https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78470
Bug ID: 78470
Summary: static class member cannot be reference by algorithm
functions with -O0 option
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
on=edit
Preprocessed gcc source file
Building gcc-7-20161120 and truck as of 20161122 fail to build on armv7l
(Raspberry Pi 3) with an ICE. Earlier weekly snapshots have been fine (tested
previous snapshot again with current arch toolchain and its fine).
The 20161120 snapshot builds ok on x86_64 (c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468
--- Comment #4 from Dominik Vogt ---
Could you provide assembly dumps of the function foo() in the testcase, both,
with and without the "culprit" patch?
86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: /home/jay/svn/gcc/trunk/configure --prefix=/home/jay/gcc/local
--disable-bootstrap --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20161122 (experimental) (GCC)
I built this compiler from source at svn r242695.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78467
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78439
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrewm.roberts at sky dot c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78471
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78467
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
Same fix as r242629.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78470
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78473
Bug ID: 78473
Summary: Enhancement request: __builtin_div_overflow
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78460
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||memory-hog
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68682
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78392
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42359
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78392
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Working patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-11/msg00188.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78474
Bug ID: 78474
Summary: gfortran accepts invalid submodule syntax
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
URL: https://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/intel-fortran-
compiler-for-l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78474
--- Comment #2 from Nicholas Brealey ---
Created attachment 40112
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40112&action=edit
example code 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78474
--- Comment #1 from Nicholas Brealey ---
Created attachment 40111
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40111&action=edit
example code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78474
--- Comment #3 from Nicholas Brealey ---
Created attachment 40113
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40113&action=edit
example code 3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78474
--- Comment #4 from Nicholas Brealey ---
Created attachment 40114
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40114&action=edit
example code 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #16 from Matt Godbolt ---
Just to be clear; I've been told GCC 6.2 is not required to compile the code I
linked; the earliest compiler it has been repro'd with is 4.9 (though we
haven't tested further back). It's also the mangled name
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468
--- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 40115
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40115&action=edit
assembler output @ r242589
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468
--- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 40116
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40116&action=edit
assembler output @ r242590
Assembler output with culprit patch applied.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71096
Roman Perepelitsa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||roman.perepelitsa at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78428
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I wonder if we really need to restrict this way each field, rather than just
provide bitfield_start/bitfield_end for the whole object that is being
initialized from the constructor. I mean for var = { { 1, 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78474
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78429
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #14)
> > In the end having a bool_with_only_0_and_1 predicate rather than
> > open-coding (several variants of) the test throughout the middle-end
> > might be a good
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78474
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78461
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78473
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468
--- Comment #7 from Dominik Vogt ---
The dumps show some differences I'd expect, but debugging libgomp testcases is
awkward because they are so complicated. In the pre-patched era, Gcc's dynamic
allocation on the stack was a bit too large most o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77766
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78475
Bug ID: 78475
Summary: Mixing objects form different g++ versions can crash a
program
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78451
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Another thing is that
> /* Doesn't require avx512vl target and is used in avx512dqintrin.h. */
> extern __inline __m128i
> __attribute__ ((__gnu_inline__, __alway
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468
--- Comment #8 from Dominik Vogt ---
Some things to try with reduction-10.c:
1) Remove all OMP pragmas from the code. If it still fails it's not a limbgomp
bug.
2) Replace "p7" in foo with just "7". If it still fails we know the bug is not
tri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72488
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78472
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto, wrong-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78470
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is a FAQ:
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/VerboseDiagnostics#missing_static_const_definition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72488
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 22 Nov 2016, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72488
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78475
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78475
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78465
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
--- Comment #5 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Created attachment 40117
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40117&action=edit
preprocessed source
Preprocessed source of file causing ICE attached. Compile with: -S -g -O2
-fPIC -fbuildi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78443
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Nov 22 16:06:46 2016
New Revision: 242703
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242703&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-22 Janus Weil
PR fortran/78443
* cla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78443
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.5
--- Comment #7 from janus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78465
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Nov 22 16:31:19 2016
New Revision: 242704
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242704&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR78465 Remove runtime tests for macros
PR libstdc++/78465
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78465
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77742
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.mutz at kdab dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78434
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78459
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78459
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78386
Breno Leitao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #12 from Breno Leitao
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77739
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The problem is that some expressions are genericized twice.
First when genericizing the whole function, RESULT_DECL is determined to be
is_invisiref_parm and therefore references to it are turned into INDIREC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78451
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Nov 22 16:53:35 2016
New Revision: 242707
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242707&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/78451
* config/i386/avx512vlintrin.h (_mm_setzer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78451
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Nov 22 16:54:13 2016
New Revision: 242708
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242708&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/78451
* gcc.target/i386/sse-22.c: Add avx5124fma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77822
--- Comment #29 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Nov 22 16:55:16 2016
New Revision: 242709
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242709&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] Fix PR target/77822: Use tighter predicates for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77822
--- Comment #30 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed on aarch64 for 6.3 as well. There's nothing more to do for aarch64 here.
Dominik, do you intend to do any backports of the s390 patches? Or can we close
this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77739
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or another option perhaps would be in cp_genericize_data note whether it is
cp_genericize_tree called from cp_genericize or from elsewhere, and only
replace invisiref parms if called from cp_genericize.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #18 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 40119
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40119&action=edit
Version that works (AVX only)
Here is a version that should only do AVX stuff on Intel processors.
Optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78461
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78476
Bug ID: 78476
Summary: snprintf(0, 0, ...) with known arguments not optimized
away
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78477
Bug ID: 78477
Summary: [7 Regression] bootstrap broken on s390x-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78409
--- Comment #2 from Orion Poplawski ---
So, what exactly can I get you?
I'm building
https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/octave-4.2.0-1.fc26.src.rpm on Fedora
rawhide. It fails during the tests:
libinterp/dldfcn/__osmesa_print__.cc-tst .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78477
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Did you bisect this to a specific commit? (I assumed so from the cc:, but the
revision number does not match one of my patches)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78477
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose ---
sorry, no, just saw yesterday's changes to match.pd as a hint.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77910
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38319
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
class_array_15.f03 leaks from line 65-66:
allocate (indv(2), source = [individual(1, [99,999]), &
individual(2, [999,])])
==22496== HEAP SUMMARY:
==22496== in use at e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78478
Bug ID: 78478
Summary: Compile Error for i386-rtems
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58001
--- Comment #16 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue Nov 22 18:25:55 2016
New Revision: 242717
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242717&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-22 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/58001
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78478
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i386-rtems4.12
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78479
Bug ID: 78479
Summary: ICE in gfc_apply_init, at fortran/expr.c:4135
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78479
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Whereas, these variants are ok :
$ cat z3.f90
program p
type t
character(2) :: c(1) = 'a' // ['b']
end type
type(t) :: z
print *, len(z%c), size(z%c), z
end
$ gfortran-7-20161120 z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78478
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
For 7.0, somebody changed i[34567]86-*-rtems* entry in libgcc/config.host to
use t-softfp-sfdftf. Please test the following patch:
Index: libgcc/config.host
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78479
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78458
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78458
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner ---
gdb show we don't like:
(gdb) frame 1
#1 0x10a7d328 in lra_set_insn_recog_data (insn=0x3fffb5584340) at
/home/bergner/gcc/gcc-fsf-mainline-reg-move_costs-base/gcc/lra.c:963
963 gcc_ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77910
--- Comment #7 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Coincidentally I am going to submit the patch to fix this today. It was held
up for a while in code review on the master repository. (The fix in the master
repository is https://golang.org/cl/33295).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78458
--- Comment #6 from Peter Bergner ---
This whole lra reload is due to us trying to split insns like the following:
(insn 129 281 264 9 (set (subreg:TF (reg:TI 315 [orig:262 p1 ] [262]) 0)
(reg/v:TF 173 [ p1 ])) "pr78458.i":17 1930 {*frob
Jason,
digging further into the demangler crash of 78252, I think the root
cause is ill-formed C++. Here's a further reduced testcase.
template
void for2 (T &v)
{
}
void Foo ()
{
auto lam_1 = [](int &) { };
auto lam_2 = [](auto &) { }; // IIUC this is implicitly templatey
for2 (lam_1);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78480
Bug ID: 78480
Summary: m68k-rtems compile error in libgfortran
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78481
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78458
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner ---
Here's a smaller test case that induces spilling which leads to our ICE:
extern void bar (void);
_Complex
foo (long double p1)
{
_Complex e;
bar ();
asm volatile ("# clobbers" :::
"r14"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78481
Bug ID: 78481
Summary: libunwind.a conflicting recipes on AIX
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78458
--- Comment #8 from Peter Bergner ---
Last one, I promise. We don't need _Complex at all:
extern void bar (void);
long double
foo (long double p1)
{
bar ();
asm volatile ("# clobbers" :::
"r14", "r15", "r16", "r17", "r18", "
/7.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20161122 (experimental) [trunk revision 242702] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -O3 small.c ; ./a.out
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78477
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
Stage2 issue, so most likely gcc was miscompiled during stage1. If you have a
chance to run the testsuite on a non-bootstrap compiler, that often gives
testcases that are much easier to debug...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78451
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Nov 22 20:36:35 2016
New Revision: 242723
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242723&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/78451
* config/i386/avx512bwintrin.h (_mm512_set
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #40119|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #20 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #18)
> Created attachment 40119 [details]
> Version that works (AVX only)
>
> Here is a version that should only do AVX stuff on Intel processors.
> Optimization for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #19)
> Created attachment 40120 [details]
> Updated patch
>
> Well, here's an update also for AVX512F.
>
> I can confirm the patch gives the same performance as the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71096
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77910
--- Comment #8 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Tue Nov 22 21:04:27 2016
New Revision: 242724
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242724&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/77910
cmd/go: don't check standard packages when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77910
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |FIXED
--- Comment #9 from Ian Lance T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78290
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78483
Bug ID: 78483
Summary: Error: reference to 'on_exit' is ambiguous
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78458
--- Comment #9 from Peter Bergner ---
The IFmode usage is coming from HARD_REGNO_CALLER_SAVE_MODE(8, 2, TFmode)
returning IFmode, which comes from choose_hard_reg_mode (8, 2, false). As a
quick hack, I modified HARD_REGNO_CALLER_SAVE_MODE() to i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78290
--- Comment #3 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #2)
> internal compiler error: in gfc_add_modify_loc, at fortran/trans.c:159
> 0x835756e gfc_add_modify_loc(unsigned int, stmtblock_t*, tree_node*,
> tree_node*)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78461
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 40121
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40121&action=edit
Patch under test.
Testing the attached patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78478
--- Comment #3 from Joel Sherrill ---
That patch gets the build further but there is more wrong. __float128 isn't
defined.
/home/joel/test-gcc/b-i386-rtems4.12-gcc/./gcc/xgcc
-B/home/joel/test-gcc/b-i386-rtems4.12-gcc/./gcc/ -nostdinc
-B/home/jo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78479
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue Nov 22 21:52:15 2016
New Revision: 242725
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242725&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-22 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/78479
1 - 100 of 215 matches
Mail list logo
