https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78015
Bug ID: 78015
Summary: pthread_cancel while some exception is pending results
in std::terminate ()
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77943
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
The replacement you described fully makes sense for me! As I mentioned earlier,
I'm not c++ expert, I can't come up with more possible counter examples that
worth for testing.
However, we'll fix further issu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68649
--- Comment #18 from Joost VandeVondele
---
since this PR, and the related PR77278 can presumably only be fixed by changing
libgfortran abi (at least if I understand Richard's suggestion for fixing
this). The announced major version bump of libg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78016
Bug ID: 78016
Summary: REG_NOTE order is not kept during insn copy
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78015
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78015
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #0)
> #ifdef WORKAROUND
> try
> {
> throw 1;
> }
> catch (int &)
> #endif
Oops, of course I meant #ifndef WORKAROUND. The problem is when there is an
outs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78016
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Dominique
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78009
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78017
Bug ID: 78017
Summary: weak reference usage in gthr-posix.h (__gthread*) is
broken
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78007
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 39827
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39827&action=edit
untested patch
Mostly untested prototype. For -mavx2 we get from the testcase innermost loop
.L6:
vm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78007
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Probably handling should be moved after
targetm.vectorize.builtin_vectorized_function handling to allow arms
builtin-bswap vectorization via vrev to apply (not sure if its permutation
handling selects vrev f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78018
Bug ID: 78018
Summary: [C++14] "internal compiler error: Segmentation fault"
with templates and lambdas
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78019
Bug ID: 78019
Summary: Local class with lambda in default member initializer
cannot default-capture this
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78020
Bug ID: 78020
Summary: [Aarch64, ARM64] vuzp{1,2}q_f64 implementation
identical to vzip{1,2}q_f64 in arm_neon.h and probably
incorrect
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78019
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78018
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63907
--- Comment #9 from Klaus Rudolph ---
hi all,
> Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Oktober 2016 um 10:32 Uhr
> Von: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org"
> An: lts-rudo...@gmx.de
> Betreff: [Bug libitm/63907] libitm/config/posix/rwlock.cc doesn't compile
>
> https://g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77916
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Oct 18 13:35:19 2016
New Revision: 241305
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241305&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-18 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/77916
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
--- Comment #14 from Jiri Slaby ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #9)
> > Is subtracting undefined, too?
> Yes. Comparing two unrelated arrays or subtracting them is undefined.
But
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jiri Slaby from comment #14)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> > (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #9)
> > > Is subtracting undefined, too?
> > Yes. Comparing two unr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
--- Comment #16 from Jiri Slaby ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> lots of them that rely on pointer arithmetics being defined only within the
> same object.
Sure, but the two pointers (taken implicitly of the arrays) are within
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63907
--- Comment #10 from Klaus Rudolph ---
Created attachment 39830
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39830&action=edit
preprocessed file rwlock.ii
Add rwlock.ii file as requested.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78017
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
IIRC this was declared a libc bug or an user error (not using the full
archive). There is another thread on the glibc side if you want to read up on
that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jiri Slaby from comment #16)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> > lots of them that rely on pointer arithmetics being defined only within the
> > same object.
>
> Sure, but the tw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78021
Bug ID: 78021
Summary: Wrong result with optimization, character constant
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78021
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78021
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77991
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Oct 18 14:39:39 2016
New Revision: 241308
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241308&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/77991
* config/i386/i386.c (legitimize_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78020
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77989
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
As suspected. VRP missed folding statement after copy propagation. Testing
patch...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67980
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77991
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> HJ, can you please test the proposed patch on x32?
There is no regression on x32. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78020
Yvan Roux changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yroux at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78020
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78020
--- Comment #4 from Yvan Roux ---
> Yes, you're right Yvan.
> James just went through it with me on a board and they are indeed equivalent.
> Sorry for the confusion.
No worries, this kind of thing is tricky and deserve board drawings, It's a
r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77345
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78022
Bug ID: 78022
Summary: Strange C++ compilation error
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67335
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code, openmp
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78020
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70565
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70555
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78022
--- Comment #1 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
The same happens with 6.2.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78017
--- Comment #2 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
i see the glibc threads linked from
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5784
but there are other libcs with static linking support, so even
if weakrefs worked on glibc (now they don't) thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69637
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2016-02-02 00:00:0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78020
--- Comment #6 from Christophe Monat ---
James,
(In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #5)
> This bug looks invalid to me. I think you're both failing to grasp the
> intuition behind these intrinsics. Ignoring the descriptions in the
> refer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65950
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
Author: pinskia
Date: Tue Oct 18 15:42:21 2016
New Revision: 241309
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241309&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-18 Andrew Pinski
PR tree-opt/65950
* predic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65950
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67697
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
C code, when compiled by gcc trunk dated 20161018,
and compiler flags -O3 -march=native, does this:
$ ../results/bin/gcc -c -O3 -march=native bug312.c
../../src/H5Tconv.c: In function ‘H5T__conv_int_float’:
../../src/H5Tconv.c:7558:1: internal compiler error: in replace_one_candidate,
at gim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78023
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 39832
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39832&action=edit
gzipped C source code, before creduce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78023
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78016
--- Comment #2 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #1)
> > I attached a simply fix to keep REG-NOTE order during insn copy.
> >
> > Any comments?
>
> This seems reasonable if you need it for the DWARF CFI stuff, but note
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77902
Allan Jensen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78023
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #0)
> Created attachment 39831 [details]
> C source code after creduce
>
> The attached C code, when compiled by gcc trunk dated 20161018,
> and com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78024
Bug ID: 78024
Summary: [7 regression] test cases
gfortran.dg/goacc/routine-4.f90 and also routine-5.f90
fail starting with r241296
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78024
--- Comment #1 from Bill Seurer ---
These also fail on x86.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78005
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm, some code got lost during iterating of patch testing... Will send a patch
soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77989
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ah, I think this duplicates to PR77988 and was fixed by richi. I will add a
test case for this though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41861
--- Comment #14 from Mike Crowe ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #13)
> (In reply to Roman Fietze from comment #12)
> > Sorry if it is inappropriate to ask for any changes, but how can it be, that
> > there is no fix for this bug for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78025
Bug ID: 78025
Summary: ICE in simd_clone_adjust, at omp-simd-clone.c:1126
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78026
Bug ID: 78026
Summary: ICE in gfc_resolve_omp_declare_simd, at
fortran/openmp.c:5190
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78027
Bug ID: 78027
Summary: ICE in new_oacc_loop_routine, at omp-low.c:19000
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78027
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
No ICE with one loop only :
$ cat z3.f90
real function f()
!$omp declare target(f)
f = 1.
!$acc parallel
!$acc loop
do i = 1, 8
end do
!$acc end parallel
end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77678
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78028
Bug ID: 78028
Summary: ASAN doesn't find memory leak
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78025
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78015
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78026
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code, openmp
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78025
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code, openmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78027
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code, openacc,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78024
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78029
Bug ID: 78029
Summary: ICE in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2285
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78029
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78030
Bug ID: 78030
Summary: Lambda capture expression (different results than
Clang & MSVC)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32071
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78031
Bug ID: 78031
Summary: Warning when a standard library UDL is brought to
scope with a using-declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78031
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77999
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64184
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It looks like it's used unconditionally even on trunk.
Libstdc++ has an autoconf check for it, see GLIBCXX_CHECK_SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN
in libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78032
Bug ID: 78032
Summary: Incorrect code generated
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78032
Patrick Oppenlander changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.3.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78032
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64184
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77828
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||damian at sourceryinstitute
dot or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78022
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78028
--- Comment #1 from Kostya Serebryany ---
interestingly, this works for me with clang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78030
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78030
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78017
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
There are other reasons why using static libraries does not make sense for
libpthread.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78033
Bug ID: 78033
Summary: Internal Compiler Error in
enforce_single_undo_checkpoint
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78033
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78033
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> Reduced testcase.
>
> function f(n, x)
>integer, intent(in) :: n
>complex, intent(in) :: x(1:n)
>real :: f
>f = g([real(x(1:n)), aimag(x(1:n))
93 matches
Mail list logo
