[Bug fortran/63867] LEN is lost for a CHARACTER variable inside SELECT TYPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63867 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/32199] jc1: out of memory allocating 4072 bytes after a total of 805021000 bytes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32199 nightstrike changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nightstrike at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug fortran/70006] Duplicate errors "label not defined"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70006 --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > OK, How about WONTFIX? If the programmer fixes the > issue reported in the "duplicate" error message, then > the problem goes away. Well, this is quite general: if your code does not generate any

[Bug tree-optimization/42108] [4.9 Regression] 50% performance regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42108 --- Comment #72 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Fixed on trunk (solar). Any plan for 4.9 or should this PR closed as FIXED?

Re: Wonly-top-basic-asm

On 2/26/2016 7:09 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 02/21/2016 11:27 AM, David Wohlferd wrote: So now what? I have one Bernd who likes the sample, and one who doesn't. Obviously I think what I'm proposing is better than what's there now and I've done my best to say why. But me believing it to be

[Bug target/70014] New: [ARM] Predicate does not match constraint (*subsi3_carryin_const)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70014 Bug ID: 70014 Summary: [ARM] Predicate does not match constraint (*subsi3_carryin_const) Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/60126] Internal compiler error with code using pointer reshaping (gfortran 4.8.2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60126 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/60126] Internal compiler error with code using pointer reshaping (gfortran 4.8.2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60126 --- Comment #7 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: dominiq Date: Mon Feb 29 06:09:47 2016 New Revision: 233802 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233802=gcc=rev Log: 2016-02-29 Harald Anlauf PR fortran/60126

[Bug tree-optimization/70013] New: packed structure tree-sra loses initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70013 Bug ID: 70013 Summary: packed structure tree-sra loses initialization Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

Re: [PATCH] [RFA] [PR tree-optmization/69740] Schedule loop fixups when needed

On 02/28/2016 02:11 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:48 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 3:59 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 02/25/2016 03:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote:

GNU MPFR 3.1.4 Release Candidate 2

The release of GNU MPFR 3.1.4 ("canard à l'orange", patch level 4) is imminent. Please help to make this release as good as possible by downloading and testing this release candidate: http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-3.1.4/mpfr-3.1.4-rc2.tar.xz http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-3.1.4/mpfr-3.1.4-rc2.tar.bz2

[PATCH][ARM] PR target/70008

This patches address PR 70008, where a reverse subtract with carry instruction can be generated in thumb2 mode. It was tested with no regressions in arm and thumb modes on the following targets: arm-none-linux-gnueabi arm-none-linux-gnuabihf armeb-none-linux-gnuabihf arm-none-eabi Okay for

Re: [RFC][PATCH][PR63586] Convert x+x+x+x into 4*x

That looks better, but I think the unordered_remove will break operand sorting and thus you probably don't handle x + x + x + x + y + y + y + y + y + y + z + z + z + z optimally. I'd say you simply want to avoid the recursion and collect a vector of [start, end] pairs before doing any

[Bug target/70012] New: test case gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-33.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70012 Bug ID: 70012 Summary: test case gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-vect-33.c fails Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/70011] [6 regression] test case gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-fast-math-vect-pr29925.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70011 Bill Seurer changed: What|Removed |Added Target||powerpc64le-linux-gnu CC|

[Bug target/70011] New: [6 regression] test case gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-fast-math-vect-pr29925.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70011 Bug ID: 70011 Summary: [6 regression] test case gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-fast-math-vect-pr2 9925.c fails Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status:

[Bug c/70010] powerpc: -flto forgets 'no-vsx' function attributes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70010 --- Comment #2 from Cyril Bur --- Created attachment 37820 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37820=edit with -flto

[Bug c/70010] powerpc: -flto forgets 'no-vsx' function attributes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70010 --- Comment #1 from Cyril Bur --- Created attachment 37819 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37819=edit without -flto

[Bug c/70010] New: powerpc: -flto forgets 'no-vsx' function attributes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70010 Bug ID: 70010 Summary: powerpc: -flto forgets 'no-vsx' function attributes Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR c++/69961 (invalid ctor call with dependent args)

OK. Jason

[Bug c++/70001] [5 regression] Infinity compilation time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70001 --- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #6) > struct X > { > int a; > > constexpr X () : a (0) { } > }; > > const int N = 1 << 19; > > struct A > { > X elems[N]; > } F; > > > Just playing around,

Re: [PING^3][PATCH, 12/16] Handle acc loop directive

On 22-02-16 11:57, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:54:46AM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: Following up on your suggestion to implement this during gimplification, I wrote attached patch. I'll put it through some openacc testing and add testcases. Is this approach acceptable for

[Bug target/70009] New: test case libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/vprop.c fails starting with its introduction in r233607

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70009 Bug ID: 70009 Summary: test case libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/vprop.c fails starting with its introduction in r233607 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/70006] Duplicate errors "label not defined"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70006 --- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- OK, How about WONTFIX? If the programmer fixes the issue reported in the "duplicate" error message, then the problem goes away. Amazing what an error message can convey! PS: The first duplicate

[PATCH] teach mklog to look in the current directory for ChangeLog files

From: Trevor Saunders when run in repos other than gcc mklog fails to find ChangeLog files because it looks for $0/../$dir/ChangeLog, but of course if the diff is for a project other than gcc that might not exist. It should be fine to also look for

[Bug libgcc/69997] GCC5.3.0 _Unwind_ForcedUnwind Always Abort While pthread_exit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69997 --- Comment #2 from Liu Qiang --- yeah, i recommitted the page before the first committing done.

[Bug libgcc/69997] GCC5.3.0 _Unwind_ForcedUnwind Always Abort While pthread_exit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69997 Liu Qiang changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||EH Severity|normal

[Bug c++/70001] [5 regression] Infinity compilation time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70001 --- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka --- struct X { int a; constexpr X () : a (0) { } }; const int N = 1 << 19; struct A { X elems[N]; } F; Just playing around, but naively sharing the constructor of each array element in the case of

[Bug target/70008] New: [ARM] Reverse subtract with carry can be generated in thumb2 mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70008 Bug ID: 70008 Summary: [ARM] Reverse subtract with carry can be generated in thumb2 mode Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug ipa/69990] decl alignment not respected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69990 --- Comment #3 from Alan Modra --- Oh, and in case it isn't obvious, -free-loop-vectorize is what triggers the alignment increase of arrays in pass_ipa_increase_alignment.

[Bug tree-optimization/69990] decl alignment not respected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69990 --- Comment #2 from Alan Modra --- Created attachment 37817 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37817=edit prevent var alias Jan, does this look reasonable?

[Bug tree-optimization/69990] decl alignment not respected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69990 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/60126] Internal compiler error with code using pointer reshaping (gfortran 4.8.2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60126 --- Comment #6 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: dominiq Date: Sun Feb 28 22:40:06 2016 New Revision: 233798 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233798=gcc=rev Log: 2016-02-28 Harald Anlauf PR fortran/60126

gcc-6-20160228 is now available

Snapshot gcc-6-20160228 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/6-20160228/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 6 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk revision

[Bug fortran/47674] gfortran.dg/realloc_on_assign_5.f03: Segfault at run time for deferred (allocatable) string length

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47674 --- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Sun Feb 28 22:27:55 2016 New Revision: 233797 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233797=gcc=rev Log: 2016-02-28 Thomas Koenig PR fortran/68147

[Bug fortran/68147] Potential incorrect code generation for string self-assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68147 --- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Sun Feb 28 22:27:55 2016 New Revision: 233797 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233797=gcc=rev Log: 2016-02-28 Thomas Koenig PR fortran/68147

[Bug fortran/70006] Duplicate errors "label not defined"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70006 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|NEW

[Bug fortran/70006] Duplicate errors "label not defined"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70006 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

Re: [WWWDocs] Deprecate support for non-thumb ARM devices

On February 28, 2016 3:20:24 PM CST, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >On Wed, 24 Feb 2016, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >> I propose to commit this patch later this week. > >+ Support for revisions of the ARM architecture prior to ARMv4t >has >+ been deprecated and will

[wwwdocs] PATCH for Re: Please remove mirror2.babylon.network

On Sun, 28 Feb 2016, NOC wrote: > Due to reorganization of the mirror servers we will be taking the > following mirror offline. Could you please remove it from the list? > > http://mirror2.babylon.network/gcc/ | ftp://mirror2.babylon.network/gcc/ > | rsync://mirror2.babylon.network/gcc/ Thank

[wwwdocs] PATCH for Re: Please remove mirror2.babylon.network

On Sun, 28 Feb 2016, NOC wrote: > Due to reorganization of the mirror servers we will be taking the > following mirror offline. Could you please remove it from the list? > > http://mirror2.babylon.network/gcc/ | ftp://mirror2.babylon.network/gcc/ > | rsync://mirror2.babylon.network/gcc/ Thank

[wwwdocs] Fix doc link to x86 built-in functions in gcc-4.8/changes.html

Somehow X86 apparently was changed to x86 at one point, breaking this link. Fixed thusly. Gerald Index: gcc-4.8/changes.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.8/changes.html,v retrieving revision 1.136 diff -u -r1.136

[Bug fortran/70006] Duplicate errors "label not defined"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70006 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

Re: [wwwdocs] Describe behavior of -flifetime-dse in class constructors

On Thu, 25 Feb 2016, Martin Liška wrote: > That's a suggestion for changes.html. > > Ready to be installed? Works for me, Martin, but please give Jason a day or two to comment. Thanks, Gerald

[Bug c++/70001] [5 regression] Infinity compilation time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70001 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

Re: [WWWDocs] Deprecate support for non-thumb ARM devices

On February 28, 2016 3:20:24 PM CST, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >On Wed, 24 Feb 2016, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >> I propose to commit this patch later this week. > >+ Support for revisions of the ARM architecture prior to ARMv4t >has >+ been deprecated and will

Re: [WWWDocs] Deprecate support for non-thumb ARM devices

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > I propose to commit this patch later this week. + Support for revisions of the ARM architecture prior to ARMv4t has + been deprecated and will be removed in a future GCC release. + This affects ARM6, ARM7 (but not ARM7TDMI),

Re: [WWWDocs] Deprecate support for non-thumb ARM devices

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > I propose to commit this patch later this week. + Support for revisions of the ARM architecture prior to ARMv4t has + been deprecated and will be removed in a future GCC release. + This affects ARM6, ARM7 (but not ARM7TDMI),

[Bug target/70007] New: [4.9/5/6 Regression] wrong code with -mbmi2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70007 Bug ID: 70007 Summary: [4.9/5/6 Regression] wrong code with -mbmi2 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: wrong-code Severity: normal

Re: [PATCH] [RFA] [PR tree-optmization/69740] Schedule loop fixups when needed

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:48 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 3:59 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >>> On 02/25/2016 03:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote: So I fail to see how

[Bug c++/70001] [5 regression] Infinity compilation time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70001 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from

[Bug fortran/70006] New: Duplicate errors "label not defined"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70006 Bug ID: 70006 Summary: Duplicate errors "label not defined" Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

Please remove mirror2.babylon.network

Dear, Due to reorganization of the mirror servers we will be taking the following mirror offline. Could you please remove it from the list? http://mirror2.babylon.network/gcc/ | ftp://mirror2.babylon.network/gcc/ | rsync://mirror2.babylon.network/gcc/ Once we sorted out our servers we will

[wwwdocs] Fix reference to Andreas Bauer's thesis (readings.html)

Committed. Gerald Index: readings.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/readings.html,v retrieving revision 1.244 diff -u -r1.244 readings.html --- readings.html 28 Feb 2016 19:55:15 - 1.244 +++ readings.html

Re: [PATCH][PR tree-optimization/69270] Exploit VRP information in DOM

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 01/14/2016 11:14 AM, Jeff Law wrote: >> >> On 01/14/2016 12:49 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 08:46:43AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:38:52AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:

[Bug rtl-optimization/70005] [6 Regression] wrong code at -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70005 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/56007] Remarkably bad error message with DO array=1,2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56007 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/70005] New: wrong code at -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

Thread model: posix gcc version 6.0.0 20160228 (experimental) [trunk revision 233789] (GCC) $ $ gcc-trunk -Os small.c; ./a.out $ gcc-5.3 -O2 small.c; ./a.out $ $ gcc-trunk -O2 small.c $ ./a.out Aborted (core dumped) $ --- unsigned char a = 6

[wwwdocs] readings.html -- remove broken link to PDP-11 FAQ

Not sure we should carry anything PDP-11 these days, I doubt anyone is really using this or spending time. Anyway, this link is gone and I couldn't find what appears to be an immediate replacement. Committed. Gerald Index: readings.html

[wwwdocs] extensions.html - colberg.org/gcc-lua/ now uses https

Applied. Gerald Index: extensions.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/extensions.html,v retrieving revision 1.56 diff -u -r1.56 extensions.html --- extensions.html 28 Jun 2015 16:02:25 - 1.56 +++ extensions.html

[wwwdocs] gcc-4.6/porting_to.html -- lists.fedoraproject.org is on https now

This is the only reference to lists.fedoraproject.org that I found via http; all others already are https. Committed. Index: gcc-4.6/porting_to.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.6/porting_to.html,v retrieving revision

[wwwdocs] Update link to ThreadSanitizer

This wasn't strictly broken, but redirects to a new address; still makes sense to follow that. Applied. Gerald Index: gcc-4.8/changes.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.8/changes.html,v retrieving revision 1.135 diff

[Bug c++/70001] [5 regression] Infinity compilation time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70001 --- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- Actually the nested array is enough to reproduce the issue: #include #include const int LOG = 17; const int N = (1 << LOG); std::array, LOG> F;

[Bug target/70004] [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/scalar_shift_1.c scan-assembler-times neg\\td[0-9]+, d[0-9]+ 4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70004 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug target/70004] New: [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/scalar_shift_1.c scan-assembler-times neg\\td[0-9]+, d[0-9]+ 4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70004 Bug ID: 70004 Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/scalar_shift_1.c scan-assembler-times neg\\td[0-9]+, d[0-9]+ 4 Product: gcc Version: 6.0

[Bug testsuite/70003] gcc.target/aarch64/scalar_shift_1.c should be split up

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70003 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target||aarch64-linux-gnu

[Bug testsuite/70003] New: gcc.target/aarch64/scalar_shift_1.c should be split up

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70003 Bug ID: 70003 Summary: gcc.target/aarch64/scalar_shift_1.c should be split up Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/70002] [6 Regression] gcc.dg/torture/pr52429.c -O2 -flto -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=none ICEs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70002 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|rtl-optimization|target Target Milestone|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/70002] New: [6 Regression] gcc.dg/torture/pr52429.c -O2 -flto -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=none ICEs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70002 Bug ID: 70002 Summary: [6 Regression] gcc.dg/torture/pr52429.c -O2 -flto -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=none ICEs Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/70001] [5 regression] Infinity compilation time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70001 --- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- markus@x4 tmp % cat fft-old.cpp #include #include using namespace std; typedef std::complex cd; const int LOG = 17; const int N = (1 << LOG); array A; array B; void FFT(array

[Bug fortran/56007] Remarkably bad error message with DO array=1,2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56007 --- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle --- Author: jvdelisle Date: Sun Feb 28 19:07:42 2016 New Revision: 233795 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233795=gcc=rev Log: 2016-02-28 Harald Anlauf Jerry DeLisle

[PATCH] Fix PR c++/69961 (invalid ctor call with dependent args)

In r233563 (where I applied the 2nd version of the fix for PR c++/68948) I shouldn't have reverted the original fix because it is still required for diagnosing an invalid constructor call with dependent arguments (because in that case we delay further processing of the call until instantiation).

[Bug c++/70001] [5 regression] Infinity compilation time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70001 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/69989] [6 Regression] ICE on x86_64-linux-gnu at -O3 in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes (in verify_loop_structure, at cfgloop.c:1639)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69989 --- Comment #8 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: hjl Date: Sun Feb 28 18:54:00 2016 New Revision: 233794 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233794=gcc=rev Log: Add a test for PR tree-optimization/69989 Backport from mainline

[Bug fortran/66310] Problems with intrinsic repeat for large number of copies

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66310 --- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8) ... snip ... > before the patch and with > > pr66310_1.f90:3:0: > >print *, repeat(z, huge(1_4)) > > internal compiler error: Segmentation

Re: *ping* [patch, fortran] Two associate fixes in dump-parse-tree.c

On 02/28/2016 03:42 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote: > I wrote: > > Patch at > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00941.html > >> OK for trunk? >> >> Regards >> >> Thomas >> >> 2016-02-14 Thomas Koenig >> >> * dump-parse-tree.c (show_code_node): Print

Re: *ping* [patch, Fortran] Fix PR fortran/68147, temporaries for allocatable strings

On 02/28/2016 03:39 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote: > I wrote: > >> So, OK for these branches? > > Patch at > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01364.html > > Regards > > Thomas >> >> 2016-02-18 Thomas Koenig >> >> PR fortran/68147 >> PR

[Bug fortran/56007] Remarkably bad error message with DO array=1,2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56007 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org

Re: [PATCH][SPARC] sparc: switch -fasynchronous-unwind-tables on by default.

> In sparc systems glibc uses libgcc's unwinder to implement the > backtrace(3) function, defaulting to a simple non-dwarf unwinder if > libgcc_s doesn't provide a working _Unwind_Backtrace. > > However, libgcc's unwinder uses .eh_frame instead of .frame_debug, and > .eh_frame is fully populated

[Bug c++/70001] New: Infinity compilation time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70001 Bug ID: 70001 Summary: Infinity compilation time Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/67013] Compilation error for well-formed program with empty declaration in the global namespace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67013 TC changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com --- Comment #11 from TC

[Bug fortran/61156] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Internal compiler error for Fortran files when specifying a file instead of an include directory with -I

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61156 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/61156] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Internal compiler error for Fortran files when specifying a file instead of an include directory with -I

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61156 --- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle --- Author: jvdelisle Date: Sun Feb 28 18:16:56 2016 New Revision: 233793 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233793=gcc=rev Log: 2016-02-28 Jerry DeLisle Backported from

New Swedish PO file for 'gcc' (version 6.1-b20160131)

Hello, gentle maintainer. This is a message from the Translation Project robot. A revised PO file for textual domain 'gcc' has been submitted by the Swedish team of translators. The file is available at: http://translationproject.org/latest/gcc/sv.po (This file, 'gcc-6.1-b20160131.sv.po',

[Bug tree-optimization/70000] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr69666.c (internal compiler error)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

Re: [PATCH] [RFA] [PR tree-optmization/69740] Schedule loop fixups when needed

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 3:59 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 02/25/2016 03:00 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>> >>> >>> So I fail to see how only successor edges are relevant. Isn't the >>> important >>> case to

[Bug tree-optimization/69989] [6 Regression] ICE on x86_64-linux-gnu at -O3 in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes (in verify_loop_structure, at cfgloop.c:1639)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69989 --- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: hjl Date: Sun Feb 28 17:41:45 2016 New Revision: 233792 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233792=gcc=rev Log: Add a test for PR tree-optimization/69989 PR

Re: [PATCH PR69652, Regression]

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Yuri Rumyantsev wrote: > Thanks Richard for your comments. > I changes algorithm to remove dead scalar statements as you proposed. > > Bootstrap and regression testing did not show any new failures on x86-64. > Is it OK for trunk? > >

Re: [llvm-dev] [isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order_consume definition

Sometimes Linus says some really flippant and funny things but gosh I couldn't agree more.. with one tiny nit.. Properly written Fortran and a good compiler is potentially as fast or faster than typical C version in HPC codes. (yes you may be able to get the c version faster, but it would take

[Bug tree-optimization/70000] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr69666.c (internal compiler error)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7 --- Comment #1 from John David Anglin --- Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x00975130 in is_gimple_reg_type (type=0x0) at ../../gcc/gcc/gimple-expr.h:75 75return !AGGREGATE_TYPE_P (type); (gdb) bt #0 0x00975130 in

Re: [isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order_consume definition

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: >> > >> > -fno-strict-overflow >> >> -fno-strict-aliasing. > > Do not forget -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks. > > So the kernel obviously is already using its own C dialect, that is > pretty far from standard

[Bug tree-optimization/70000] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr69666.c (internal compiler error)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7 Bug ID: 7 Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr69666.c (internal compiler error) Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

Re: [ping] Enable -mstackrealign with SSE on 32-bit Windows

> No idea. To me it sounds that -mincoming-stack-boundary=2 would allow to do > -mstackrealign in those functions where it is necessary rather than in all. That's not my reading of ix86_minimum_incoming_stack_boundary: /* Prefer the one specified at command line. */ if

[Bug c++/69961] Segfault when calling constructor from variadic template by referring to T::T

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69961 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug c++/69995] [5/6 Regression] [C++14] Invalid result when evaluating constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69995 --- Comment #2 from Louis Dionne --- I know but using a runtime assert allows showing that with/without constexpr have different results. Also, I wanted to emphasize the fact that it could result into a runtime error, since these are much more

[Bug ada/69926] compiler crash on invalid Range attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69926 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code

[Bug fortran/60126] Internal compiler error with code using pointer reshaping (gfortran 4.8.2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60126 --- Comment #5 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: dominiq Date: Sun Feb 28 13:39:39 2016 New Revision: 233790 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233790=gcc=rev Log: 2016-02-28 Harald Anlauf PR fortran/60126

[Bug fortran/66310] Problems with intrinsic repeat for large number of copies

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66310 --- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Created attachment 37811 > --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37811=edit > Proposed patch > > This patch fixes some signed integer problems in a few places and allows the > test

*ping* [patch, fortran] Two associate fixes in dump-parse-tree.c

I wrote: Patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00941.html OK for trunk? Regards Thomas 2016-02-14 Thomas Koenig * dump-parse-tree.c (show_code_node): Print association list of a block if present. Handle EXEC_END_BLOCK.

*ping* [patch, Fortran] Fix PR fortran/68147, temporaries for allocatable strings

I wrote: So, OK for these branches? Patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01364.html Regards Thomas 2016-02-18 Thomas Koenig PR fortran/68147 PR fortran/47674 * frontend-passes.c (realloc_string_callbac): Don't set

  1   2   >