https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80435
Bug ID: 80435
Summary: Expose __gcov_flush to allow developers to dump
coverage numbers on demand
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53883
M Travis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||travism1 at g dot ucla.edu
--- Comment #12 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
--- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Sat Apr 15 04:11:35 2017
New Revision: 246939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246939&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Testcase 20050830-1.c no longer fails (PR66612)
Bin's comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
Bug 62173 depends on bug 66612, which changed state.
Bug 66612 Summary: [6/7/8 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/20050830-1.c
scan-assembler bdn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67540
--- Comment #13 from Vittorio Zecca ---
In C strings are pointers, in Fortran they are not.
So ptr="string" is wrong.
As in the following:
character, pointer :: cptr
cptr="qwerty"
end
Running it I get a SIGSEGV.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80210
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner ---
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 07:26:57PM +, bergner at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80210
>
> --- Comment #4 from Peter Bergner ---
> So it seems rs6000_pragma_targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80436
Bug ID: 80436
Summary: [7 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80421
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80426
Bug ID: 80426
Summary: Wrong constant folding
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80424
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80425
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80423
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80426
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #30 from Bijan Chokoufe ---
> Could you maybe do the following:
>
> - Use your normal sources
>
> - Change the compilation options to add -fdump-tree-all to the relevant
> file
>
> - Copy all the generated xxx.f90.whatever files
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80427
Bug ID: 80427
Summary: DR1658 is implemented in C++03 and C++14 mode, but not
C++11
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80426
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80422
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80422
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Target Mileston
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80426
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80423
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Target Mileston
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80388
--- Comment #7 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Fri Apr 14 13:00:02 2017
New Revision: 246929
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246929&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-14 Dominique d'Humieres
Backport from tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59910
--- Comment #10 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Fri Apr 14 13:00:02 2017
New Revision: 246929
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246929&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-14 Dominique d'Humieres
Backport from t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59910
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Glenn.Hyland at utas dot edu.au
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80388
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80361
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kergonath at me dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67505
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336
Bug 37336 depends on bug 67505, which changed state.
Bug 67505 Summary: [F03] bogus runtime error with final subroutine and
-fcheck=recursion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67505
What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80424
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80428
Bug ID: 80428
Summary: Incorrect -Wunused-const-variable= instance
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80429
Bug ID: 80429
Summary: -fcompare-debug failure on ppc64le with LRA
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80430
Bug ID: 80430
Summary: Vectorizer undervalues cost of alias checking for
versioning
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80430
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80422
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
This is a latent bug in cross jumping AFAICT.
Essentially a forwarder block becomes unreachable during cfg_cleanup. Later
we're cross jumping an indirect (via more forwarders) successor of the now
unreacha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80422
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Assignee|unassigned at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80401
--- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This was fixed somewhere in the revisions 246851 through 246857.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80431
Bug ID: 80431
Summary: Use of "this" pointer in member initializer causes
constructor not to be called (or ICE on gcc 7)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80401
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Looks like r246854 is very relevant. Thanks, Vlad!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80432
Bug ID: 80432
Summary: std::pow gives wrong results for long double arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80421
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80421
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> Confirmed, only GCC 5.x is affected. Started to be fixed on trunk by
> r227307. adding Jeff to CC.
That might be covering up a latent bug depending on where the f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80210
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
A more direct test case:
bergner@bns:~/gcc/BUGS/PR80210> cat sqrt.i
double
foo (double a)
{
return __builtin_sqrt (a);
}
#pragma GCC target "no-powerpc-gpopt"
bergner@bns:~/gcc/BUGS/PR80210>
/home/bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80392
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Known t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80426
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80421
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spop at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80432
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80210
--- Comment #4 from Peter Bergner ---
So it seems rs6000_pragma_target_parse() ends up calling
rs6000_option_override_internal(), which is modifying the options via global
variables. All other arches pass in the option variables to their
*__opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80432
--- Comment #2 from Hao Zhang ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Can't reproduce, can you please provide options you use to build the
> executable?
I didn't use any extra options besides g++ pow.cpp, and both my CFLAGS and
CXXFLAGS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80432
--- Comment #3 from Hao Zhang ---
(In reply to Hao Zhang from comment #2)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > Can't reproduce, can you please provide options you use to build the
> > executable?
>
> I didn't use any extra options be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80432
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80098
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri Apr 14 20:27:18 2017
New Revision: 246930
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246930&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-04-14 Michael Meissner
PR target/80098
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80098
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79929
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
At -O2 the memset is removed very early in the optimization pipeline. Thus
there's no warning at O2, but there is a warning at O1. Reality is some
warnings are going to give false positives when optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80433
Bug ID: 80433
Summary: [CRIS] ICE at -O2: unrecognized insn (post_inc on acr)
building glibc sha512.c
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80429
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80361
--- Comment #21 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Apr 14 21:17:52 2017
New Revision: 246934
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246934&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-14 Janus Weil
PR fortran/80361
* cl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78994
--- Comment #9 from PeteVine ---
Well, yes, that fixes the -Ofast issue for me:
-mcpu=cortex-a53 -frename-registers
iir:65952 ns per loop
iir_2: 63098 ns per loop
-mcpu=cortex-a57 (-frename-registers)
iir:62839 ns per loop
iir_2: 6267
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80433
--- Comment #1 from David B. Robins ---
Created attachment 41203
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41203&action=edit
Pass register context for post_inc reload; allow GENNONACR_REGS as preferred.
I am attaching a potential fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79964
PeteVine changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80346
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80434
Bug ID: 80434
Summary: internal compiler error: Killed (program cc1plus)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80434
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
How much memory do you have on this machine?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80346
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Bonzini ---
> So AFAICT, the warning for the first testcase is valid as well.
True, but isn't the maximum object size (2^63-1 aka PTRDIFF_MAX) as bogus as
2^64-1? We are using -1 which is a bit ugly but SIZE_MAX would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80346
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Given an unknown object size and a byte count of -1 we ought to be warning
IMHO.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80346
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Bonzini ---
And also treat it as undefined behavior and go straight to the else...
kidding, but not entirely!).
The main issue is that here we _are_ testing the overflow behavior of the
function, so we cannot pass sz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80346
--- Comment #15 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I was looking pretty hard for something the compiler could use to avoid the
problematical paths. That's always my first approach since doing so removes
the warning and generates better code.
I just couldn
66 matches
Mail list logo
