https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53574
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
No, it went away likely with r189298. Let me check in the testcase and close
the PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61323
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Oct 16 08:25:31 2017
New Revision: 253777
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253777&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-16 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/61323
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82556
Christoph Berg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||myon at debian dot org
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61323
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53574
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Oct 16 08:36:06 2017
New Revision: 253778
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253778&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/53574
* g++.dg/other/pr53574.C: New test.
Added:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61351
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61341
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard-gccbugzilla@metafoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82472
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67100
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67466
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53574
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62263
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82498
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82561
Bug ID: 82561
Summary: [8 regression] crash on internal compiler error: in
cp_tree_equal, at cp/tree.c:3778
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82561
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82561
--- Comment #2 from Sylvestre Ledru ---
Created attachment 42375
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42375&action=edit
preprocessed file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71996
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47346
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58896
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59002
Bug 59002 depends on bug 58896, which changed state.
Bug 58896 Summary: Incorrect handling of a private nested type of a template
specialization in the main template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58896
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61471
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed in GCC 5.1.0:
d.cc:2:31: error: redeclaration of ‘template void f(int)’ may not have
default arguments [-fpermissive]
template void f(int=3); // ill-formed
^
If we do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61471
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
*** Bug 61472 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61472
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61471
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15339
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||filip.roseen at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82561
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
OK, thanks. Can you please also attach the --save-temps -fdirectives-only file?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82561
--- Comment #4 from Sylvestre Ledru ---
Created attachment 42376
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42376&action=edit
the .s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82561
--- Comment #5 from Sylvestre Ledru ---
Created attachment 42377
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42377&action=edit
the .ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82561
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82561
Sylvestre Ledru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at debian dot org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82560
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82562
Bug ID: 82562
Summary: Incorrect warning: use copy-assignment or
copy-initialization instead when copying build
objects.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82560
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Further reduced:
extern "C" int printf(const char*, ...);
struct Foo {
Foo(const char *) {
printf("%p\tFoo(const char*)\n", this);
}
~Foo() {
printf("%p\t~Foo()\n", this);
}
};
struct Bar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82560
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57925
--- Comment #10 from Timon Knigge ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> Yes it's still open, so a fix would be welcome. Please see
> http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html if you want to contribute a fix for it.
W.r.t. to the 'legal' p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82562
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82562
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82501
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://github.com/google/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82545
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
What we do:
a ()
{
int b;
int b.0_1;
[100.00%] [count: INV]:
__builtin_setjmp_setup (0B, &);
goto ; [99.96%] [count: INV]
[0.12%] [count: INV]:
:
__builtin_setjmp_receiver (&);
goto ; [100
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61414
Sam van Kampen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sam at segfault dot party
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82527
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82442
--- Comment #1 from Wilco ---
Author: wilco
Date: Mon Oct 16 13:26:20 2017
New Revision: 253786
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253786&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR82442
Recently the gcc.dg/vect/pr31699.c was modified to check for
vect_flo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82563
Bug ID: 82563
Summary: [8 Regression] [graphite] ICE in
check_loop_closed_ssa_def, at
tree-ssa-loop-manip.c:709
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80567
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82498
--- Comment #17 from Jack Lloyd ---
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64931
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Oct 16 14:21:17 2017
New Revision: 253788
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253788&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-16 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/64931
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64931
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/8.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.0 20171016
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61414
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82565
Bug ID: 82565
Summary: Concept and lambda return type deduction cause
compilation to crash with "mmap: Cannot allocate
memory"
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82564
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
There might be a dup of this bug already filed too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82564
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Related to PR 8081.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82566
Bug ID: 82566
Summary: Internal compiler error in type deduction (with C++11)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82566
--- Comment #1 from Peter Gottschling
---
Created attachment 42379
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42379&action=edit
Preprocessed source compressed with bzip2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82567
Bug ID: 82567
Summary: [6/7/8] gfortran takes a long time to compile a simple
implied-do with -Optimization.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82568
Bug ID: 82568
Summary: ICE with do-loop inside BLOCK inside omp
Product: gcc
Version: 6.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82566
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82547
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Macleod ---
On a further note, this appears to be because wide_int tries not to use all the
words is it can sign extend?
the sequence with the issue is:
Mn = wi::min_value (128, UNSIGNED);
Mx = wi::max_value (128, UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82511
--- Comment #7 from Fritz Reese ---
Author: foreese
Date: Mon Oct 16 17:40:53 2017
New Revision: 253791
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253791&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-16 Fritz Reese
PR fortran/82511
Treat UNION components
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
I just checked on powerpc64 with a rather current trunk with
gfc::bank testing status:0 (PASSED): Performance:
2888199.6889235629
gfc::vector testing status:0 (PASSED): Perf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82511
Fritz Reese changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758
--- Comment #10 from DIL ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #9)
> I just checked on powerpc64 with a rather current trunk with
>
> gfc::bank testing status:0 (PASSED): Performance:
> 2888199.6889235629
> gfc::vecto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82567
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82568
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82567
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The change occurred between revisions r197010 (2013-03-23, fast) and r197238
> (2013-03-29, slow), likely r197217.
More likely r197216.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25297
Fritz Reese changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||foreese at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81048
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Oct 16 18:48:56 2017
New Revision: 253793
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253793&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-16 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/81048
* resolve.c (res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82569
Bug ID: 82569
Summary: [8 regression] failure in 177.mesa cpu2000 test case
after r253530
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82545
--- Comment #7 from Ivo Raisr ---
If no viable solution to splitting an abnormal edge is found, I wonder if we
could actually prevent getting into this situation?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52832
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Oct 16 19:44:04 2017
New Revision: 253794
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253794&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-16 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/52832
* match.c (gfc_m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82121
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Oct 16 19:44:04 2017
New Revision: 253794
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253794&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-16 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/52832
* match.c (gfc_m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80120
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Oct 16 19:44:04 2017
New Revision: 253794
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253794&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-16 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/52832
* match.c (gfc_m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78152
--- Comment #15 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Oct 16 19:44:04 2017
New Revision: 253794
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253794&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-16 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/52832
* match.c (gfc_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81903
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Oct 16 19:44:04 2017
New Revision: 253794
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253794&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-16 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/52832
* match.c (gfc_m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78512
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Oct 16 19:44:04 2017
New Revision: 253794
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253794&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-16 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/52832
* match.c (gfc_m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67543
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Oct 16 19:44:04 2017
New Revision: 253794
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253794&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-16 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/52832
* match.c (gfc_m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52832
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80120
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81903
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82121
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67543
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78152
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82570
Bug ID: 82570
Summary: Lambda fails to compile because it doesn't meet
constexpr requirements
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig ---
With r241438, the test passes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
And with r241439, the test fails.
Andre, any ideas?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82571
Bug ID: 82571
Summary: missing strlen optimization for memchr
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82569
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82567
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82560
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69078
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353
--- Comment #10 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Mon Oct 16 20:34:53 2017
New Revision: 253796
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253796&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-16 Vladimir Makarov
PR sanitizer/82353
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82569
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is one of those SPEC tests so I can't post the whole .i. I will see if I
can extract part of it that still shows the same bad STW/LD behavior. I
probably will not get to it until tomorrow, t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58150
npl at chello dot at changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||npl at chello dot at
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82572
Bug ID: 82572
Summary: throw on line by itself in constexpr function aborts
compile even if never reached
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71867
--- Comment #10 from asmwarrior ---
Is it related to pointer casting? I see this post:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/36816363/gcc-4-9-3-more-aggressive-null-pointer-check-removal
Some one reported that the Null check was removed in the fol
-linux-gnu/8.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.0 20171016 (experimental) [trunk revision 253793] (GCC)
$
$ gcctk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82572
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||80061
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82573
Andrew John Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gnu_andrew at member dot
fsf.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78911
Viktor Yu. Kovalskii changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vityokster at gmail dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78808
--- Comment #9 from Steven Noonan ---
Actually, I lied. It's not quite working. It's obviously close though.
The following examples of the issue are using my n-body implementation:
https://github.com/tycho/nbody
Each of the variants of n-body
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
