https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
--- Comment #4 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
With ifort, are you compiling with whatever flag enforces
standards conformance. I need to go hunting through the
standard to see if assumed size arrays are allowed in the
declaration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63173
--- Comment #2 from Venkataramanan venkataramanan.kumar at amd dot com ---
Changed the test case to work with latest GCC trunk
#include arm_neon.h
int16x4x2_t foo(int16_t * __restrict pDataA,
int16_t *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63531
Bug ID: 63531
Summary: gcc segfaults on some sourcefiles when using
'-Weffc++' and '-fsanitize=undefined' together
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63531
--- Comment #1 from Ralf allizgubccg at reallysoft dot de ---
Created attachment 33711
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33711action=edit
preprocessed file generated by segfaulting call
Sorry. needed to zip the file, because it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62102
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
My autotester picked up that commit, and this regression is gone, thanks!
I'm closing this PR.
Great! I was starring in that patch and did not notice this quite obvious
omision
for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63475
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63464
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63464
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63512
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Oct 14 07:36:02 2014
New Revision: 216174
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216174root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-10-14 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63512
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63531
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63527
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63442
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63532
Bug ID: 63532
Summary: Cannot increase access of member function template.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63532
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63533
Bug ID: 63533
Summary: Function splitter causes unnecessary splits
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63533
Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||y.gribov at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
--- Comment #22 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #21)
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #17)
In the 'addsf3_i' pattern, I've tried replacing the
(use (match_operand:PSI 3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
Bug ID: 63534
Summary: [5 Regression] Bootstrap failure on x86_64/i686-linux
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59807
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If the target for this is only mingw-w64 then PR 57440 is a dup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57440
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
dup of PR 59807
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59807
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57440
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ahanins at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57440
--- Comment #15 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Posted patch to ML for defining _GTHREAD_USE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNC in mingw-w64, and
mingw32 case. It is true that posix-threading support for Windows is right now
only provided by mingw-w64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
Stupachenko Evgeny evstupac at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||evstupac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61558
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #21 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to xur from comment #20)
Thanks for the comments. I'll work on this to get it fixed this time.
Let me understand your idea correctly:
We will have two patches: The first
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For -fsplit-stack you are right, __morestack seems to have hidden visibility,
so even if gcc emits call __morestack@plt, the linker should transform that
into
a direct call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63285
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62025
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63535
Bug ID: 63535
Summary: SELECT TYPE shouldn't pass ALLOCATABLE/POINTER
attribute through
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #4 from Stupachenko Evgeny evstupac at gmail dot com ---
Profiling implementation has hard coded %ebx use.
There are at least 2 quick solutions to resolve this:
1. Disable the changes for PIC profiling
Lead to different behavior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62308
--- Comment #8 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Venkataramanan from comment #7)
Where reload gets
(set (reg:DI 0 x0 [76]) (reg:DI 1 x1 [ args+8 ]))
(set (reg:TI 0 x0 [74]) (reg:TI -1 [+-8 ])
Looks same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63533
Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #29 from Teresa Johnson tejohnson at google dot com ---
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Teresa Johnson tejohn...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:53 AM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63533
--- Comment #3 from Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com ---
If g is called with argument that is usually 0,
then the partial inlining makes sense.
But note that there are zero callers of g in the file so no inlining can happen
anyway.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63536
Bug ID: 63536
Summary: [5 Regression] bootstrap failed when configured with
--with-cpu=slm
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63536
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Double set_got doesn't make sense, if you want to keep the current model, I'd
emit a set_got insn forced into %ebx before the mcount call in the prologue and
see if early after the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63533
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note the section of the split function is also different from the original
function if the user had supplied a section.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #6 from iverbin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: iverbin
Date: Tue Oct 14 16:26:57 2014
New Revision: 216208
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216208root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/63534
gcc/
* config/i386/i386.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61048
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Palachev i.palachev at samsung dot com ---
Suggested a patch that fixes this issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg01264.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61048
--- Comment #3 from Ilya Palachev i.palachev at samsung dot com ---
Created attachment 33714
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33714action=edit
Patch that fixes the ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57440
--- Comment #16 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Tue Oct 14 16:58:37 2014
New Revision: 216210
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216210root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-10-14 Kai Tietz kti...@redhat.com
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61048
--- Comment #4 from Ilya Palachev i.palachev at samsung dot com ---
g++ test.o -o test -Wl,-flto
/tmp/ccEhycoY.ltrans0.ltrans.o:ccEhycoY.ltrans0.o:function
__static_initialization_and_destruction_0(int, int): error: undefined
reference to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54354
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Oct 14 17:01:25 2014
New Revision: 216211
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216211root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-10-14 Rüdiger Sonderfeld
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57440
--- Comment #17 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Tue Oct 14 17:05:04 2014
New Revision: 216212
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216212root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/57440
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57440
--- Comment #18 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Tue Oct 14 17:06:27 2014
New Revision: 216213
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216213root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/57440
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57440
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
--- Comment #5 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
With ifort, are you compiling with whatever flag enforces
standards conformance. I need to go hunting through the
standard to see if assumed size arrays are allowed in the
declaration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63475
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Oct 14 18:40:59 2014
New Revision: 216217
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216217root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/63475
* alias.c (true_dependence_1):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63537
Bug ID: 63537
Summary: Missed optimization: Loop unrolling adds extra copy
when returning aggregate
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63419
Pat Haugen pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #21 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
It's annoying, but I suspect others see this as so low priority as not to care.
As for just committing my patch, I could make an argument that I ought to be
able to do that, but we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Ivchenko aivchenk at gmail dot com ---
The patch fixed the issue for me, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63538
Bug ID: 63538
Summary: [X86_64] With -mcmodel=medium .lrodata accesses do not
use 64-bit addresses
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
--- Comment #8 from Evandro Menezes e.menezes at samsung dot com ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #7)
As Evandro doesn't mention flags it's hard to say whether there really is a
problem here or not.
Both GCC and LLVM were
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #22 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
There were some comments by Florian:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg00149.html
I don't think the patch was ever pinged during stage 1, worth another try...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62019
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Oct 14 21:04:05 2014
New Revision: 216223
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216223root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR ada/62019
* tree-eh.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62019
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59758
davem at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63530
Carrot carrot at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||carrot at google dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
--- Comment #9 from Evandro Menezes e.menezes at samsung dot com ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #6)
I ran the assembler examples on A57 hardware with identical input. The FMADD
code is ~20% faster irrespectively of the size of the input.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33691|0 |1
is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49721
--- Comment #35 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: pinskia
Date: Wed Oct 15 00:38:03 2014
New Revision: 216229
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216229root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-10-14 Andrew Pinski apin...@cavium.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33716|0 |1
is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63539
Bug ID: 63539
Summary: libgo does not use the newly built objcopy when doing
a combined build
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63539
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
ranlib works since the toplevel does:
checking where to find the target ranlib... just compiled
But there is no check for objcopy.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63539
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63540
Bug ID: 63540
Summary: Erroneous 'Derived' declares a move constructor or
move assignment operator in error.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63540
Paul Pluzhnikov ppluzhnikov at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
--- Comment #25 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #23)
Kaz, could you please have an early look at it?
The idea looks OK to me. Build fails on sh4-linux with the patch, though.
Maybe a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38009
--- Comment #2 from Scott Worley sworley at chkno dot net ---
Update for 4.6.4:
$ gnatmake assert_failure_sinfo_1002.adb
gnatgcc -c assert_failure_sinfo_1002.adb
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
|
*)
Test code:
$ cat test.c
void foo()
{
register unsigned int curr_pc asm (pc);
unsigned int arm_pc;
arm_pc = curr_pc;
}
Observed the issue with gcc-4.8.0 onwards.(Works fine with 4.7.2)
Checked with latest with gcc 5.0 (GNU C (GCC) version 5.0.0 20141014 ) also,
getting the following error
75 matches
Mail list logo
