https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90552
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90592
Bug ID: 90592
Summary: Documentation: Missing word (or wrong
parenthesization) in "Function Names as Strings"
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90591
Bug ID: 90591
Summary: Avoid unnecessary data transfer out of OMP construct
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc, openmp
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678
--- Comment #40 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #39)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #36)
> > Created attachment 46396 [details]
> > poor mans solution^Whack
> How does this work if op is a SSA_NA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329
--- Comment #40 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I must say I don't like -fbroken-callers option name too much, can we use
instead something like -ftail-call-workaround={0,1,2} /
-f{,no-}tail-call-workaround
where -ftail-call-workaround == -ftail-call-work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90584
--- Comment #4 from Yibiao Yang ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> Putting "[gdb]" in the bug summary suggests you're trying to report a GDB
> bug, which doesn't belong here.
>
> You're trying to put a breakpoint on a line with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85539
Navya changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||navyadeepika.garakapati@gma
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64895
--- Comment #17 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Thu May 23 09:23:47 2019
New Revision: 271544
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271544&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
x86, testsuite - update fuse-caller-save tests.
These tests had started to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Qi Feng from comment #9)
> And there's another problem. Take `x > y && x != 0 --> x > y' for
> example, I would also like to do
>
>x < y && y != 0 --> x < y
>x != 0 && x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90590
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90590
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> This is not a libstdc++ bug, we're allowed to define whatever enumerators we
> want as long as they use reserved names.
Which is almost exactly what I said i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90590
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is not a libstdc++ bug, we're allowed to define whatever enumerators we
want as long as they use reserved names.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90589
--- Comment #4 from mccannd at uk dot ibm.com ---
I've not yet tried outside of a container.
I have a script that sets LD_PRELOAD so that I can detect problems in code I do
care about. It just so happens that this code calls ps, which then hung.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90587
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vlad at ispras dot ru
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90590
Bug ID: 90590
Summary: enumeration value not handled in switch warning for
std::ios_base::seek_dir
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90589
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Do you have the same problem not in a container?
How useful is to use the LD_PRELOAD for the ps?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90589
--- Comment #2 from mccannd at uk dot ibm.com ---
No, I've just installed the procps and libasan packages within my Fedora 30
container.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90589
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90587
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90587
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #2)
> Here is the reduced C++ code:
>
> typedef unsigned a;
> typedef char b;
> typedef struct {
> a *c;
> } d;
> int e(d *f) {
> if (f)
> return *f->c;
> }
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90576
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
So the problem can be reproduced when only factor.cc is compiled with -flto
-Os.
Problematic comparison is:
for (pivot = temp.pivots.next; pivot != &temp.pivots;
pivot = pivot->next)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90589
Bug ID: 90589
Summary: In Fedora 30 ps hangs using address sanitizer
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: san
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90584
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|MOVED |INVALID
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90510
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Thu May 23 08:22:56 2019
New Revision: 271540
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271540&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR90510] Adjust 'brig.dg/test/gimple/packed.hsail'
... for r271463
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90585
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46400
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46400&action=edit
gcc10-pr90585.patch
Untested fix. Note, the rest of libgomp uses PRIu64 only conditionally on
HAVE_INTTYPES_H,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90587
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Here is the reduced C++ code:
typedef unsigned a;
typedef char b;
typedef struct {
a *c;
} d;
int e(d *f) {
if (f)
return *f->c;
}
a g(d *f) { return e(f); }
typedef struct {
b channel;
} h;
b *j
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90584
--- Comment #2 from Yibiao Yang ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> GDB is a separate project with its own bugzilla, see
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla
Thanks.
I am not quite sure whether this is a bug of gdb or gcc.
I am wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90569
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The glibc change was https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21120 and
is present from version 2.26
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90584
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90415
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90576
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90587
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90570
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Patch candidate:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-05/msg01559.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #25 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #22)
> I've been trying out some things, and I cannot construct a failing
> test case.
>
> A sane way to build such an interface would be
>
> cat tst.f90
> module x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90588
Bug ID: 90588
Summary: [AArch64] SVE2 flag patch omits aarch64-protos.h
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #24 from Martin Liška ---
One another note is that the problematic code lives in src/netcdf/* and the
same code contain:
benchspec/CPU/521.wrf_r/src/netcdf/
and
benchspec/CPU/628.pop2_s/src/netcdf/
So that would explain also the segf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #23 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #21)
> OK, if the callee is a C function... what is its declaration
> on the Fortran side? Is there any interface, bind(c) or otherwise?
>
> I suppose there must be s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90587
Bug ID: 90587
Summary: asan: stack-use-after-scope with -O3 and -Wall
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
101 - 139 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
