https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #10)
> Others are see the failures.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-12/msg00313.html
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-12/msg0031
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58175
--- Comment #16 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Sat Dec 3 09:32:27 2016
New Revision: 243218
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243218&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-03 Janus Weil
PR fortran/58175
* re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58175
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336
Bug 37336 depends on bug 58175, which changed state.
Bug 58175 Summary: [OOP] Incorrect warning message on scalar finalizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58175
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #22 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Dec 3 09:44:35 2016
New Revision: 243219
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243219&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-03 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/78379
* config/
c1 error:
/home/xuchenghua/GCC/test/gcc-r243216_obj/gcc/cc1 -fpreprocessed conftest.i
-mel -quiet -dumpbase conftest.c -minterlink-mips16 -march=loongson3a -mabi=64
-mllsc -mips64r2 -mno-shared -auxbase conftest -g -O2 -version -o conftest.s
GNU C11 (gcc trunk r243216 mips64el o32 n32 n64) version 7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78661
Bug ID: 78661
Summary: Namelist output missing object designator under DTIO
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77538
--- Comment #22 from peien luo ---
The bt only shows a stack size of 27. No recursion. I modified the tsan code to
print out what's in the shadow stack when it's about to overflow. It looks most
of the addresses are:
__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78662
Bug ID: 78662
Summary: Incorrect parsing of quotes in the
char-literal-constant of the DT data descriptor
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59694
--- Comment #3 from Ian Harvey ---
Why has this been marked as invalid?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78633
--- Comment #4 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Now I can't reproduce the ICEs for the revision 243217. They failed
for the revision 243091. I'm not sure whether the issue is false
positive or not. I'd like to keep this PR for a while.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #32 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #27)
> I think the symbols containing 'Ul' should demangle -- they're lambdas and
> I'd expect my patch to fix those.
I applied your patch first and two more demangl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #33 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #32)
> - PR70517
> _ZSt4moveIRZN11tconcurrent6futureIvE4thenIZ5awaitIS2_EDaOT_EUlRKS6_E_EENS1_IN
> St5decayIDTclfp_defpTEEE4typeEEES7_EUlvE_EONSt16remove_referen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #34 from Mark Wielaard ---
(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 xxx ??
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #35 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Marcel Böhme from comment #31)
> 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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #36 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #33)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #32)
> > - PR70517
> > _ZSt4moveIRZN11tconcurrent6futureIvE4thenIZ5awaitIS2_EDaOT_EUlRKS6_E_EENS1_IN
> > St5decayI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #37 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #36)
> Does any of them handle the one from PR67738:
> _ZNK6Common15ConvertingRangeIN5boost12range_detail17transformed_rangeIZN1a1b1
> cEbEUljE_KSt6vectorIjSaIjE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78442
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71537
Eric Fiselier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71537
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. for char_traits::char::find() we almost certainly want to use
__builtin_strchr and have the FE expand it in-place in constant expressions, as
the performance of our current code sucks, see PR 66414.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78616
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71537
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> N.B. for char_traits::char::find() we almost certainly want to use
> __builtin_strchr and have the FE expand it in-place in constant expressions,
> as the per
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77538
--- Comment #23 from Dmitry Vyukov ---
Please provide disassembly of the function that contains the PC
(__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator...).
Did we fix any bugs that lead to missed __tsan_func_exit callbacks?
Before we go any deeper, I would sugges
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78663
Bug ID: 78663
Summary: [7 Regression] Hundreds of asan failures on
x86_64-apple-darwin10 at r243019
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78561
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71537
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Unfortunately, __builtin_memchr is not usable in constexpr contexts. Hardly
any of these builtins are. I think the only exception is __builtin_strlen but
only to a limited extent (bug 77357 has some backgrou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 09:02:39AM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
>
> --- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78561
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Oh btw, you forgot to commit the testcase in 2/2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77903
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 40237
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40237&action=edit
Fix for the PR
This is still a bit rough round the edges but it fixes the PR, regtests and
bootstraps with this t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78664
Bug ID: 78664
Summary: LRA must honor REG_ALLOC_ORDER to pick reload
registers
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42188
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Sat Dec 3 18:37:57 2016
New Revision: 243223
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243223&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-03 Janus Weil
PR fortran/42188
* pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58175
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Benson ---
Thanks Janus. I can confirm that I see no more of these warnings now!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42188
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43207
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Sat Dec 3 18:48:48 2016
New Revision: 243224
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243224&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-03 Janus Weil
PR fortran/43207
* pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43207
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78665
Bug ID: 78665
Summary: Unexpected warning about "assuming signed overflow
does not occur when simplifying conditional"
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I also get
/opt/gcc/_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/char_conversion.f90:8:30:
character, parameter :: c = char(256,4) ! { dg-error "cannot be converted"
}
1
Error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Using a gfortran configured with: ../work/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc/gcc7g
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --with-gmp=/opt/mp-new --with-system-zlib
--with-isl=/opt/mp-new --disable-bootstrap --disa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78666
Bug ID: 78666
Summary: conflicting attribute alloc_size accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78667
Bug ID: 78667
Summary: nonsensical attribute alloc_size silently accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78667
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid, diagnostic
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78668
Bug ID: 78668
Summary: aligned_alloc, realloc, et al. missing attribute
alloc_size
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78668
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78636
--- Comment #4 from rhl ---
Created attachment 40238
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40238&action=edit
this is the output of make when -v -save-temps=obj was added
I tried to attach the preprocessed sources but there is far
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78636
--- Comment #5 from rhl ---
Also, some system information for reference:
[fedora@puiterwijk---rhl-ppc ~]$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
cpu : POWER8E (raw), altivec supported
clock : 3425.00MHz
revision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78667
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
In addition to the problem described in comment #0 GCC also accepts (though
with a warning) declarations of attribute alloc_size whose argument is a string
(even though it should be an integer). GCC should re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59694
--- Comment #4 from Damian Rouson ---
I meant to mark a different PR as invalid but marked this one mistakenly. Now
I just tried to reset its status duplicate and got the following message:
"You cannot mark bug 59694 as a duplicate of bug 67472
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78665
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78662
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78661
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78659
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
A few regressions related to not giving the error. Uncovers an ICE in
namelist_63.f90.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
53 matches
Mail list logo
