https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80092
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||nvptx
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #17 from Bill Schmidt ---
The following fixes the reduced test case. Could you please test it on the
full 416.gamess build? I'll regstrap it on x86-64 and ppc64le.
Index: gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80155
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #14)
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #13)
> > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79255
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, what I see is:
#0 add_AT_unsigned (die=0x7fffedd374b0, attr_kind=DW_AT_inline,
unsigned_val=2) at ../../gcc/dwarf2out.c:4150
#1 0x00ea5d65 in gen_subprogram_die (decl=0x7fffee138600,
context_die
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80092
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #2)
> (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #0)
> > But it's better to introduce effective-target keywords for those features,
> > and mark the tests as such. That wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80161
Bug ID: 80161
Summary: const argument hidden from AVX intrinsics due to
OpenMP outlining
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79255
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Short C testcase that ICEs without the patch:
/* PR bootstrap/79255 */
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-O2 -g -fno-toplevel-reorder -Wno-attributes" } */
static inline __attribute__((always_inline))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80160
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80148
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80159
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80161
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80153
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> The reason for the tree-affine oddity is that IVO calls
>
> #0 tree_to_aff_combination (expr=,
> type=, comb=0x7fffd310)
>
> that is, tree_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79612
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Would something such as the following make sense (with a proper comment and the
commented lines removed)?
--- ../_clean/libgfortran/runtime/bounds.c 2017-01-01 17:39:08.0
+0100
+++ libgfo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80160
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Perhaps this.
Index: lra-assigns.c
===
--- lra-assigns.c (revision 246226)
+++ lra-assigns.c (working copy)
@@ -908,7 +908,8 @@ mus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80150
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 23 18:23:25 2017
New Revision: 246422
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246422&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/80150 - ICE with overloaded variadic deduction.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80150
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80137
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80148
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Thank you for reporting this.
Something is wrong with processing insns for reloads. The asm-insn hash 2 the
same operands mem[r263+12]. R263 is spilled for a reload. The mem becomes
invalid and r263 sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80162
Bug ID: 80162
Summary: ICE on invalid code (address of register variable)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79423
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80163
Bug ID: 80163
Summary: ICE on hopefully valid code
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80164
Bug ID: 80164
Summary: ICE in gfc_format_decoder at gcc/fortran/error.c:933
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77339
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78496
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So I've got a hack that allows me to evaluate the effect of the last example
from c#5. So let's look at how the number of realized jump threads is affected
by the various tweaks I'm playing with:
VRP1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80162
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80161
--- Comment #2 from Jeff Hammond ---
Fair point, but the error is "error: the last argument must be scale 1, 2, 4,
8" and "const int scale = 1" sure seems like it should be interpreted by the
compiler as "1", given "scale" has local scope (the er
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80160
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Bernd Schmidt from comment #4)
> Perhaps this.
>
> Index: lra-assigns.c
> ===
> --- lra-assigns.c (revision 246226)
> +++ l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80159
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Either patch proposed by Bernd for PR80160 or my patch on which I am working
for PR80148 will solve the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80148
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov ---
The fix proposed by Bernd for PR80160 does not solve the problem. So I am
continuing to work on the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57924
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #5 from Domin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80093
--- Comment #2 from trashyankes at wp dot pl ---
```
#include
int foo (std::mt19937* x)
{
std::uniform_int_distribution k(0, 99);
for (auto i = 0; i < 1'000'000'000; ++i)
{
std::uniform_int_distribution y(0, 99);
volatile auto r =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80164
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80164
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57924
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #5)
1
> Warning: Creating array temporary at (1) [-Warray-temporaries]
>
> Am I correct to understand that it is the expected behavior?
Yes, this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57924
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80150
--- Comment #5 from Gordon Brown ---
That's great, thanks Jason.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79888
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80164
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
*** Bug 79888 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80164
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The patch in comment 2 fixes the failures
FAIL: gfortran.dg/where_operator_assign_2.f90 -O (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/where_operator_assign_3.f90 -O (internal compiler error)
FA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68040
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80164
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:48:20PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
>
> The additional errors are
>
> /opt/gcc/_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/where_operator_assign_1.f90:82:69:
>
> pv((2_I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79840
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79852
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
See also pr79840.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80165
Bug ID: 80165
Summary: Constexpr tuple of variant doesn't work
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54773
chihin ko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56251
chihin ko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80092
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Mar 24 06:28:12 2017
New Revision: 246433
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246433&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add missing dg-require-effective-target alloca in gcc testsuite
2017-03-24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80092
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Mar 24 06:28:42 2017
New Revision: 246434
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246434&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Require effective target nonlocal_goto in pr79244.c
2017-03-24 Tom de Vri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80092
--- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Mar 24 06:28:53 2017
New Revision: 246435
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246435&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Require effective target indirect_jump in Wimplicit-fallthrough-34.c
2017-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80092
--- Comment #7 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Mar 24 06:29:06 2017
New Revision: 246436
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246436&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Require effective target global_constructor for two testcases
2017-03-24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80092
--- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Mar 24 06:46:05 2017
New Revision: 246437
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246437&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport "Add missing dg-require-effective-target alloca in gcc testsuite"
101 - 151 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
