https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91481
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91441
kito at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91485
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91485
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |kargl at gcc dot
Hi Jeff:
Thanks, committed as r274631.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:51 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 8/15/19 8:45 PM, Kito Cheng wrote:
> > - -fsanitize=kernel-address will call targetm.asan_shadow_offset ()
> >at asan_shadow_offset, so it will crash if TARGET_ASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET
> >is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91441
--- Comment #2 from kito at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kito
Date: Mon Aug 19 03:21:44 2019
New Revision: 274631
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274631=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/91441 - Turn off -fsanitize=kernel-address if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91485
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Aug 19 03:21:46 2019
New Revision: 274632
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274632=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-18 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/91485
module.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91485
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Aug 19 03:00:54 2019
New Revision: 274630
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274630=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-18 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/91485
module.c
pro (https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/RO-2Ec):
#include
int main() {
auto z = std::char_traits::length("");
}
$ g++ -fgnu-tm -O2 -std=c++17
In file included from
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20190818/include/c++/10.0.0/string:40,
from :1:
/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80834
Li Jia He changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Ok, thanks.
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019, 6:26 PM Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 08:37:14PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Ok if that passes?
>
> Which it did.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80834
Li Jia He changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||helijia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91487
Bug ID: 91487
Summary: [concepts] alias constraint not respected
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
On 8/16/19 6:50 PM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> ChangeLog:
>
> * MAINTAINERS: Add myself as the maintainer for the eBPF port.
Will need steering committee approval, but I don't see that being
problematical.
jeff
On 8/16/19 6:50 PM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * doc/invoke.texi (Option Summary): Cover eBPF.
> (eBPF Options): New section.
> * doc/extend.texi (BPF Built-in Functions): Likewise.
> (BPF Kernel Helpers): Likewise.
This is likely fine once the port as a
On 8/16/19 6:50 PM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> This patch makes many tests in gcc.dg and gcc.c-torture to be skipped
> in bpf-*-* targets. This is due to the many limitations imposed by
> eBPF to what would be perfectly valid C code: no support for indirect
> calls, no support for more than 5
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 08:37:14PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Ok if that passes?
Which it did.
On 8/16/19 6:50 PM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> This patch makes the several effective target checks in
> target-supports.exp to be aware of eBPF targets.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_malloc): New
> function.
>
On 8/16/19 6:50 PM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> This patch adds a new testsuite to gcc.target, with eBPF specific
> tests.
>
> Tests are included for:
> - Target specific diagnostics.
> - All built-in functions.
>
> testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * gcc.target/bpf/bpf.exp: New file.
> *
On 8/16/19 6:50 PM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> This patch adds an eBPF port to libgcc.
>
> As of today, compiled eBPF programs do not support a single-entry
> point schema. Instead, a BPF "executable" is a relocatable ELF object
> file containing multiple entry points, in certain named sections.
On 8/16/19 6:50 PM, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> * config.sub: Import upstream version 2019-06-30.
> * config.guess: Import upstream version 2019-07-24.
Similar to the runtimes and such where we're downstream resyncing to the
upstream sources is always OK in stage1. Feel free to commit
So this builds on the previous DSE patch to add handling of strcpy and
resolves the remainder of 80576.
Recall there's two cases to consider.
If the strcpy is the first store (ie, potentially dead), then the
conservative choice when setting up the ao_ref is to take the smaller of
the destination
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 05:08:07PM -0700, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 8/18/19 6:52 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 05:40:39PM -0700, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > On 8/16/19 5:11 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 08:21:25PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91485
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
CC|
On 8/18/19 6:52 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 05:40:39PM -0700, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 8/16/19 5:11 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 08:21:25PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 8/15/19 5:34 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 02:50:13PM -0400,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91486
--- Comment #2 from John Salmon ---
The same incorrect logic that was fixed in bug 68519 is present in the
implementations of future::wait_for and shared_timed_mutex::wait_for. The fix
should be the same: explicitly duration_cast the __rtime
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91486
--- Comment #1 from John Salmon ---
Created attachment 46727
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46727=edit
demonstration code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91486
Bug ID: 91486
Summary: future::wait_for and shared_timed_mutex::wait_for do
not work properly with float duration
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Snapshot gcc-10-20190818 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10-20190818/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 10 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk revision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 46726
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46726=edit
Much better patch
It a) does not try to do two things at once, and b) has passed
regression-testing at least once.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91485
Bug ID: 91485
Summary: [10 Regression] Erroneous conflict between variable x
and operator(.x.)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87880
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
> On 16 Jun 2019, at 19:58, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 07:54:42PM +0100, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>> Actually, because the way in which interposing works for Darwin is
>> different, the only
>> symbol change in the library on Darwin is removing an "undefined dynamic
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87880
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Sun Aug 18 19:11:29 2019
New Revision: 274625
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274625=gcc=rev
Log:
Darwin, libsanitizer - remove reference to __cxa_rethrow_primary_exception.
For
There is no reasonable chance that the SDKs in question will be re-
issued, so the only viable solution is a fixincludes.
tested on x86_64-darwin, x86_64-linux-gnu, powerpc64-linux-gnu
(fixincludes tests pass on linux)
applied to mainline,
Iain
2019-08-18 C.G. Dogan
Iain Sandoe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83531
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.5
--- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83531
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Sun Aug 18 18:54:13 2019
New Revision: 274624
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274624=gcc=rev
Log:
[Darwin, fixincludes] Fix PR83531
There is no reasonable chance that the SDKs in
Despite that the cpp assert facility is deprecated, we do have a test
for it.
This test needs the cpu and machine asserts to be implemented
which hadn't been done for PPC Darwin. Fixed thus.
tested on powerpc-darwin9,
applied to mainline,
Iain
gcc/
2019-08-18 Iain Sandoe
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91472
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91472
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64636
--- Comment #5 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
I can confirm that disabling LTO on sparc64 makes gcc build fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91472
--- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
It can reproduced by simply cloning the gmp repo, building it and running the
testsuite:
$ hg clone https://gmplib.org/repo/gmp
$ cd gmp
$ ./.bootstrap && ./configure --enable-cxx --enable-fat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91472
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> This would fix bug 89770 if/when you commit it, btw:
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89770
> Thanks for useful comments, I've included all of them (except kB change).
> Feel free to see current version at https://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html
On Sat, 9 Dec 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> Some users on FreeBSD noticed a problem when trying to use GCC to
>> build things in a standalone environment that manifests itself as
>>
>> /usr/local/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-freebsd11.0/6.3.0/include/xmmintrin.h:34
>> from
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91480
--- Comment #2 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com ---
I agree the problem of 'L' is not likely found as a real issue in practice.
Perhaps this could be forwarded as an issue of the standard which requires
overspecified definitions. I don't find
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91484
Bug ID: 91484
Summary: Error message: std::is_constructible with incomplete
types.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91483
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91483
Bug ID: 91483
Summary: Poor diagnostic on trying to take constexpr reference
to non-static object
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91482
Bug ID: 91482
Summary: __builtin_assume_aligned should not break write
combining
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91481
Bug ID: 91481
Summary: POWER9 "DARN" RNG intrinsic produces repeated output
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 05:40:39PM -0700, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 8/16/19 5:11 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 08:21:25PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > On 8/15/19 5:34 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 02:50:13PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 46724
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46724=edit
Something that sort of works...
and also extends the error message with a reference to where the
mismatching
https://blackfin.uclinux.org redirects to a page on ez.analog.com
that states "End of Life for Blackfin Linux" and has a link to
sourceforge.net that at least offers some remaining bits.
Jie, can you please have a look?
This, or something similar, probably should be backported to all
active
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> [ https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/tree-ssa/vectorization.html ]
> I'm not disputing that there could be better documentation, but that
> page is not the place to find it. That page should probably get a
> notice added saying that the project is complete
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> [ https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/tree-ssa/vectorization.html ]
> I'm not disputing that there could be better documentation, but that
> page is not the place to find it. That page should probably get a
> notice added saying that the project is complete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91480
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Jeff Law wrote:
> ISTM that if you're reverting something recent of your own that's
> causing failures you ought to be able to revert without waiting.
Indeed. And https://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html#all documents this
in the third items.
(Well, that direct link only works
Committed.
Gerald
Index: bugs/index.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/bugs/index.html,v
retrieving revision 1.130
diff -u -r1.130 index.html
--- bugs/index.html 16 Aug 2019 20:59:00 - 1.130
+++ bugs/index.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37242
--- Comment #24 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
r257061 optimize too
gcc version 8.0.1 20180125 (experimental) [trunk revision 257061] (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37242
Dmitry G. Dyachenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dimhen at gmail dot com
---
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Thanks - can you please update changes.html for it in the 9.2 section?
> There seems to be no GCC 9.2 section yet.
I see one now.
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> Yes. Looks good to me btw.
Same here. (I would have taken Richard's note
63 matches
Mail list logo
