https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82003
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81993
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Aug 29 07:06:46 2017
New Revision: 251399
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251399&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-29 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81977
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Aug 29 07:06:46 2017
New Revision: 251399
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251399&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-29 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82003
--- Comment #8 from José Pekkarinen ---
Any chance the fix would be backported to gcc 5.4.X?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82016
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Component|target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81993
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82014
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82012
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39851
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Aug 29 07:46:10 2017
New Revision: 251400
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251400&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix --help=target (PR other/39851).
2017-08-29 Martin Liska
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39851
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82018
Bug ID: 82018
Summary: [6/7/8 Regression] missing warnings with -Wconversion
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82018
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82011
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, so a simple checking patch like the following unfortunately fires
right and left, restricting it to DW_AT_inline doesn't fire for me on
the testcase you mention (add || a->dw_attr != DW_AT_inline to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82004
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrey Guskov from comment #2)
> Approximately a hundred different variables and function calls, the majority
> of which are raised to the second or third power, sometimes fourth or fifth.
> As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79832
listcrawler at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||listcrawler at gmail dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82018
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at netcologne dot de
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82011
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Ok. I think I left some dead (but not so dead as it appears) code in
gen_subprogram_die. So I am testing (together with the verification)
Index: gcc/dwarf2out.c
===
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81974
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I applied the fix and I confirm it works.
Thank you Thomas for your fast intervention.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81926
--- Comment #13 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 42065
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42065&action=edit
proposed patch
The following patch bootstrapped successfully on sparc-sun-solaris2.11 with
as/ld
and the compari
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81295
--- Comment #12 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Aug 29 08:22:44 2017
New Revision: 251402
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251402&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR driver/81523: Make -static override -pie
-static and -pie together beha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81523
--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Aug 29 08:22:44 2017
New Revision: 251402
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251402&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR driver/81523: Make -static override -pie
-static and -pie together behav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81170
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Aug 29 08:22:44 2017
New Revision: 251402
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251402&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR driver/81523: Make -static override -pie
-static and -pie together behav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81170
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Aug 29 08:23:44 2017
New Revision: 251403
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251403&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] linux startfile/endfile
These need to match the gnu-user.h definit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81295
--- Comment #13 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Aug 29 08:23:44 2017
New Revision: 251403
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251403&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] linux startfile/endfile
These need to match the gnu-user.h defini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81523
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Aug 29 08:25:17 2017
New Revision: 251404
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251404&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR driver/81523: Make -static override -pie
-static and -pie together behav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81170
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Aug 29 08:25:17 2017
New Revision: 251404
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251404&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR driver/81523: Make -static override -pie
-static and -pie together behav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81295
--- Comment #14 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Aug 29 08:25:17 2017
New Revision: 251404
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251404&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR driver/81523: Make -static override -pie
-static and -pie together beha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81170
--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Aug 29 08:27:02 2017
New Revision: 251405
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251405&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] linux startfile/endfile
These need to match the gnu-user.h definit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81295
--- Comment #15 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Aug 29 08:27:02 2017
New Revision: 251405
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251405&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] linux startfile/endfile
These need to match the gnu-user.h defini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81170
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81295
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81295
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81298
Bug 81298 depends on bug 81295, which changed state.
Bug 81295 Summary: bootstrap broken on powerpc-linux-gnu with
--enable-default-pie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81295
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82012
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|s390x-linux-gnu |s390x-linux-gnu, nios2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81295
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.2.1
Target Milestone|7.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81926
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #12 from Dennis Clarke ---
> I don't mean to ask what may seem obvious but does it make sense to
> add a not required "dummy .text" section? I mean to say, is there a
> v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82010
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82018
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #0)
>
> i8 = 2.0
> 1
> Warning: Possible change of value in conversion from REAL(4) to INTEGER(8)
> at (1) [-Wconversion]
Note that if I change 2.0 to 2.1 her
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39851
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Aug 29 08:35:46 2017
New Revision: 251406
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251406&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix --help=target (Ada) (PR other/39851)
2017-08-29 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81926
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Note that dwarf2out.c causes the section to be emitted via
static void
dwarf2out_assembly_start (void)
{
#ifndef DWARF2_LINENO_DEBUGGING_INFO
ASM_GENERATE_INTERNAL_LABEL (text_section_label, TEXT_SECTION
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81841
--- Comment #3 from dbroemmel ---
I ran 'make check-gfortran' with version 6.2.0 and the added line in parse.c.
Here's the result:
=== gfortran Summary ===
# of expected passes42612
# of expected failures 7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82018
--- Comment #3 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de
---
Am 29.08.2017 um 10:35 schrieb janus at gcc dot gnu.org:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82018
>
> --- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to janus from co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82011
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
> Ok, so a simple checking patch like the following unfortunately fires
> right and left, restricting it to DW_AT_inline doesn't fire for me on
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81785
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Looks like removing the optimization regresses c-c++-common/restrict-2.c.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81295
--- Comment #19 from Alan Modra ---
> Are you sure other archs do not need similar fiddling?
Yes.
> Given you waited zero days for backporting...
Eh? 5a402d649 (r250974) went in Aug 8. a9b2df6cc2 (r251065) went in Aug 12.
The first one omit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82018
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82018
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2017, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
[...]
> Thanks. Can you check whether the above patch resolves the ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78119
Pawel Sikora changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.1.1
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82011
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81841
--- Comment #4 from dbroemmel ---
(In reply to janus from comment #2)
> If OpenMP actually allows this, then it is obviously a regression.
I'm not an OpenMP expert (nor am I too familiar with common blocks). The OpenMP
spec., version 4.5, says o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
> --- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81841
--- Comment #6 from dbroemmel ---
Created attachment 42066
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42066&action=edit
summary of make check-gfortran for 8.0.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81841
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to dbroemmel from comment #5)
> 'make check-gfortran' with the latest git version (only gfortran compiled)
> gives:
>
> === gfortran Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60790
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nsz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60790
--- Comment #7 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 42068
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42068&action=edit
execution test library code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60790
--- Comment #8 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 42069
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42069&action=edit
execution test main code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82019
Bug ID: 82019
Summary: [concepts] ICE if concept is not satisfied
Product: gcc
Version: c++-concepts
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60790
--- Comment #9 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
i added an execution test that aborts on modern x86_64 when built as
cc -c -o main.o main.c
cc -Wl,-z,now -shared -fPIC -o lib.so lib.c -latomic
cc -Wl,-rpath=. -o main main.o lib.so -lpthread -latom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82020
Bug ID: 82020
Summary: ICE in decompose at rtl.h:2126
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82020
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Happens on this rtl:
...
#13 0x01467933 in combine_simplify_rtx (x=0x77424c20,
op0_mode=BImode, in_dest=0, in_cond=0)
at gcc/combine.c:5599
5599 XEX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82020
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78119
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82012
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
...
> inline int __attribute__((always_inline)) foo () { return 0; }
> int __attribute__((target("soft-float"))) test () { return foo (); }
>
>
> s390 misses t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82020
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Unfortunately, haven't been able to reproduce this with an upstream branch yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82012
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82012
>
> --- Comment #3 from Andreas Krebbel ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57170
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Diagnostics for narrowing conversions involving non-constants are controlled by
-Wnarrowing (allowing them to be either warnings or errors). But narrowing
conversions involving constants are always errors.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81992
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This has been a C++ FAQ for nearly 20 years, and is even documented in our
manual:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/strings.html#strings.string.simple
Also
https://stackoverflow.com/question
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82003
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There are a few issues with generic lambdas in GCC 5, if you need to use them
you should probably just upgrade to GCC 6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81926
--- Comment #16 from Dennis Clarke ---
This is excellent follow up and it looks like GNU binutils must be around
somewhere on the system for "Go" to build. Also, I always run "gmake -k check"
for the testsuite and not sure why it would look othe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81992
--- Comment #4 from Jonny Grant ---
Hello Jonathan and Daniel
Thank you for your replies.
The stackoverlflow article suggests using which provides a
std::toupper().
I did change to that, but it still had same issue:
A)
std::transform(str.beg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82011
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82003
--- Comment #10 from José Pekkarinen ---
Not particularly, this seems to be the only piece of software in my system that
seems to use it, so I'll have to live with the elder version if this doesn't
get
backported. It would be awesome to be able t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78119
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69733
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pawel_sikora at zoho dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81926
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #16 from Dennis Clarke ---
> This is excellent follow up and it looks like GNU binutils must be around
> somewhere on the system for "Go" to build. Also, I always run "gm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69733
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77572
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81926
--- Comment #18 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Sorry for the long delay: I've been mostly away for 6 weeks, only now
> catching up.
Really no need to apologize...
> I've been seeing similar bootstrap comparison failures on Solaris/SPARC,
> but only w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67906
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't think this is a useful enhancement request as currently written.
What are the precise semantics of the new warning that you want? Which cases
should warn, and which should not?
"std::move with no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71233
--- Comment #3 from Christophe Lyon ---
As of r251385, these intrinsics are still not implemented (except for
vtst_p64).
But looking at
http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.ihi0073a/IHI0073A_arm_neon_intrinsics_ref.pdf
I noticed that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81967
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The old std::string doesn't meet all the requirements of C++11 and later
standards. Missing features include C++11 allocator support, and accepting
const_iterator for positional arguments.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70369
--- Comment #5 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 42070
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42070&action=edit
Updated list of intrinsics missing tests on aarch64
Here is an updated list of aarch64 intrinsics for which t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81926
--- Comment #19 from Dennis Clarke ---
Regarding "BUILD_CONFIG" I have about ten log files and they all say :
checking for default BUILD_CONFIG...
I have never set that var to anything.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80993
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
Author: nickc
Date: Tue Aug 29 13:20:54 2017
New Revision: 251410
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251410&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/80993
* gcc/config/msp430/msp430.c (msp430_attr):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80228
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80993
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82006
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Emrich ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Seems to work fine here (dejagnu 1.4.4)
In my case dejagnu 1.4.4 shows the same issue.
I try to find out what's causing this issue.
At the moment there are ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82006
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
In case it matters I have tcl 8.6.1 and 8.6.3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82012
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #4)
> Not sure. The user might be deliberately expecting an error when
> such function is called from wrong target context. The function
> might contain inline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79605
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79648
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81841
--- Comment #8 from dbroemmel ---
(In reply to janus from comment #7)
> Sounds unrelated to your patch (supported by the fact that the 6.2 testsuite
> runs cleanly), however I haven't seen that failure on trunk recently.
That's what I thought as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82012
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82012
>
> --- Comment #5 from Andreas Krebbel ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81803
--- Comment #7 from mpf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #6)
> > I have just noticed this which seems curious. Is the 39 -> 40 combine really
> > a valid transformation? It seems we've lost the sign extension and we'r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81923
--- Comment #4 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Created attachment 42071
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42071&action=edit
Untested fix
The patch I'm testing now. It works on attached testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81803
--- Comment #8 from James Cowgill ---
Created attachment 42072
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42072&action=edit
testcase-c
Here is another smaller testcase which was manually created. It works by using
asm to clobber all th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82021
Bug ID: 82021
Summary: Unnecessary null pointer check in global placement new
(and also in any class-specific placement new operator
declared as noexcept)
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
--- Comment #16 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Aug 29 14:41:53 2017
New Revision: 251414
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251414&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-08-29 Bill Schmidt
Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
--- Comment #17 from Bill Schmidt ---
Fixed in trunk so far. Although this test case succeeds on GCC 7, the bug is
latent there, so I'll keep this open and backport the fix to other releases in
a week or so.
1 - 100 of 197 matches
Mail list logo
