https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79044
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77528
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Jan 12 17:28:36 2017
New Revision: 244374
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244374&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR77528 partially revert r244278 and define default constructors
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79058
--- Comment #8 from Dominik Vogt ---
With the cross compiler and the reduced test case, reload generates a coredump.
Is that what you get for the minimized test?
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x802bb262 in df_ref_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77528
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79041
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
thanks for testing this out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79073
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Jan 12 17:43:16 2017
New Revision: 244377
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244377&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/79073 - FAIL: gcc.dg/pr78973.c (test for warnings, line 12) i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79073
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79058
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
With the code and flags in comment 2 i get a segmentation fault, instead
(with a powerpc64-linux host), somewhere during LRA.
insn 10 is
===
(insn 10 8 11 2 (set (reg:DI 120)
(and:DI (subreg:DI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79058
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79074
Bug ID: 79074
Summary: -Waddress difference between C and C++ with (T*)0
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79046
--- Comment #6 from Dave Johansen ---
Could that be made a guarantee? Right now, having to build plugins against the
full version of GCC is a major pain for distributions and saying that GCC
plugins are API/ABI stable for a major version would el
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79074
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Jan 12 18:07:51 2017
New Revision: 244378
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244378&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/79074 - -Waddress difference between C and C++ with (T*)0
gcc/testsu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79074
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79058
--- Comment #11 from Dominik Vogt ---
gccint:
> A operand which is read by the instruction can be tied to an earlyclobber
> operand if its only use as an input occurs before the early result is written.
Mabe it's allowed here because of the forc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72850
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79075
Bug ID: 79075
Summary: Lots of tests fail with _GLIBCXX_USE_CXX1_ABI=0
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79075
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79054
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Jan 12 18:35:19 2017
New Revision: 244380
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244380&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/791051 - FAIL: gcc.dg/attr-alloc_size-4.c (test for warnings,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79058
--- Comment #12 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #11)
> gccint:
> > A operand which is read by the instruction can be tied to an earlyclobber
> > operand if its only use as an input occurs before the early result is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79051
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Jan 12 18:41:33 2017
New Revision: 244381
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244381&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Reference PR testsuite/79051, not 791051.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79046
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Dave Johansen from comment #6)
> Could that be made a guarantee? Right now, having to build plugins against
> the full version of GCC is a major pain for distributions and saying that
> GCC plugi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79054
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Jan 12 18:50:26 2017
New Revision: 244382
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244382&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/79051
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.dg/attr-alloc_s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79051
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Jan 12 18:50:26 2017
New Revision: 244382
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244382&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/79051
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.dg/attr-alloc_s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79051
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78751
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Oh, the patch isn't ugly, just the resulting code is :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79076
Bug ID: 79076
Summary: [sparc/solaris] bootstrap comparison failure, in-tree
binutils + --without-gnu-as
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79077
Bug ID: 79077
Summary: [7 regression][new inheriting ctors] bad code for
inherited ctor
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40411
--- Comment #32 from Jeff Downs ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #31)
> The attached patch does this, and includes a forward port of Jeff's
> patch to escape special characters like `:' in %{S:X} expressions.
[...]
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79068
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78304
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78304
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Notes to self:
PRIu32 etc are described in:
http://en.cppreference.com/w/c/types/integer#Format_macro_constants
Ideal would be a fix-it hint that suggests the correct macro, but that's clealy
overambitiou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79069
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 12 21:29:43 2017
New Revision: 244383
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244383&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/79069
* cfgrtl.c (rtl_tidy_fallthru_edge): F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78304
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
More notes to self:
The locations within the string_concat_db for this concatenation are all
spelling locations, rather than virtual locations. The reason is that
c-lex.c's lex_string calls cpp_get_token in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79069
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79004
--- Comment #6 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Thu Jan 12 22:02:57 2017
New Revision: 244386
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244386&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-01-12 Michael Meissner
PR target/79004
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79066
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Confirmed. The constant is forced to mem in LRA.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14489
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P3
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14494
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P3
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78994
--- Comment #4 from PeteVine ---
I'm delighted to report **not** targeting Cortex-A53 actually incurs a
performance penalty sometimes ;)
http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1701128-TA-GCCCOMPAR79
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78994
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-01/msg00637.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79078
Bug ID: 79078
Summary: Warnings from deprecated attribute are too noisy
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79078
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This warns about the use of D within its own class body:
struct [[deprecated("D is bad mmmkay")]] D {
void f(const D&);
};
d.cc:2:18: warning: ‘D’ is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations]
void f(con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79078
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Then we get _another_ warning on the definition of that member function:
struct [[deprecated("D is bad mmmkay")]] D {
void f(const D&);
};
void D::f(const D&) { }
d.cc:2:18: warning: ‘D’ is deprecated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79078
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79078
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yet another heuristic would be to suppress warnings if the deprecated
attributes have the same string literal in the attribute-argument-clause, i.e.
treat the string as a grouping mechanism, so that entitie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79078
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Clang and EDG both procuce two warnings for this code, on the variable
definition and the call to operator+
struct [[deprecated("D is bad mmmkay")]] D {
void f(const D&);
};
void D::f(const D&) { }
[[d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79066
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79066
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
-mno-lra calls rs6000_emit_move to load the address of the const mem
it creates; -mlra does not. It should, but how what where.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77345
--- Comment #6 from Arseny Solokha ---
As the ICE reported here is reproducible in my setup, I can confirm that the
patch posted in PR71724 fixes this one too, so this PR is really a duplicate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71724
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
*** Bug 77345 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77345
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79079
Bug ID: 79079
Summary: [6/7] Wrong code gen for __builtin_mul_overflow when
TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION (32, 64) == false
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14844
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15039
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15091
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P4
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15272
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P3
Known to fail|6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15338
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2006-02-26 19:26:22 |2017-1-12
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15485
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15538
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|6.0 |6.3.0, 7.0
--- Comment #8 from Martin Seb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72749
--- Comment #7 from Arseny Solokha ---
I wonder if the following ICE is somehow related to the one reported here. I'll
file a new PR if it's not.
% powerpc-e500v2-linux-gnuspe-gcc-7.0.0-alpha20170108 -O1 -c dsmbs5u1.c
dsmbs5u1.c: In function 'gd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72749
--- Comment #8 from Arseny Solokha ---
int
gd (char ff)
{
int mi;
for (;;)
{
ff += 59 /* 197 also works */;
if (ff != 0)
mi = 0;
else
return 0;
}
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79066
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72749
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #7)
> I wonder if the following ICE is somehow related to the one reported here.
> I'll file a new PR if it's not.
This is a different bug (it still happens with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79080
Bug ID: 79080
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE: internal consistency failure
(error: invalid rtl sharing found in the insn) (error:
shared rtx)
Product: gcc
Version: 7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79079
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79079
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note that there are 8 other gen_lowpart uses in expand_mul_overflow. Are those
ok and only this one is problematic? I have no experience with
non-TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION targets.
101 - 166 of 166 matches
Mail list logo
