https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80265
--- Comment #33 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> I think there was a bug report in the last month or so asking for some
> builtin to detect when we're in a constexpr context.
Now that we have (__builtin_)is_co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80265
--- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45467
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45467&action=edit
gcc9-pr86590.patch
Untested patch to use __builtin_is_constant_evaluated() here. I believe it
should help, th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88902
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Jan 19 08:43:12 2019
New Revision: 268091
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268091&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/88902
* trans-decl.c (gfc_get_symbol_decl): Don
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88902
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80265
--- Comment #35 from Marc Glisse ---
I just noticed that Jonathan has already written such a patch in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590#c28 but didn't commit it
(maybe because is_constant_evaluated was not committed yet, or becau
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590
--- Comment #31 from Marc Glisse ---
Adding "inline" to _M_construct does convince the inliner to proceed, but I
don't know if that would cause too much bloat in other code, it would be best
if IPA somehow guessed that this case is interesting wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88871
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Jan 19 11:03:28 2019
New Revision: 268092
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268092&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-17 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/88871
* resolve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88871
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83599
--- Comment #2 from Yibiao Yang ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Thanks for another report, in this case the code is invalid:
>
> gcc pr83599.c -Wreturn-type
> pr83599.c: In function ‘func’:
> pr83599.c:7:1: warning: control rea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88922
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80265
--- Comment #36 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #35)
> I just noticed that Jonathan has already written such a patch in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86590#c28 but didn't commit it
> (maybe because is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32628
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse ---
Nowadays, we consider that we can only access half of the address space, and
you can only add up to PTRDIFF_MAX to a pointer, so in some sense this does
overflow. I am thinking of removing the testcase, which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88924
Bug ID: 88924
Summary: [GCOV] Wrong frequencies when there is complicated if
expressions in gcov
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88925
Bug ID: 88925
Summary: address of static string changes
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56789
--- Comment #23 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Jan 19 20:06:41 2019
New Revision: 268096
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268096&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-19 Thomas Koenig
Paul Thomas
PR fortran/5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56789
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77960
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat Jan 19 21:18:26 2019
New Revision: 268097
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268097&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-19 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/77960
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77960
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24878
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25095
--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Indeed, ifort and PGI fortran flag this as an error in the implied DO
expression. Nagfor flags it just as an extension.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25714
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37835
--- Comment #7 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Sat Jan 19 21:45:43 2019
New Revision: 268098
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268098&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-19 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/37835
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37835
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86167
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
This seems to have been fixed on trunk (9.0) around 2018-09-26.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78685
--- Comment #15 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #13)
> (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #12)
> > Created attachment 44343 [details]
>
> > [debug] Add fkeep-vars-live
>
> > Guality testing status: Og -fkeep-va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88926
Bug ID: 88926
Summary: ivopts with some NOP conversions
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: enhancement
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38182
--- Comment #18 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #16)
> Subject: Re: stddef.h assumes machinee/ansi.h defines
> _ANSI_H_
>
> On Mon, 7 Sep 2009, prlw1 at cam dot ac dot uk wrote:
>
> > I just got stuck
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51450
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
Is this an issue with upstream libtool, too, or just GCC's patched version of
it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41045
--- Comment #11 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Steven Fuerst from comment #9)
>
> Of course... since this is not exactly the intent of the (section())
> attribute, tricks like this may break at any time.
"not exactly the intent" is a bit o
directory
'/builddir/build/BUILD/gcc-9.0.0-20190119/obj-armv7hl-redhat-linux-gnueabi/armv7hl-redhat-linux-gnueabi/libgo'
make[4]: *** [Makefile:2833: internal/cpu.lo] Error 1
make[3]: *** [Makefile:2231: all-recursive] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory
'/builddir/build/BUILD/gcc-9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88927
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||armv7hl-unknown-linux-gnuea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88927
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
This is likely fixed by https://golang.org/cl/158717.
n.go | sed -e 's/[^ ]*\.gox//g' -e 's/[^ ]*\.dep//'`; /bin/sh ./libtool
--tag GO --mode=compile
/builddir/build/BUILD/gcc-9.0.0-20190119/obj-armv7hl-redhat-linux-gnueabi/./gcc/gccgo
-B/builddir/build/BUILD/gcc-9.0.0-20190119/obj-armv7hl-redhat-linux-gnueabi/./gcc/
-B/usr/armv7hl-re
33 matches
Mail list logo
