https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85039
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84782
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Raphael Kubo da Costa from comment #7)
> Is it relevant that your testcase builds fine when G's copy constructor is
> inlined?
Yes, it seems to be. The checks done for the out-of-class default
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84760
--- Comment #4 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Thu Mar 22 15:42:39 2018
New Revision: 258774
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258774&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2018-03-22 Kelvin Nilsen
PR target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85007
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Is there a new recommended way to get gnatlink to generate a 32-bit bind
> file and link object on MULTIARCH systems (x86/x86_64 in this specific
> case)? It seems this would be functionality that would be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84269
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #8)
> We ought to suggest including for this, and probably various other
> stdlib templates.
This should cover most of the common ones:
std::istream
std::ostrea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85007
--- Comment #5 from Eric Reischer ---
The multilib switch (-m32 -- which is undocumented as being valid for gnatmake
incidentally) already is being passed to "gnatmake" -- it properly passes this
flag to gcc when compiling the spec and body files
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85035
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-7.3.0/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#index-fdelete-null-pointer-checks
This option is enabled by default on most targets. On Nios II ELF, it defaults
to off. On AVR and CR16, th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85007
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The multilib switch (-m32 -- which is undocumented as being valid for
> gnatmake incidentally)
Well, like the dozens of -f and -m switches accepted by the compiler and
documented in the GCC manual. What w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83157
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85007
--- Comment #7 from Eric Reischer ---
To make it easier to track down, can you post your configure line?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85038
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note on some aarch64 micro-arch, the zero extend does not take up an issue slot
and is removed in the pipeline before issue. So it might be less than an issue
about the zero extend there except for cache rea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85033
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85033
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
int d = __builtin_offsetof(struct T { void foo (); }, foo);
also emits
error: cannot apply ‘offsetof’ to member function ‘T::foo()’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84826
--- Comment #10 from sudi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sudi
Date: Thu Mar 22 17:24:41 2018
New Revision: 258777
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258777&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM][PR target/84826] Fix ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2304 o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85007
--- Comment #8 from Eric Reischer ---
N/M -- I found the trigger.
I intend to use the 7.3 tree of "gcc-7.3" to do my compilation rather than the
system-search-provided "gcc". gnatmake-7.3 doesn't seem to want to use the
"gcc-7.3" provided in th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77941
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 02:27:25PM +, jb at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77941
>
> --- Comment #8 from Janne Blomqvist ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85034
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85042
Bug ID: 85042
Summary: Empty derived type allocation ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
--- Comment #19 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Mar 22 17:42:32 2018
New Revision: 258778
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258778&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
xfail experimental/memory_resource/resource_adaptor.cc on 32-bit Solaris/x86
(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
--- Comment #20 from Rainer Orth ---
Xfailed for 7.4, too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85034
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84762
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85042
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84762
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
4.6 .. 7.x behave like you say (I don't have older compilers handy).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85039
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84762
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The problem in trunk happens at expand time already: it loads the 32-bit word
it created from stack, and then shifts it left by -8 bits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85033
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Started to ICE with r82549 when __builtin_offsetof has been introduced.
>
> Wouldn't
> error: ‘struct ’ has no member named ‘a’
> that the C FE emits be better?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85007
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I intend to use the 7.3 tree of "gcc-7.3" to do my compilation rather than
> the system-search-provided "gcc". gnatmake-7.3 doesn't seem to want to use
> the "gcc-7.3" provided in the same folder as it, so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41767
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||deferred
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37949
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85007
--- Comment #10 from Eric Reischer ---
The gcc configure line was taken directly from the Debian distribution package
build script. Distros frequently allow having multiple versions of gcc
installed, and give them the appropriate extension via t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61252
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85007
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The gcc configure line was taken directly from the Debian distribution
> package build script. Distros frequently allow having multiple versions of
> gcc installed, and give them the appropriate extension
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85043
Bug ID: 85043
Summary: -Wuseless-cast false positive for temporary objects
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61252
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34716
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58074
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||deferred
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70742
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85030
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Trying to create BLKmode subreg of something (or subreg from BLKmode) is not
> going to work well, but don't know the LRA code enough to know how to safely
> g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65703
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78263
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||deferred
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=448
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41179
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80265
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84760
kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60458
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60483
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
This seems to be fixed on 7.3.0 and trunk (8.0).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29550
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||deferred
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60458
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Did this fix it?
Yes for trunk, but I still get an ICE with 7.3.0 for the test in comment 0:
pr60458.f90:18:0:
function TestP(this)
internal compiler error: in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.c:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83937
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84751
Will Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41299
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Known
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46524
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63734
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39714
Bug 39714 depends on bug 39726, which changed state.
Bug 39726 Summary: [5 Regression][cond-optab] ColdFire pessimizations on
QImode/HImode tests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39726
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39726
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65964
Bug 65964 depends on bug 39726, which changed state.
Bug 39726 Summary: [5 Regression][cond-optab] ColdFire pessimizations on
QImode/HImode tests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39726
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65501
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63630
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85043
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63734
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #7)
> 5 branch is closed
You closed the PR, so does that mean you checked and it is fixed at least on
trunk?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85007
--- Comment #12 from Eric Reischer ---
It's in there on my target system; I just missed it when I was transcribing
over into the report.
It looks from gnatlink.adb:540 (of 7.3.0), if the "--GCC=" flag is specified,
it short-circuits all other ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83980
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85007
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ---
> It looks from gnatlink.adb:540 (of 7.3.0), if the "--GCC=" flag is
> specified, it short-circuits all other args that normally would have been
> passed to the linker, including the optimization level, "-m3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85036
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 43736
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43736&action=edit
Tentative fix
Richard, please give it a try, as specialist of weird build setups. ;-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922
--- Comment #14 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Mar 22 21:42:07 2018
New Revision: 258784
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258784&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-22 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/84922
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=448
--- Comment #36 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I don't think this bug meets the definition of WAITING.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78489
--- Comment #2 from Eric Fiselier ---
Created attachment 43737
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43737&action=edit
reproducer2.cpp
Another reproducer: This one is a regression from 7.3
https://godbolt.org/g/UEti9f
Could someb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85043
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80433
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84269
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85021
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85044
Bug ID: 85044
Summary: ENDBR is missing in ix86_trampoline_init
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
ot;GCC: (GNU) 8.0.1 20180322 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"x",@progbits
.section.note.gnu.property,"a"
.align 8
.long1f - 0f
.long4f - 1f
.long5
0:
.string "GNU"
1:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84642
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Mar 23 01:18:48 2018
New Revision: 258790
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258790&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Disable auto_is_implicit_function_template_parm_p while parsing attribu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84729
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Mar 23 01:19:01 2018
New Revision: 258791
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258791&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c++/84729] reject parenthesized array init
A parenthesized initial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84942
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Mar 23 01:18:48 2018
New Revision: 258790
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258790&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Disable auto_is_implicit_function_template_parm_p while parsing attribu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84610
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Mar 23 01:18:48 2018
New Revision: 258790
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258790&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Disable auto_is_implicit_function_template_parm_p while parsing attribu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84789
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Mar 23 01:19:14 2018
New Revision: 258792
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258792&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c++/84789] do not fail to resolve typename into template-independen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71251
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Fri Mar 23 04:09:06 2018
New Revision: 258793
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258793&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c++/71251] check tmpl parms in template using decl
Check that temp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84968
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84973
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63630
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #6)
> gcc-5 branch is closed; is this bug still valid for newer branches?
Reload flaws are usually very "instable" w.r.t. to the test case(s) that
thrigger them. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63630
--- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #6)
> gcc-5 branch is closed; is this bug still valid for newer branches?
...and for such "spill fails" it's impossible to tell, at least for me, whether
they are d
101 - 184 of 184 matches
Mail list logo
