https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49467
Martin von Gagern changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Martin.vGagern at gmx dot net
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59708
Martin von Gagern changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Martin.vGagern at gmx dot net
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580
--- Comment #21 from Martin von Gagern ---
(In reply to myself from comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > […] built-in operations where you can just say "multiply two
> > (signed) values, check whether the result fits in 31-bit unsigned an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59708
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
I rather not have builtins as you can write portable C code that detects
overflow just fine. GCC could have internal functions if needed which are used
when converting the pattern for detecting overflow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59708
--- Comment #9 from Martin von Gagern ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> I rather not have builtins as you can write portable C code that detects
> overflow just fine. GCC could have internal functions if needed which are
> used w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62243
Bug ID: 62243
Summary: Non-typename template argument behaviour in loop
(unsigned int)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62242
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62243
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62243
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Please always compile your programs with -Wall, it would have told you what was
wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62243
--- Comment #3 from Bjoern Dahlgren ---
Will do. Sorry for this and thank you.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62244
Bug ID: 62244
Summary: Function parameter should be in scope in its own
default argument
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50374
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62169
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's not an option IMHO. See http://www.stroustrup.com/SCARY.pdf for the
benefits of the current design. Those benefits outweigh the advantage of having
non-portable code diagnosed. Debug iterators can't b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62169
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> they have a pointer back to their patent container
s/patent/parent/
As for solving the problem of switching containers, use a typedef for the
container, or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61996
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sun Aug 24 10:46:25 2014
New Revision: 214406
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214406&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/61996
* config/sh/sh.opt (musermode): Allow negative
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61996
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sun Aug 24 10:52:58 2014
New Revision: 214407
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214407&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
2014-08-24 Oleg Endo
PR target/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62245
Bug ID: 62245
Summary: gfortran miscompiles int() on mips
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62246
Bug ID: 62246
Summary: internal compiler error: in gfc_get_symbol_decl, at
fortran/trans-decl.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62242
--- Comment #2 from Joost VandeVondele
---
Further reduced:
> cat bug.f90.orig
module gfbug
contains
pure function UpperCase(string) result(upper)
character(*), intent(IN) :: string
character(LEN(string)) :: upper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61996
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sun Aug 24 11:15:37 2014
New Revision: 214408
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214408&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
2014-08-24 Oleg Endo
PR target/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61996
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62245
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62245
--- Comment #2 from Julian Taylor ---
mips is the only architecture with this behavior, all others behave as
documented.
Shouldn't that be reason enough to change mips?
if not please document the exception on mips.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62245
--- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Julian Taylor from comment #2)
> mips is the only architecture with this behavior, all others behave as
> documented.
> Shouldn't that be reason enough to change mips?
> if not please docum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62245
--- Comment #4 from Julian Taylor ---
no x86 behaves as documented, the documentation states the sign is retained.
You can debate on what largest integer means here, it could be -1 as >
-2147483648 but as positive inputs give -2147483647 I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62245
--- Comment #5 from Julian Taylor ---
oh I overlooked you put in positive input, thats strange
then the documentation should be updated that its undefined behavior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62245
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62245
--- Comment #7 from Julian Taylor ---
But the docs indicate that there is no undefined behavior.
As I interpret them the result of int() is always well defined.
If the documentation would not state what happens in the case of overflow it
would be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62245
--- Comment #8 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Julian Taylor from comment #7)
> But the docs indicate that there is no undefined behavior.
> As I interpret them the result of int() is always well defined.
> If the documentation would no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62245
--- Comment #9 from Julian Taylor ---
thanks, please also clarify/remove the sentence about the sign as the result
sign is not the sign of the input as indicated by the docs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62245
--- Comment #10 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Julian Taylor from comment #9)
> thanks, please also clarify/remove the sentence about the sign as the result
> sign is not the sign of the input as indicated by the docs.
it will now inc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247
Bug ID: 62247
Summary: [5.0 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/anon3.C -std=c++98
scan-assembler .weak(_definition)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62245
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61825
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62210
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62248
Bug ID: 62248
Summary: Configure error with --with-fpu=fp-armv8
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62249
Bug ID: 62249
Summary: Spurious FORTIFY_SOURCE warning with -flto, poll
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62250
Bug ID: 62250
Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/coarray/alloc_comp_1.f90
-fcoarray=lib -O2 -lcaf_single
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62028
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61298
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62251
Bug ID: 62251
Summary: [5.0 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/quad_2.f90
execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62249
--- Comment #1 from Zack Weinberg ---
Created attachment 33389
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33389&action=edit
Delta-minimized self-contained test case
Requires no headers anymore.
Delta-minimization revealed something in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62249
--- Comment #2 from Zack Weinberg ---
Incidentally, yes, the test case is based on a real program.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62252
Bug ID: 62252
Summary: a callback to event PLUGIN_FINISH_TYPE segfaults
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50374
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59708
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||noloader at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49467
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62253
Bug ID: 62253
Summary: gcc incorrectly mixes direct atomic instructions with
calls to atomic library
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62252
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62253
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Iirc lib atomic on x86 uses the atomic instructions for 32bit and not the
pthread implemention. Also if you have xchng, you can do all functions using
that one without using the pthread implemention.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62252
--- Comment #2 from klemen.jan.enova at gmail dot com ---
TREE_CODE(type) returns an ERROR_MARK. So, (tree) event_data must not alias
with a tree. This plugin is from
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/gcc/testsuite/g%2B%2B.dg/plugin/du
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60774
--- Comment #5 from Bud Davis ---
Index: gcc/gcc/fortran/parse.c
===
--- gcc/gcc/fortran/parse.c(revision 214408)
+++ gcc/gcc/fortran/parse.c(working copy)
@@ -868,8 +868,6 @
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62252
--- Comment #3 from klemen.jan.enova at gmail dot com ---
It works on gcc, though.
in gcc/c/c-parser.c:
> if (!typespec_ok)
> goto out;
> invoke_plugin_callbacks (PLUGIN_FINISH_TYPE, t.spec);
> declspecs_add_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62227
James Dennett changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||james.dennett at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62227
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #3 from Jonath
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62227
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
http://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#535 changed that
wording
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62111
--- Comment #16 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Mon Aug 25 00:37:51 2014
New Revision: 214413
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214413&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/62111
* config/sh/predicates.md (general_extend_ope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59335
Terry Guo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||terry.guo at arm dot com
--- Comment #27 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59335
Joey Ye changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62049
--- Comment #2 from Paul Martin ---
Below is the output of the program given in Comment #1 , using the same version
of gfortran and the same operating system (32 bits) as in Comment #0 :
bash 2 : gfortran --version | head -3
GNU Fortran (GCC)
60 matches
Mail list logo
