http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58016
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Noone disputes it's not conforming. The point is the support is incomplete.
It's known to be incomplete. It's documented as incomplete. Reporting a bug to
say it's incomplete doesn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57954
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57954
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57954
--- Comment #8 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch ---
thanks for getting in the trunk.
will be possible to back port to at least 4.8?
(this issue is there till 4.4!)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57954
Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ysrumyan at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58012
goughost goughost at yahoo dot com.cn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37634
Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58016
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
__STDC_VERSION__ describes *intent* of command-line options (as regards
differences between standard versions, to the extent that those are
implemented).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57997
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
In my opinion it would be great if you could concretely propose a patch. I'm
sure that both Gaby and the other library maintainers, like me, would be fast
at reviewing it. Of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57997
--- Comment #4 from Roy Stogner roystgnr at ices dot utexas.edu ---
I oversimplified the code here to try and make the failure as easy to
reproduce as possible. The term here isn't con-fusion, it's kernel
fusion, which the original user code is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57954
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Yuri Rumyantsev from comment #9)
I assume that this fix is not good and must be reverted - I will prepare
another fix for your reviewing. There are at least 2 problems:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51041
Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57987
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Uh oh, but I do not really feel comfortable submitting a patch like
this that I do not understand at all but happens to pass the testsuite :-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58019
Bug ID: 58019
Summary: Problem with -O3 optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58016
--- Comment #5 from Jeff Hammond jeff.science at gmail dot com ---
Can someone tell me where the appropriate place to define __STDC_NO_ATOMICS__
and __STDC_NO_THREADS__ in GCC so I can submit a patch? I'd rather solve the
problem and take 1-2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58019
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58016
Jeff Hammond jeff.science at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeff.science
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58016
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
__STDC_NO_THREADS__ is defined in glibc's stdc-predef.h because it
describes combination compiler and library properties.
The correct fix for atomics for 4.9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58019
Bill william.jordan at vbrick dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58020
Bug ID: 58020
Summary: Code for handling IEEE exceptions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58016
Jeff Hammond jeff.science at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57954
--- Comment #11 from Evgeniy Dushistov dushistov at mail dot ru ---
(In reply to Yuri Rumyantsev from comment #9)
I checked that zeroing of xmm register before conversion leads to
performance slowdown on SLM (-5%) for proveded test-case. I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57800
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57801
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57791
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57802
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57804
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58020
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58021
Bug ID: 58021
Summary: MODE_EXIT switches at NOTE_INSN_DELETED
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58022
Bug ID: 58022
Summary: Compiler rejects abstract class in template class with
friend operator
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57948
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58022
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Please try to reduce the testcase further, no includes. You have a number of
options here: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/A_guide_to_testcase_reduction
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58022
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
This compiles fine in mainline, doesn't with current 4_8-branch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57901
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58022
--- Comment #3 from Ryan Johnson scovich at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #1)
Please try to reduce the testcase further, no includes. You have a number of
options here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58022
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #5)
expand_assignment, offset as filled in get_inner_reference is the same,
however get_object_alignment (tem) used to return 64, and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
Thorsten Glaser tg at mirbsd dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tg at mirbsd dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58020
--- Comment #2 from Fred Krogh fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com ---
1. Hanson is willing to assign the copyright if you expect to be using this
work. There were thoughts to include this work on a SIAM website where we
think SIAM would want the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57306
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[OOP] ICE on valid with |[OOP] [F08] ICE on valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58020
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 09:03:53PM +, fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com
wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58020
--- Comment #2 from Fred Krogh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14741
--- Comment #28 from Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Evgeniy Dushistov from comment #26)
void mult(const double * const __restrict__ A, const double * const
__restrict__ B, double * const __restrict__ C, const size_t N)
{
: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130729 (experimental) (GCC)
$ gfortran -c bug.F90 -o bug.o
bug.F90:10.34:
procedure(mr), pointer :: mr1
1
Error: Procedure pointer component 'mr1' with PASS at (1) must have at least
one argument
f951: internal compiler error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57993
Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58025
Bug ID: 58025
Summary: Cannot use std::hash without setting off
-Wmismatched-tags
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58025
--- Comment #1 from Matt Arsenault whatmannerofburgeristhis at gmail dot com
---
Created attachment 30570
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30570action=edit
Testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56627
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58025
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56627
--- Comment #9 from Matt Arsenault whatmannerofburgeristhis at gmail dot com
---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
*** Bug 58025 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
They don't have to be consistent by the standard, but the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56627
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Matt Arsenault from comment #9)
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
*** Bug 58025 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
They don't have to be
50 matches
Mail list logo