https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78652
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.2.1
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #24 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #22)
> Created attachment 40230 [details]
> d_printing mark/walk/unmark protection
>
> (In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #21)
> > Why doesn't a mark/walk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78631
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78644
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Verified reverting the tree-ssa-ccp.c hunk of r242920 makes the ICE go away
(then instead of _18 = _7 + _17; there is _18 = x2_3 + _17;
(no idea why _7 hasn't actually been replaced with 0 but just with x2_3,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78631
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 40232
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40232&action=edit
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug 65530 depends on bug 77267, which changed state.
Bug 77267 Summary: MPX does not work in a presence of "-Wl,-as-needed" option
(Ubuntu default)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77267
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77267
Alexander Ivchenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #25 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #24)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #22)
> > Created attachment 40230 [details]
> > d_printing mark/walk/unmark protection
> >
> > (In reply to Natha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70530
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
DR 2468 now says we should do something like this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
This is a bad interaction between PREFERRED_STACK_BOUNDARY and PUSH_ROUNDING,
but there's a deeper code generation issue that needs to be looked at as well.
So background. A push insn on the m68k is actu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #40230|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78646
--- Comment #5 from Stefan M Freudenberger ---
This is the revised patch:
- add_expr = fold_build2 (POINTER_PLUS_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (c->base_expr),
+ add_expr = fold_build2 (POINTER_PLUS_EXPR, c->cand_type,
c->base_expr,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #27 from Nathan Sidwell ---
I think the symbols containing 'Ul' should demangle -- they're lambdas and I'd
expect my patch to fix those. Some of the others certainly look suspicious.
Did they come out of the compiler, or are they th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78645
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78642
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #28 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #26)
> Created attachment 40233 [details]
> d_print_comp with 1 level of recursion protection
>
> This is the variant that allows 1 level of recursion (with an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #29 from Nathan Sidwell ---
On 12/02/2016 12:58 PM, trippels at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Please also note that Nathan's lambda demangling patch needs adjustments,
> because with level 1 of recursion it prints everything twice.
sorry
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #30 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #29)
> On 12/02/2016 12:58 PM, trippels at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > Please also note that Nathan's lambda demangling patch needs adjustments,
> > because w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78631
--- Comment #5 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> The problem is that the internal MPX wrapper calls in libmpxwrappers.so:
Why doesn't call go through bndplt? Users might use similar code in their
libraries and expect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78631
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #5)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> > The problem is that the internal MPX wrapper calls in libmpxwrappers.so:
> Why doesn't call go through bndplt? Users might use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Dec 2 18:38:24 2016
New Revision: 243201
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243201&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-02 Janus Weil
Steven G. Kargl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70322
--- Comment #8 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Dec 2 18:48:35 2016
New Revision: 243202
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243202&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70322
* config/i386/i386.md (*andndi3_do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69311
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Created attachment 40234
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40234&action=edit
auto-reduced testcase
Fails with -O3 -march=z196. Endless loop in VRP with GCC 5. Works fine with GCC
6 branc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69311
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78657
Bug ID: 78657
Summary: Using macro with _Pragma gives error: '#pragma' is not
allowed here
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78646
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78642
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Is your compiler configured with --enable-checking=rtl ?
Yes, but I don't think Rainer's is.
> Perhaps it can be only reproduced natively, or relies on particular
> auto-host.h content (I don't have cross
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78658
Bug ID: 78658
Summary: powerpc64le: ICE with -mcpu=power9 -Og
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77517
--- Comment #5 from Harald Anlauf ---
Besides the lack of diagnosing the conflicting definitions,
I think there is a missing check in gfc_check_move_alloc().
The test case
program p
class(*), allocatable :: a, b
call move_alloc (a, b)
con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77517
--- Comment #6 from Harald Anlauf ---
Extending the check in comment #5 to
if (from->ts.type == BT_CLASS && to->ts.type != BT_CLASS ||
to->ts.type == BT_CLASS && from->ts.type != BT_CLASS)
{
gfc_error ("The FROM and TO argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
--- Comment #7 from Waldemar Brodkorb ---
Can't we disable compilation of linux-atomic.c for gcc7 then?
So that at least it is possible to build a toolchain for coldfire?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Unsure. I thought libstdc++ used some of the libatomic facilities under the
hood so we'd just replace one build failure with another.
It might also mess up the older 68k systems (assuming I'm wrong about t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70322
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78649
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 2 21:23:22 2016
New Revision: 243204
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243204&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78649
* pt.c (tsubst_init): Don't call build_value_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
--- Comment #9 from Larry Baker ---
To answer Waldemar's question, that is exactly how I worked around the problem
for gcc 4.7 and 4.8 in 2012 (see Bug 53833). That enabled me to have a
functioning gcc for ColdFire. I used it to fix broken stac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78649
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] ICE on |[5/6 Regression] ICE on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #31 from Marcel Böhme ---
Hi Mark,
Your patch looks good to me. One more thing: It seems that our patches evaluate
these two mangled strings differently. Is it because of Nathan's patch? Can
these strings be demangled properly at all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78639
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri Dec 2 22:12:08 2016
New Revision: 243206
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243206&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-02 Michael Meissner
PR target/78639
* co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77761
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Thanks for reporting this, Zdenek.
After some time staring at the generated code I believe the problem is in
hard register splitting optimization. LRA uses wrongly smaller mode for
splitting than nec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78616
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Dec 2 22:39:43 2016
New Revision: 243207
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243207&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
selftest.c: remove calls to strndup (PR bootstrap/78616)
gcc/ChangeLog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78616
--- Comment #10 from David Malcolm ---
Build breakage should have been fixed as of r243207 (sorry again).
Should we poision strndup in system.h?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #6)
> I updated my source tree to r243203, which includes your change.
> My source tree cuurently has no other changes. I still see an ICE.
Sorry, I can not reprodu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 10:49:12PM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
>
> --- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl from com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78638
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I have a patch for the rlwimi ones. The new ones are an actual regression
as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78631
--- Comment #7 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
> -z bndplt is needed to call external functions with bounds. But
> it isn't needed for internal function calls.
That doesn't explain why we need a hack you propose. Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78638
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78551
--- Comment #8 from Vlad Petric ---
(In reply to Vlad Petric from comment #7)
> Ok, so the example that I started this bug with is not standard compliant
> because it initialized different elements in a union with the constexpr
> constructor.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78608
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |patch
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78519
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78659
Bug ID: 78659
Summary: Spurious "requires DTIO" reported against namelist
statement
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78659
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78551
--- Comment #9 from Vlad Petric ---
Created attachment 40235
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40235&action=edit
Compliant code that segfaults the compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71537
Eric Fiselier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78441
Eric Fiselier changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78659
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77373
--- Comment #4 from David Edelsohn ---
unit size
align 256 symtab 0 alias set -1 canonical type 700fc0c0
fields
used nonlocal decl_3 BLK file
/gsa/yktgsa/home/e/d/edelsohn/src/src/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #8)
> Note, I configured gcc with
>
> ../gcc7/configure \
> --prefix=$HOME/work/7 --with-isl=/usr/local \
> --enable-languages=c,fortran,c++ --enable-libsani
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 07:31:21AM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
>
> --- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl f
101 - 160 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
