https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79144
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79145
Bug ID: 79145
Summary: iwmmxt: Internal compiler error caused by an
unrecognizable insn, during XORing long long with a
char constant
Product: gcc
Version: unknow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72488
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
We have two different SSA_NAMEs where their SSA_NAME_INFO is the same pointer.
Thus modification range info by way of set_range_info changes the underlying
range on both SSA_NAMEs. From a debugging sessi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79143
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79145
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||iwmmxt
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79141
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79129
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79145
Petr Cvek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |6.3.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78478
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79145
--- Comment #3 from Petr Cvek ---
Cmdline is of course:
arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi-gcc -mcpu=iwmmxt ./z32.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72488
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #12 from Richard B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72488
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Ah.
Setting value number of t34_9752(D) to t34_9752(D) (changed)
Setting value number of t42_9760(D) to t42_9760(D) (changed)
WARNING: Giving up with SCCVN due to SCC size 10003 exceeding 1
so we're f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79138
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79145
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79118
--- Comment #8 from Niall Douglas ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #7)
> I'm giving up; there's just too much C++.
Thanks for looking into it. You should know that the above code works without
issue on clang and VS2017 (with C++ 14 co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77484
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78407
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Jan 19 10:00:56 2017
New Revision: 244612
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244612&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/78407
* symtab.c (symtab_node::equal_address_to): F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77346
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #12)
> It does raise the question of how long we're going to support -mno-lra on
> PPC.
The plan is to remove it in GCC 8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70582
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78140
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka ---
How does the memory use look with current tree?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65654
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.0 |8.0
Summary|[7 Regression] 447.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79121
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Jan 19 10:35:38 2017
New Revision: 244613
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244613&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[expand] Fix for PR rtl-optimization/79121 incorrect expansion o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79121
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|7.0 |6.0
Summary|[6/7 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79127
--- Comment #13 from Rainer Emrich ---
The proposed patch indeed fixes the issue on x86_64-w64-mingw32, libgfortran
builds again.
The results of a complete testsuite run can be found here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2017-01/msg01881.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79129
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78580
bugs-gcc at rationality dot eu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79145
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72488
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 19 12:00:42 2017
New Revision: 244623
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244623&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-01-19 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/72488
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69376
Bug 69376 depends on bug 72488, which changed state.
Bug 72488 Summary: [7 Regression] wrong code (SIGFPE) at -Os and above on
x86_64-linux-gnu (in the 64-bit mode)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72488
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72488
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 19 12:02:43 2017
New Revision: 244625
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244625&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-01-19 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/72488
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72488
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78495
--- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 40543
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40543&action=edit
reduced testcase
The problem is not with unnamed union members, but with inheriting ctors
passing by value. T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79046
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 19 12:23:00 2017
New Revision: 244627
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244627&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR other/79046
* aclocal.m4: Include ../config/acx.m4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78140
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
It's still reproducible with current trunk, it's over 1GB on my development
machine. I did a simple script that dumps sizes of all LTO object loaded to
WPA:
GCC 7:
asm : 19.67 KB
profile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78140
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 40544
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40544&action=edit
GCC 6 graph
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78140
--- Comment #18 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 40545
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40545&action=edit
GCC 7 graph
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79125
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79146
Bug ID: 79146
Summary: Bootstrpping go on s390x fails; redefined symbols
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78140
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kuganv at linaro dot org
--- Comment #19 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77484
--- Comment #33 from wilco at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #32)
> Apparently fixed. The coremark is PR77445
Yes, my SPEC2006 results look good, no real change. Coremark is now up by 20%
or more, thanks for that :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77445
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka ---
As reported in PR77484, coremark is now up by 20% or more.
Are we out of regression land now? If not does the patch in #15 help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79130
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jan 19 14:37:51 2017
New Revision: 244635
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244635&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79130 - decomposition and direct-initialization
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71190
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79147
Bug ID: 79147
Summary: Uselsss _GLIBCXX_PACKAGE_* macros in
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79147
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78140
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
Look at tree-ssanames.c:range_info_def for "tricks" (make them variable size):
/* Value range information for SSA_NAMEs representing non-pointer variables.
*/
struct GTY ((variable_size)) range_info_def
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79146
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka ---
Now I get (for 500 invocations)
real user sys
GCC 7:0m9.816s 0m6.274s 0m3.546s
GCC 6:0m7.880s 0m4.253s 0m3.605s
GCC 5:0m7.655s 0m4.264s 0m3.159s
GCC 4.6: 0m7.271
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79148
Bug ID: 79148
Summary: stack addresses are spilled to stack slots on x86-64
at -Os instead of rematerializing the addresses
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78900
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79149
Bug ID: 79149
Summary: bad optimization on MIPS and ARM leading to excessive
stack usage in some cases
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78478
--- Comment #18 from Joel Sherrill ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #17)
> (In reply to Joel Sherrill from comment #16)
> > Thanks for all the feedback. With this patch, it now builds. Is the style of
> > change to configure.host OK?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79127
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 19 15:41:15 2017
New Revision: 244636
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244636&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79127
* acinclude.m4 (LIBGFOR_CHECK_AVX512F): E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79144
--- Comment #2 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Alan,
Thanks for jumping in here. What I tried yesterday was this code to try to
get the correct name:
+ const char *id =
+ IDENTIFIER_POINTER (DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME
+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78140
--- Comment #21 from Martin Liška ---
Looking at distinct number of value ranges and bits, we can get:
grep hash_vr /tmp/7.dump.ipa | sort | uniq -c | wc -l
65224
grep hash_bits /tmp/7.dump.ipa | sort | uniq -c | wc -l
13421
Where total # of j
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70696
--- Comment #12 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Thu Jan 19 15:52:32 2017
New Revision: 244637
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244637&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
2017-01-19 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71648
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
This appears to be fixed on trunk -- between David and me we've tested this on
AIX 32- and 64-bit, PPC64LE on P8, and PPC64 on P7. We'll need to bisect and
see what fixed the problem and work on a backport fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79051
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78478
--- Comment #19 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Joel Sherrill from comment #18)
> I changed that line to
>
> #ifdef _SOFT_FLOAT
> #include "config/fpu-generic.h"
>
> and it built. Is that OK?
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78140
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79051
--- Comment #10 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 40547
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40547&action=edit
proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78176
--- Comment #14 from mpf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpf
Date: Thu Jan 19 16:05:59 2017
New Revision: 244640
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244640&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
MIPS: PR target/78176 add -mlxc1-sxc1.
gcc/
PR target/781
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71264
--- Comment #23 from Rainer Orth ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #22)
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2016, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71264
> >
> > --- Comment #21 from Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78140
--- Comment #23 from Martin Liška ---
Depending on memory layout of the structure, but these 2 structures increase
memory of about ((32+88)*3258685)/(1024**2) ~372 MB.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78140
--- Comment #24 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 40548
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40548&action=edit
GCC 6 -fmem-report
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78140
--- Comment #25 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 40549
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40549&action=edit
GCC 7 -fmem-report
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78905
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Jan 19 16:40:46 2017
New Revision: 244642
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244642&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR78905 define _GLIBCXX_RELEASE macro
PR libstdc++/78905
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71648
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
This actually appears to be fixed in GCC 6 as well, so the fix must have been
backported. Konstantinos, can you please try with GCC 6.3 and confirm that the
problem goes away for you?
Thanks,
Bill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79051
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks. The patch looks good to me. You should be able to commit the patch
without approval.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78905
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78905
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Matt Clarkson from comment #2)
> Because wehen I compile with clang against the libstdc++ the problem will
> still occur and __GNUC__ will not be defined.
N.B. Clang does define __GNUC__ but i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67085
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The changes in r244150 turned some internal copies into moves, improving the PR
70898 testcase from 61 seconds to 29 seconds.
If I modify the testcase attached here to track moves as well as copies, GCC 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78478
--- Comment #20 from Joel Sherrill ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #19)
> (In reply to Joel Sherrill from comment #18)
> > I changed that line to
> >
> > #ifdef _SOFT_FLOAT
> > #include "config/fpu-generic.h"
> >
> > and it built. Is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79051
--- Comment #12 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Jan 19 17:42:50 2017
New Revision: 244647
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244647&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix gcc.dg/attr-alloc_size-4.c on i?86 (PR testsuite/79051)
PR testsu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77455
wilco at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79051
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
> Thanks. The patch looks good to me. You should be able to commit the patch
> without approval.
Indeed, done.
Rainer
atexit
--enable-checking=all
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20170119 (experimental) (GCC)
I've looked into this a little, but I'd appreciate some help.
Sorry for being so late in reporting this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62161
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79151
Bug ID: 79151
Summary: Missed vectorization with identical formulas
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79130
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79082
--- Comment #4 from Franz Sirl ---
Hmm, %hhd is not usable on some of our platforms and also only really helpful
with exact %x outputs:
snprintf(buffer, 3, "%02hhx", val);
What about:
snprintf(buffer, 4, "%03hx", val & 0xfff);
Here the 'h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67085
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Jan 19 18:26:41 2017
New Revision: 244648
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244648&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR67085 move comparison functions in heap operations
PR libstdc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79152
Bug ID: 79152
Summary: -Wimplicit-fallthrough false positive triggered by
goto statements
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79153
Bug ID: 79153
Summary: -Wimplicit-fallthrough missed warning
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79049
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78478
--- Comment #21 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Joel Sherrill from comment #20)
> Looks like it works, Thanks.
>
> Based on my testing, these need to be applied to both the gcc 6 branch and
> master. Should I just commit them with the PR not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79154
Bug ID: 79154
Summary: omp declare simd in pure function?
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79082
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
I see no warning at -O0 on
snprintf (buffer, 4, "%03hx", val & 0xfff);
or at -O2 on:
snprintf (buffer, 3, "%2d", (val < 0) ? -(val % 100) : val % 100);
(It does warn at -O0 as expected.) This is on x8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79155
Bug ID: 79155
Summary: Typo in cpuid.h comment
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78905
--- Comment #9 from Matt Clarkson ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> GCC 7 now defines _GLIBCXX_RELEASE (with the same value as __GNUC__ has,
> i.e. the GCC major version, as an integer constant, but defined by the
> library head
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67085
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Jan 19 20:29:07 2017
New Revision: 244650
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244650&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix unsafe moves inside loops
PR libstdc++/67085
* incl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79156
Bug ID: 79156
Summary: incorrect c++ usage in gcc7 void function
returns a value
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79156
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79156
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to mib.bugzilla from comment #0)
> Changing "friend void" to "friend auto" would be a simple fix.
That wouldn't compile in C++11 mode. I think shouldn't return anything.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78478
--- Comment #22 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Jan 19 21:00:53 2017
New Revision: 244651
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244651&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/78478
* config/ax_check_define.m4: New
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79157
Bug ID: 79157
Summary: gfortran crashed on sparc with openmpi build
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63256
--- Comment #10 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Looking at this again. Present state of play is:
sms-4.c fails with -m64 BE and LE
sms-8.c fails with -m32 BE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69543
--- Comment #8 from David Malcolm ---
The following testcases still have xfails:
c-c++-common/pr69543-3.c
c-c++-common/pr69543-4.c
so this isn't quite fixed yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79154
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
chard Smith.
>
Nice. Your [much cleaner] patch sorts out the starred case above too. With
GCC master (7.0.0 20170119) with your patch the results are:
auto l0 = [&](auto z) { f (z); };// C:8 G:1 G':8 G'':8
auto l1 = [&](auto) { f (2.4); };// C:8 G:1 G':8
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
