b : 1;
constexpr Bits() : a(0), b(0) {}
};
struct Foo
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71117
--- Comment #1 from Casey Carter ---
Very closely related, but not an exact duplicate of, PR 71105.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71087
--- Comment #10 from Nick ---
I am currently testing both cases...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70869
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #15)
> Created attachment 38477 [details]
Please send patches to gcc-patches (and me) as well as posting them on the PR.
This change will mess with DECL_INITIAL every ti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71118
Bug ID: 71118
Summary: [5 Regression] ftois instruction not emitted for float
-> int bitcast
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71119
Bug ID: 71119
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ftoit instruction not emitted for
double -> long bitcast
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11488
Matt Turner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mattst88 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71118
--- Comment #1 from Matt Turner ---
(In reply to Matt Turner from comment #0)
> Created attachment 38490 [details]
> ftois.c
>
> For the attached ftois.c, gcc-4.9.3 -O2 -mcpu=ev67 emits
>
> :
>0: 01 0f 1f 72 ftois $
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66461
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
This is a bandaid, but it works.
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/match.c b/gcc/fortran/match.c
index 2490f856..726973a6 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/match.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/match.c
@@ -1438,7 +1438,16 @@ gfc_match_i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57433
i.hamsa at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i.hamsa at gmail dot com
--- C
47 matches
Mail list logo
