https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80496
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70125
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71138
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81178
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57039
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57078
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81898
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Comparing the dump that is produced by version 6 and 7, I see that the latter
contains an additional line, just before the type-bound call which produces the
segfault:
(struct __vtype_amodul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
--- Comment #39 from Eric Botcazou ---
> i don't quite understand this reasoning, i would
> not expect the internal STRICT_ALIGNMENT setting
> to change how types behave (e.g. it might mean
> some code errors out, but the semantics of packed
> an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81908
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
The code was originally designed for -Walloc-size-larger-than and does the
right thing for that warning. The range I see is
_248: ~[1, 2147483647]
__builtin_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80144
--- Comment #2 from W E Brown ---
> Confirmed, although I'm not sure which of those 2 options is correct...
Per N4687, [temp.concept]/4:
A concept shall not have associated constraints (17.4.2).
Since Second's declaration does specify Never a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81898
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81918
Bug ID: 81918
Summary: muddles Concept confuses compiler (segfault)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81919
Bug ID: 81919
Summary: Compiler refuses to compile valid code
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81709
--- Comment #4 from Anatol ---
> you need to save the complete vector state
It is a good point. Would it make sense for compiler to do it? Instead of
forcing users to track if SSE registers are used and doing xsave/xrstor
manually?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81709
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Anatol from comment #4)
> > you need to save the complete vector state
>
> It is a good point. Would it make sense for compiler to do it? Instead of
> forcing users to track if SSE registers are used
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81898
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #3)
> I think the regression has been introduced by r241439, in particular the
> resolve.c part. Reverting it makes the segfault disappear.
Unfortunately reverting t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54052
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81296
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Aug 22 01:02:15 2017
New Revision: 251254
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251254&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-21 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/81296
* trans-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51836
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32415
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ryxi at stu dot xidian.edu.cn
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51834
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
*** Bug 51836 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51836
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60342
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81037
Ryan Mounce changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ryan at mounce dot com.au
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81907
--- Comment #13 from dongkyun.s at samsung dot com ---
> Confirmed the call on 6.4.1 but GCC 7 and trunk don't generate the call for
> -mcpu=cortex-a9 .
I also verified memset call is not generated with GCC 7.1 + "-mcpu=cortex-a9 or
-mtune=corte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32415
--- Comment #17 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #16)
> But if we do that there would be no PREFIX/lib(64)/libgcc_s.so.1.
Indeed, and there shouldn't be. Not providing libgcc* in that location is
exactly how --enable-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80820
Venkataramanan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||venkataramanan.kumar at amd
dot co
101 - 127 of 127 matches
Mail list logo