https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77903
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #40237|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77903
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #40256|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78561
--- Comment #13 from James Greenhalgh ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #12)
> It still happens here, also on gcc110. Note you need --disable-werror,
> to avoid another bootstrap error.
>
> Did you perchance use --disable-bootstr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68489
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78635
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78561
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I used trunk. --disable-bootstrap fails the same, just much faster ;-)
Maybe the binutils etc. version matters?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78682
--- Comment #4 from Stefano Zaghi ---
(In reply to janus from comment #3)
> I see the ICE with 5.4.1 and 6.2.0, but I can confirm that it is gone on
> current trunk.
>
> For which reason do you think the code is invalid?
I have not yet studied
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78561
--- Comment #15 from James Greenhalgh ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #14)
> I used trunk. --disable-bootstrap fails the same, just much faster ;-)
>
> Maybe the binutils etc. version matters?
Do you have a "modern" GCC on pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78635
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
But this one has been marked as regression, the other PR is not. So, either it
needs to be turned into a regression, or this one can't be a dup.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78642
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78642
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
> But verify_rtx_sharing also has:
>
> case CLOBBER:
> /* Share clobbers of hard registers (like cc0), but do not share
> pseudo reg
> clobbers or clobbers of hard registers that originat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78635
--- Comment #8 from Nathan Sidwell ---
The fix for both bugs is the same -- reject creation of arrays of trailing
array elements. We used to reject initializers for such arrays, then we
silently accepted them (generating wrong code), now we ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78642
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 40258
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40258&action=edit
Tentative fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78642
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #40258|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78635
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #8)
> The fix for both bugs is the same -- reject creation of arrays of trailing
> array elements. We used to reject initializers for such arrays, then we
> silently
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68489
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78635
--- Comment #10 from Nathan Sidwell ---
On 12/05/2016 03:44 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I thought that such constructs are widely used though, I believe e.g. glibc
> used arrays of structs with flexible array members in several places.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71977
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
Unfortunately, the code gets even worse if you use -mcpu=power9:
.L.mask_float:
stfs 1,-16(1)
lwz 9,-16(1)
and 4,4,9
stw 4,-16(1)
lfs 1,-16(1)
blr
I.e. ins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78226
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
Hi Andre,
the patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-12/msg00048.html
is OK (or, at your choice, obvious and simple).
I don't have access to my e-mail at the moment, so I cannot
reply to the list d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78646
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Dec 5 21:48:27 2016
New Revision: 243272
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243272&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-05 Bill Schmidt
Stefan Freudenberger
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78646
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78688
Bug ID: 78688
Summary: PowerPC fails bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78688
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64le-gnu-linux
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48390
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49774
Bug 49774 depends on bug 48390, which changed state.
Bug 48390 Summary: Multiple setting to restricted pointer variable not
optimized away
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48390
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71977
--- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Michael Meissner from comment #1)
> Note in terms of the code in general, you have to make sure that the float
> value is converted to vector form before you do AND/OR/etc. on it. This is
> beca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78633
--- Comment #10 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Ah, don't mind. Your patch accidentally hides this PR. Now
the SH build failure comes back on trunk :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78673
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17308
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #15 from Martin Sebor
Hi
The following code seems to be correctly executed when compiled with
GCC 4.4.7 and LLVM 6.1. It does not correctly compile with gcc version
5.4.0 20160609 (Ubuntu 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.4).
The following is what I have reduced the problem to:
#include
#include
#define GENERAL 1
#define BRACK
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78659
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I have the ICE resolved, but also note that the Fortran 95 standard has the
constraint on namelist statements and F2003 does not.
Constraint - namelist-group-object shall not be an array dummy argument with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78688
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 40260
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40260&action=edit
Proposed patch to fix the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78688
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78689
Bug ID: 78689
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE (segfault)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78684
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose ---
a test case without a processor specific option.
$ cat RapMapSAIndex.ii
class a {
public:
a(long);
void operator<<=(long) {
long b;
for (unsigned long c; c; c--)
d[c + b] = d[c];
}
a &
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78690
Bug ID: 78690
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE in cxx_incomplete_type_diagnostic,
at cp/typeck2.c:552
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78677
--- Comment #2 from Chris Johns ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> (In reply to Chris Johns from comment #0)
> > Some operating system, for example RTEMS, may fail to create a POSIX key if
> > not configured with enough resources
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78688
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue Dec 6 00:58:40 2016
New Revision: 243278
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243278&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-05 Michael Meissner
PR target/78688
* co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78688
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78659
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
x27; --enable-threads=posix
--enable-target-optspace --enable-plugin --disable-nls --disable-multilib
--with-local-prefix=/workspace/x-tools/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/sysroot
--enable-long-long --disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20161205 (experimental) (crosstool-NG
cross
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78691
--- Comment #1 from Alastair D'Silva ---
Created attachment 40262
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40262&action=edit
minimal testcase to reproduce the ICE for x86
uildtools --enable-lto
--enable-threads=posix --enable-target-optspace --with-linker-hash-style=both
--enable-plugin --enable-gold --disable-nls --disable-multilib
--with-local-prefix=/workspace/x-tools/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/sysroot
--enable-long-long
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 201612
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78691
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78642
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Dec 6 07:03:04 2016
New Revision: 243282
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243282&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/78642
* emit-rtl.c (verify_rtx_sharing)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78642
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78692
Bug ID: 78692
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE (segfault)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
101 - 147 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
