https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87295
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 29 08:12:02 2019
New Revision: 268361
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268361&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-29 Richard Biener
PR debug/87295
* dwarf2ou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87295
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88593
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88593
>
> --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> And isn't it latent on all older branches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89071
--- Comment #10 from Peter Cordes ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #9)
> There was similar patch for sqrt [1], I think that the approach is
> straightforward, and could be applied to other reg->reg scalar insns as
> well, independently o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89096
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-ibm-aix7.1.3.0
Target Milesto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89095
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89094
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89098
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88298
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The same bogus conversion warning appears for EOSHIFT.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89095
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Stubbs ---
There's a patch on pr88920, but no review yet. I was planning to chase it
today.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If the EABI has such requirements, then libgcc/config/arm/t-arm (or whatever
else) needs to pass down -msoft-float (or whatever else disables the VFP
registers), rather than relying on that the compiler won't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #27 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Done - do you want to keep this open?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35040
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56174
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89099
Bug ID: 89099
Summary: Have "-fopt-info" show the original source code
context
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66032
Sebastian Huber changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sebastian.huber@embedded-br
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89090
--- Comment #2 from Csaba Ráduly ---
> Are you actually seeing a problem because of this?
Not as such. What I did was to generate the pre-processed output, replace #s
with // (so the line numbers are the raw ones for the raw preprocessed file)
a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48655
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
See also pr56937 comment 8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56937
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52861
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Related to pr31016?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52119
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed by r225998
PR c++/55095
* c-common.c (c_fully_fold_internal): Warn about left shift
overflows.
Use EXPR_LOC_OR_LOC.
(maybe_warn_shift_overflow): New f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #10 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Created attachment 45547
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45547&action=edit
untested prototype patch.
Not sure if this is complete yet but it gives a framework to dig further.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Comment on attachment 45547
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45547
untested prototype patch.
Doesn't the whole unwinder (so eh_personality.cc (whole, not just one function
in it), unwind
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89090
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Csaba Ráduly from comment #2)
> > Are you actually seeing a problem because of this?
>
> Not as such. What I did was to generate the pre-processed output, replace #s
> with // (so the line num
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If one appends -mfloat-abi=soft to command lines of those files, does that
imply incompatible ABI even if nothing is passed in float/VFP etc. registers
nor there is any floating point code?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89100
Bug ID: 89100
Summary: Default widths for i, f and g format specifiers in
format strings
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89100
--- Comment #1 from MarkEggleston ---
Created attachment 45549
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45549&action=edit
Change log for gcc/fortran for patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89100
--- Comment #2 from MarkEggleston ---
Created attachment 45550
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45550&action=edit
Change Log for libgfortran for patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88150
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87864
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89100
--- Comment #3 from MarkEggleston ---
Created attachment 45551
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45551&action=edit
Change Log for testsuite for patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
We require GNU make, so one can use something like:
unwind-arm.o unwind-c.o libunwind.o pr-support.o: CFLAGS += -mfpu=none
or similar in libgcc/config/arm/t-arm (or similar) with a comment explaining
the rea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89101
Bug ID: 89101
Summary: [Aarch64] vfmaq_laneq_f32 generates unnecessary dup
instrcutions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89086
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > I don't think this is realistic unless someone steps on with at least a
> > draft.
>
> Well, yes. Howewer, I would prefer if you did not close it.
What is the rationale?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #54 from John Dong ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #53)
> Fixed on trunk sofar, still waiting for somebody to produce a testcase for
> the testsuite (I can't run-test on BE).
hi, any plan to fix on gcc-7-branch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #55 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to John Dong from comment #54)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #53)
> > Fixed on trunk sofar, still waiting for somebody to produce a testcase for
> > the testsuite (I can't run-test on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87603
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I suspect this is the reason that our is_nothrow_convertible trait fails in
some cases:
template T&& declval();
template struct bool_constant { static constexpr bool value = B; };
using true_type = bool_co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89101
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89101
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89061
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87603
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Specifically, we get a new FAIL when running the libstdc++ tests in c++2a mode:
FAIL: 21_strings/basic_string/types/1.cc (test for excess errors)
That's because the is_convertible trait instantiates the n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
--- Comment #7 from Nicolas Koenig ---
(In reply to Damian Rouson from comment #5)
> This is an exciting idea. When I gave some thought to writing a
> shared-memory alternative coarray ABI, it seemed to me that pthreads would
> be a better choic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89102
Bug ID: 89102
Summary: 'common_type' of single abominable function should not
have a nested typename
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89099
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Indeed: -fopt-info is currently implemented via writing to up to two FILE *
destinations: the dumpfile and the opt-info destination (e.g. stderr).
In particular it doesn't go through the diagnostic subsystem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89099
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #1)
> (a) unify the two, so that -fopt-info messages
..."go through the diagnostics subsystem", I meant to write.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89101
--- Comment #2 from Gael Guennebaud ---
Indeed, it fails to remove the dup only if the coefficient is used multiple
times as in the following reduced exemple: (https://godbolt.org/z/hmSaE0)
#include
void foo(const float* a, const float * b, f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45547|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #16 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> We require GNU make, so one can use something like:
> unwind-arm.o unwind-c.o libunwind.o pr-support.o: CFLAGS += -mfpu=none
> or similar in libgcc/confi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88995
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at debian dot org
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89101
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89101
--- Comment #4 from Gael Guennebaud ---
Good to know this is fixed in trunk! Thank you, and sorry for the false alarm
then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89103
Bug ID: 89103
Summary: Allow blank format items in format strings
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89103
--- Comment #1 from MarkEggleston ---
Created attachment 4
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4&action=edit
Change log for gcc/fortran for patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89103
--- Comment #2 from MarkEggleston ---
Created attachment 45556
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45556&action=edit
Change Log for gc/testsuite for patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #17 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #15)
> Created attachment 45552 [details]
> new patch.
>
> Testing this and would be grateful for a test run.
I believe the #pragma GCC push_options needs to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89104
Bug ID: 89104
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault (in tree_int_cst_elt_check)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68737
--- Comment #28 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-01-29 4:53 a.m., redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Done - do you want to keep this open?
Could the change be backported? I will test in coming days.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89105
Bug ID: 89105
Summary: -Wabi warns for functions with internal linkage
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82501
Andrey Drobyshev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a.drobyshev at samsung dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89105
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89061
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89061
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Summary|GCC 9 introduces
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88865
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jan 29 15:39:40 2019
New Revision: 268368
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268368&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89089 - ICE with [[no_unique_address]].
In 89089, we were
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89089
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jan 29 15:39:40 2019
New Revision: 268368
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268368&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89089 - ICE with [[no_unique_address]].
In 89089, we were
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89089
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88865
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86740
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89105
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87451
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89104
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66676
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66676
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looking again what ICC does here: ICC 16 emits a1 (i.e. like aligned(i_x:1)),
ICC 17 emits a8 (i.e. like aligned(i_x:8)), ICC 18 and 19 don't emit anything
(i.e. ignore the aligned clause that doesn't tell an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66676
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #18 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #15)
> Created attachment 45552 [details]
> new patch.
>
> Testing this and would be grateful for a test run.
Is this hunk needed as well, or will the unwind
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56581
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #10 from Domi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
--- Comment #20 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #15)
> Created attachment 45552 [details]
> new patch.
>
> Testing this and would be grateful for a test run.
I can confirm that this patch fixes the glibc t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51637
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Domin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88049
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89098
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89089
--- Comment #10 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
Thanks for the quick fix!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61073
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Domin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89103
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88049
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
> > We ICE on the fact that _ZTV1aIN12_GLOBAL__N_11fEE which is vtable for
> > anonymous namespace type but it has EXTERNAL flag set.
> >
> > Jason, why this happens? I am changing type to C++: if there is ind
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66708
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27436
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerhard.steinmetz.fortran@t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89086
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> > > I don't think this is realistic unless someone steps on with at least a
> > > draft.
> >
> > Well, yes. Howewer, I would prefer if you did not close it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89106
Bug ID: 89106
Summary: cast-to-union documentation incorrect w.r.t.
lvalueness
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89107
Bug ID: 89107
Summary: -Wconversion warning is not appropriate since
conversion doesn't alter value, because of mask
entered before.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89002
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] ICE in |[7/8 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
--- Comment #28 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
This PR is probably related to/duplicate of pr54618.
These two PRs are so mangled that it very difficult to tell what has been fixed
and what remains to be fixed.
IMO it would be better to open a ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54618
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #22 from Domi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89108
Bug ID: 89108
Summary: variable tracking size limit exceeded
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89108
--- Comment #1 from Jonny Grant ---
Could gcc even support a dynamic size? to avoid a hard coded limit?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35608
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
--- Comment #8 from Damian Rouson ---
(In reply to Nicolas Koenig from comment #7)
> I actually opted to use multiprocessing with shared memory (shm_open() & co)
> instead of multithreading, since it will be much easier and faster with
> static
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89100
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIR
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
