https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80221
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78926
--- Comment #14 from __vic ---
GCC 7-RC1 now reports
lto1: fatal error: bytecode stream in file ‘lib/libssl.a’ generated with LTO
version 5.1 instead of the expected 6.0
compilation terminated.
lto-wrapper: fatal error: g++ returned 1 exit statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80221
--- Comment #18 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #9)
> You could further optimize the script to omit "." locations: if the "dg-*"
> directive actually is placed on the appropriate line already.
I did this in a sepa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80552
Bug ID: 80552
Summary: Make consecutive relative line numbers more
maintainable
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80221
--- Comment #19 from Tom de Vries ---
Filed spinoff PR80552 - "Make consecutive relative line numbers more
maintainable" to capture discussion related to 'continue' line and
dg-{begin,end}-same-line-output.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80552
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
FTR, a way to deal with the consecutive relative line numbers pattern using
dg-line would be:
...
foobar; /* { dg-line foobar_line } */
/* { dg-warning "warning for foobar" foobar_line }
{ dg-warning "
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80553
Bug ID: 80553
Summary: std::vector allows instantiation with type having a
deleted destructor
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80553
--- Comment #1 from Marco Arena ---
My apologies, here is the repro link:
https://wandbox.org/permlink/SOzsFGQ1vGVjwy1O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80549
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80554
Bug ID: 80554
Summary: [f08] variable redefinition in submodule
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80551
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80548
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80547
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80546
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80545
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80555
Bug ID: 80555
Summary: gfortran crashes with segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80553
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80553
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
__has_trivial_destructor(Foo) returns true for Foo which has a deleted
destructor (clang, gcc and the standard agree on this). That's bound to confuse
people forever, but I guess there's nothing we can do about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80505
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80553
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We can't change the silly rule, but I suppose we could do:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_construct.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_construct.h
@@ -114,7 +114,15 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80549
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Ok. So the issue is that the irreducible region becomes reducible after DOM1
which means cfg-cleanup ends up with a CFG that has the former exit edge
of loop 2 turned into an additional latch (re-starting t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80553
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80531
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 28 11:15:55 2017
New Revision: 247367
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247367&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/80531
* cgraph.h (symtab_node::debug_symtab)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80553
--- Comment #6 from Marco Arena ---
Hi guys,
thanks for the clarification, I didn't know it's UB, rather I thought this was
a requirement as stated here: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/concept/Erasable
(see "Notes"). I had to read the standard,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80553
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
All standard library requirements produce undefined behaviour when violated,
unless specified otherwise. I'm trying to fix that: https://wg21.link/p0411r0
It probably won't be possible to enforce the "T is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80545
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I suggest to enable them only for C family languages (I notice the options
> do not use EnabledBy()).
I guess that would also fix the bogus warning fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80531
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Apr 28 11:42:14 2017
New Revision: 247368
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247368&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/80531
* cgraph.h (symtab_node::debug_symtab)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80531
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80556
Bug ID: 80556
Summary: [8 Regression] Ada breaks bootstrap on
x86_64-apple-darwin16
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80549
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80556
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80555
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80555
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80031
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Apr 28 12:49:26 2017
New Revision: 247370
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247370&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcno file: do not stream block flags (PR gcov-profile/80031).
2017-04-28
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56469
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Apr 28 12:50:08 2017
New Revision: 247371
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247371&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Remove .gcno file when compilation does not success (PR driver/56469).
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79891
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Apr 28 12:51:05 2017
New Revision: 247374
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247374&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Make gcno more precise about BBs really belonging to a line (PR
gcov-profi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53915
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Apr 28 12:51:22 2017
New Revision: 247375
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247375&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix format_gcov to not print misleading values (PR gcov-profile/53915)
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53915
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79891
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80031
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2017-4-28
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80553
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Apr 28 12:56:53 2017
New Revision: 247379
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247379&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80553 don't allow destroying non-destructible types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80553
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80549
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 41283
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41283&action=edit
patch
Patch I am testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56469
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74750
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69790
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69790
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69790
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
I see, I believe LTO bootstrap is properly tested and I haven't noticed any
problem. What version of binutils Дилян do you use and what's your system?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80505
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> > And by the way, I tend to think that the testcase should use
> > -fno-indirect-inlining option, the indirect call is direct when the
> > IPA layer sees it.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80556
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77954
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69690
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78081
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80557
Bug ID: 80557
Summary: rewrite absolute line numbers into relative or saved
line numbers
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53984
David Rodriguez Ibeas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dibeas at ieee dot org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80557
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80558
Bug ID: 80558
Summary: VRP not handling x & -2 well
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78889
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78081
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80545
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80556
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80538
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to zulliger from comment #0)
> Which means that for values of __s.count() == 0, the current thread will
> always "yield" (according to my understanding, sleep(0) yields),
That's unspecified.
> j
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78640
--- Comment #2 from Damian Rouson ---
I think this bug just bit gfortran user and Fortran enthusiast Stefano Zhagi.
Is anyone interested in fixing it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53984
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Eventually. I tried removing the throws and got a bunch of test failures:
FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/overflow/char/9182-2.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/seekoff/wchar_t/3.cc execution test
FAIL
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: matt at godbolt dot org
Target Milestone: ---
Build: GCC v8.0.0 (built from source 20170428)
The following code:
#include
template
struct Stack_t {};
template
constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80505
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|ppc64le-linux-gnu |powerpc*-*-*
Host|ppc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68491
--- Comment #2 from Christos Zoulas ---
Created attachment 41284
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41284&action=edit
Amended cpuid patch.
Here's an amended patch against the trunk. Also sent mail to gcc-patches@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78640
--- Comment #3 from Stefano Zaghi ---
Yes, I am one who think that respecting this constrain is important: I was not
aware that standard does not allow pure polymorphic functions, thus I mislead
myself from the fact that the compiler did bot comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80557
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Apr 28 21:24:00 2017
New Revision: 247399
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247399&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Replace absolute linenrs in objc.dg,obj-c++.dg
2017-04-28 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80557
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Apr 28 21:52:16 2017
New Revision: 247400
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247400&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Replace absolute linenrs in gfortran.dg
2017-04-28 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80545
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, patch
--- Comment #3 from Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80560
Bug ID: 80560
Summary: warn on undefined memory operations involving
non-trivial types
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80560
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80523
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80523
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Apr 28 22:29:40 2017
New Revision: 247401
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247401&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/80523 - -Wformat-overflow doesn't consider -fexec-ch
75 matches
Mail list logo
