https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81423
Davin McCall changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davmac at davmac dot org
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81423
--- Comment #16 from Dmitry Babokin ---
ll = -5597998501375493990LL;
// result is 2595916314 here.
ll = unsigned(5677365550390624949L - ll) - (ull1 > 0);
So:
// t1 is 466811183
unsigned long long int t1 = ll + -2129105131L;
// t2 is 10280
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81423
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Oct 14 08:34:11 2017
New Revision: 253749
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253749&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/81423
* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr81423
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81423
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Davin McCall from comment #15)
> Apologies if I'm wrong and just making noise but doesn't the test case
> involve a left shift of a value greater than the bit width of the left
> operand and the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82540
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82540
--- Comment #3 from Igor Kozhukhov ---
but some components in Debian mainstream are using gcj for builds - how to do
it ?
i'm using Debian stretch repo for my ports to DilOS.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82540
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> but some components in Debian mainstream are using gcj for builds - how to
> do it ?
You need to ask the Debian maintainers - they are presumably well aware of the
decision by now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82550
Bug ID: 82550
Summary: program using submodules fails to link
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82529
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79864
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Note, there is a small difference to pr78963
Should be 79863.
Compiling the test with '-Wall -Wextra -fcheck=all -Ofast -m32
-fsanitize=address' gives
pr79864.f90:4:0:
si = ssi
Warning: 'ssi.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79863
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Same result as in pr79863 comment 3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79863
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Same result as in pr79863 comment 3.
I mean 'Same result as in pr79864 comment 3'.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82551
Bug ID: 82551
Summary: msp430-toolchain imported to eclipse
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82551
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81344
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82550
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82549
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81344
--- Comment #3 from Ignacio Fernández Galván ---
Do you expect any feedback from me?
#1 would of course work, but the point is that I'd like to set
'-ffpe-trap=set1,set2' as the default for all files, and then disable set2 only
for some files. T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82540
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82540
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> This bug is for the gcc-6-branch though which still had it.
Sure, it's hard to report a Java bug for later releases since it's gone. ;-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81344
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Do you expect any feedback from me?
Yes, I did!-(
> #1 would of course work, but the point is that I'd like to set
> '-ffpe-trap=set1,set2' as the default for all files, and then disable set2
> onl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82549
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42367
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42367&action=edit
gcc8-pr82549.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82548
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Oct 14 12:32:17 2017
New Revision: 253753
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253753&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/82548
* config.gcc (*-*-solaris2*, i[34567]86
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82551
--- Comment #2 from Yong ---
Thank you for your reply.
I will have a look into that,
THank you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Do you have access to a recent revision of trunk (8.0)? If yes, do you still
see the problem?
I understand that you are not willing to reduce your code. If yes, I have
managed to compile gfc_vector.F9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71867
--- Comment #9 from asmwarrior ---
I see this crash issue again, but still it happens in another place of the wx's
source code, add the
__attribute__((optimize("O0")))
To the function which cause the crash can workaround this issue. Note that t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70455
Vincas Dargis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vindrg at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82552
Bug ID: 82552
Summary: No warning when using uninitialized values in
initializer list
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82552
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is a duplicate of an existing bug report.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82552
--- Comment #2 from Stephan Beyer ---
I had expected this but I could not find the specific one.
(I found a few related ones that were resolved as FIXED.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82548
mateuszb at poczta dot onet.pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82553
Bug ID: 82553
Summary: memory_blockage breaks bootstrap on powerpc
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: blocker
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82553
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82553
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The patch does only:
+expand_memory_blockage (void)
+{
+ if (targetm.have_memory_blockage)
+emit_insn (targetm.gen_memory_blockage ());
+ else
+expand_asm_memory_blockage ();
+}
So, if the target do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82553
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Ouch...
Index: optabs.c
===
--- optabs.c(revision 253752)
+++ optabs.c(working copy)
@@ -6297,7 +6297,7 @@
static void
expand_memory_bl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82553
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat Oct 14 17:46:49 2017
New Revision: 253759
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253759&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/82553
* optabs.c (expand_memory_block
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82553
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70455
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Vincas Dargis from comment #3)
> This warning occurred when building qTox [qtox] on Debian 9 (stretch) i686
> with gcc (Debian 6.3.0-18) 6.3.0 20170516 when built with -Wstrict-overflow.
>
> It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82554
Bug ID: 82554
Summary: uniform_real_distribution can generate the upper
endpoint
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82531
Arturs Zoldners changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42363|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70455
--- Comment #5 from Vincas Dargis ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Can you file a separate bug with the preprocessed source, I suspect the
> issue there is different from the original issue listed here.
Could you elaborate th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62263
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Oct 14 18:47:14 2017
New Revision: 253760
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253760&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/62263
PR middle-end/82498
* tree-ssa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82498
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Oct 14 18:47:14 2017
New Revision: 253760
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253760&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/62263
PR middle-end/82498
* tree-ss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82498
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Oct 14 18:48:38 2017
New Revision: 253761
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253761&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/62263
PR middle-end/82498
* tree-ss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62263
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Oct 14 18:48:38 2017
New Revision: 253761
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253761&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/62263
PR middle-end/82498
* tree-ssa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70455
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Vincas Dargis from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> > Can you file a separate bug with the preprocessed source, I suspect the
> > issue there is different from the ori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82511
--- Comment #5 from Fritz Reese ---
Nice! That should probably not compile. There is some trickiness because it
is valid to create a RECORD variable with the same name as a STRUCTURE.
I’ll get on that as well.
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017, 13:49 sgk at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82511
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 07:33:28PM +, fritzoreese at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> --- Comment #5 from Fritz Reese ---
> Nice! That should probably not compile. There is some trickiness because it
> is valid t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81016
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sat Oct 14 20:06:08 2017
New Revision: 253762
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253762&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-14 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/81016
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81016
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81054
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80511
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8 Regression] |[8 Regression]
|gcc.dg/W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82555
Bug ID: 82555
Summary: SPECcpu201 Wrf_s deadlock
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80908
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sat Oct 14 20:35:36 2017
New Revision: 253763
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253763&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-14 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/80908
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82555
--- Comment #1 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
My gcc is slightly old.
gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/kugan.vivekanandarajah/install/test/usr/local/bin/../libexec/gcc/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/8.0.0/lto-w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80908
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82555
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||81195
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82555
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also related to PR 78387.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82555
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82554
--- Comment #1 from Ben Longbons ---
Ugh, part of my explanation was wrong: it's not the difference of exponents,
it's the number of common bits between the min and the (inclusive) max. That
just happens to both be 1 bit when the (exclusive) max
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71832
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
Related to PR71169.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82552
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> This is a duplicate of an existing bug report.
bug 19808 perhaps?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82555
--- Comment #5 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Actually PR 78387 seems exactly this issue. Please test with a newer
> version of gfortran.
Thanks Andrew. Looks like this is the issue. So far, curre
63 matches
Mail list logo
