https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81643
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79391
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81790
Bug ID: 81790
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in vn_nary_build_or_lookup_1, at
tree-ssa-sccvn.c:1738
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81790
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81791
Bug ID: 81791
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in
cfg_layout_redirect_edge_and_branch, at cfgrtl.c:4422
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81791
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81791
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81355
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Aug 10 07:43:49 2017
New Revision: 251020
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251020&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix target attribute handling (PR c++/81355).
2017-08-10 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81519
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81355
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.4.0, 6.3.0, 7.1.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80551
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #3)
> It apparently started failing last week of January 2017. Only 64-bit
> fails, -m32 is fine.
>
> I don't know where that missing function name is coming from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69004
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81784
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Aug 10 08:54:04 2017
New Revision: 251021
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251021&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/81784
* gcc.dg/compare2.c: Update dg-bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81784
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77732
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81337
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40298
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69026
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69025
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81389
rockeet changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rockeet at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9 from r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81482
--- Comment #4 from kloetzl ---
> And changing the algorithm to make no copies would not make it opaque, because
> the lack of copies would be observable. As the standard says, whether copies
> are made or not is unspecified. So if you want to tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #64 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 41963
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41963&action=edit
Log file with the patch in comment 63
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81779
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81792
Bug ID: 81792
Summary: New fails in compare2.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81792
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81784
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81793
Bug ID: 81793
Summary: static pie fails on powerpc-linux
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81794
Bug ID: 81794
Summary: "would be stringified in traditional C" warning should
be controlled by -Wtraditional
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80551
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Why disable it? Can the feature not work, can the test not work?
Disabling the test is papering over the problem as far as I see.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80551
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> Why disable it? Can the feature not work, can the test not work?
>
> Disabling the test is papering over the problem as far as I see.
The test does not wor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80551
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Why can't the unwinder find the function name here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81783
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81389
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81795
Bug ID: 81795
Summary: Stray "originally defined here" when using
-Wc++-compat with #pragma GCC diagnostic push/pop
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81795
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sbergman at redhat dot com
Target Milestone: ---
> $ g++ --version
> g++ (GCC) 8.0.0 20170810 (experimental)
> Copyright (C) 2017 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> This is f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
Bug ID: 81797
Summary: gcc 7.1.0 fails to build on macOS 10.13 (High Sierra):
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81691
Igor Venevtsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||igor.venevtsev at intel dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81783
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
I have a patch, but as usually, there's a problem with constants coming from
macros...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67638
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Can't reproduce with cross compiler on trunk and gcc-5 branch. Is it
> reproducible with cross compiler? Which options do you use?
You have to use -m4 or -m4a (SH4 or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't see how this can happen, that header is present in the libstdc++ source
tree and there's nothing target-specific about it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81798
Bug ID: 81798
Summary: Please introduce new attribute to tell that function
zeroes returned memory
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Do you have the file $target/libstdc++-v3/include/stamp-bits-sup ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81485
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-08-08 00:00:00 |2017-8-10
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo ---
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.0 20170810 (experimental) [trunk revision 251019] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 -c small.c
$
$ gcc-trunk -O3 -c small.c
small.c: In function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81800
Bug ID: 81800
Summary: [8 regression] on aarch64 ilp32 lrint should not be
inlined as two instructions
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67638
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81485
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81800
--- Comment #1 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
b.c:
long f(double x)
{
return __builtin_lrint(x);
}
and an example value where the exceptions are wrong is 0x1p32 + 0.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81485
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
>
> Good, I can confirm it works for GCC 5. Let's then bisect that..
I'm not sure whether this will reveal anything useful.
It's probably just a bug in the function sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81485
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81801
Bug ID: 81801
Summary: [PATCH] Difference of two pointers generates signed
overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81485
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
And in fact, there has been a change to the function sh_find_set_of_reg. I'd
have to dig through the archives etc to find out what was going on there.
Meanwhile, it seems that the small backport patch below fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81795
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> You're right, do you want to send a patch or should I handle it?
It'd probably be better if you handled it; my hard drive that has the ssh keys
that let me commi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81795
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81800
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81736
--- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Aug 10 15:29:05 2017
New Revision: 251028
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251028&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Don't use frame pointer without stack access
When there is n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81802
Bug ID: 81802
Summary: Report cuLaunchKernel launch dimensions in
GOMP_OFFLOAD_run
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81802
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81803
Bug ID: 81803
Summary: Miscompilation at -O1 on mips64el
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81804
Bug ID: 81804
Summary: m32c ICE during configure at leaf_function_p, at
final.c:4317
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81805
Bug ID: 81805
Summary: Another libgomp.c/for-5.c failure on nvptx -- illegal
memory access
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81803
James Cowgill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||james410 at cowgill dot org.uk
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81803
--- Comment #2 from Aurelien Jarno ---
(In reply to James Cowgill from comment #1)
> Here's another testcase which is reduced a bit further using creduce. It
> requires -O2 to trigger the bug (but that may be unrelated).
I reported it as a misco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81805
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov ---
Can't reproduce this on my end. Are you going to proceed with analyzing the
failure?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81798
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81805
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
Simplified version, aborts in host code because loop has no effect:
...
#include
extern void abort ();
#define N 32ULL
#pragma omp declare target
int a[N];
#pragma omp end declare target
const unsigned lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81806
Bug ID: 81806
Summary: Split in pbds works in O(n) instead of O(log n)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81586
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81586
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Aug 10 17:40:11 2017
New Revision: 251029
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251029&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/81586 - valgrind error in output_buffer_append_r with -Wall
gcc/Ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81803
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81803
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81141
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81799
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81807
Bug ID: 81807
Summary: many *.cc asan tests fail on powerpc64
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79845
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81805
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
The new testcase fails on any target and not related to offloading. Simplified
further:
#define N 32ULL
int a[N];
const unsigned long long c = 0x7fffULL;
f2_tpf_static32 (void)
{
unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81807
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64*-*-* |powerpc64*-*-*,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81808
Bug ID: 81808
Summary: 27_io /basic_fstream/53984.cc failure on AIX
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81808
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81808
--- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 41967
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41967&action=edit
Pre-processed source of testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81808
--- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn ---
After in >> x, x appears to contain the value 0x02ff22770.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80452
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81807
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64*-*-*, |
|aarch64*-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81337
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Bug 52477 deals with the parallel issue for construction. As I mentioned
there, I think the right solution is to handle attribute constructor/destructor
using the C++ __static_initialization_and_destruction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80452
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Aug 10 19:07:30 2017
New Revision: 251035
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251035&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/80452 - Core 1579, implicit move semantics on return/throw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80451
Bug 80451 depends on bug 80452, which changed state.
Bug 80452 Summary: [DR 1579] incorrect value category deduced for return value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80452
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80452
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81808
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #3)
> After in >> x, x appears to contain the value 0x02ff22770.
That's just an indeterminate value because it was never initialized, and
doesn't get written to by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80451
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Summ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81337
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52477
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52477
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81808
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
On AIX reading the directory just reads the actual contents of the directory,
i.e. the files contained in the directory. Maybe we should restrict the test to
only run on targets where that read used to fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81799
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81809
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81809
Bug ID: 81809
Summary: missing -Wuninitialized due to alias analysis
limitation
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81359
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Aug 10 19:55:48 2017
New Revision: 251036
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251036&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/81359 - Unparsed NSDMI error from SFINAE context.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81738
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Thu Aug 10 19:58:16 2017
New Revision: 251037
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251037&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR81738: Split vect-alias-check-6.c
The second loop in
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
