https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64260
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64492
Luke A. Guest changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||laguest at archeia dot com
--- Comment #
-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20150104 (experimental) [trunk revision 219172] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O3 small.c
small.c: In
=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20150104 (experimental) [trunk revision 219172] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O1 small.c; a.out
$ gcc-4.9 -Os small.c; a.out
$
$ gcc-trunk -Os small.c
small.c: In function ‘main’:
small.c:5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55441
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63251
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
gcc version 5.0.0 20150104 (experimental) [trunk revision 219172] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 small.c; a.out
$ gcc-4.9 -O3 small.c; a.out
$
$ gcc-trunk -O3 small.c
small.c: In function ‘main’:
small.c:6:1: error: definition in block 13 does not dominate use in block 12
main ()
^
for SSA_NAME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #13 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #12)
> (In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #10)
> > Partial patch to handle proposed behavior of system_clock
>
> Thanks for the partial patch. Some qui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64492
simon at pushface dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm-eabi
Host|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64492
Bug ID: 64492
Summary: Disabling libada prevents building gnattools-cross
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #12 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #10)
> Partial patch to handle proposed behavior of system_clock
Thanks for the partial patch. Some quick critique:
- it doesn't handle mixed argument kin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #11 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #10)
> Created attachment 34374 [details]
> Partial patch to handle proposed behavior of system_clock
The patch in comment #10 is a way to produce behavior similar
to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #10 from Harald Anlauf ---
Created attachment 34374
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34374&action=edit
Partial patch to handle proposed behavior of system_clock
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64491
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64490
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64491
Bug ID: 64491
Summary: warning: loop exit may only be reached after undefined
behavior
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64490
Bug ID: 64490
Summary: incorrect -O2 and -O3 optimization of the slightly
different template functions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64489
Bug ID: 64489
Summary: A simple struct wrapping a const int is not trivially
copyable
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64483
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
Thanks Jonathon.
Dave
--
John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou ---
> that happened only once. and the problem did never ever repeat.
> But my gut feeling is still that there is a race conditition.
Yes, I agree that the usage of Side_Effect_Finger looks suspicious here.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64425
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
I've tested the patch, too.
There were two issues.
1) on ppc64:
(after training)
trippels@gcc2-power8 ~ % ~/gcc_test/usr/local/bin/g++ -Ofast -fprofile-use -w
tramp3d-v4.cpp
tramp3d-v4.cpp:64206:1: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64485
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64481
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
Bootstrap worked for me yesterday. I guess disable-checking may be the reason,
I will try to reproduce this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64425
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Yep, I looked into this before comitting the patch. I have tracked it down to
inlining of function UniformRectilinearMesh >::cellPosition(Loc<3> const&) const:
inline PointType_t cellPosition(const Loc_t &lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64488
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||54367
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64488
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64488
Bug ID: 64488
Summary: [4.9/5.0][c++11] Expand initializer list with lambdas
in variadic template. Reject valid code.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56126
--- Comment #8 from Olaf van der Spek ---
(In reply to Michael Bruck from comment #0)
> In code compiled with -fno-exceptions nothing can be thrown, consequently
> all new operators should imply throw() or a warning/error should occur when
> new
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64485
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at ucw dot cz
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64478
--- Comment #17 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Oh, I see: I forgot to add -fstack-check.
After re-compiling with -fstack-check the modified test case passes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64478
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou ---
> you could avoid that scenario by probing say 4K of stack in __gnat_malloc ?
No, the stack checking model is to probe sufficiently ahead in the user code by
means of -fstack-check but not in the run time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64482
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Currently, user code that wants to support -fno-exceptions needs to provide
> its own similar workarounds. That can be done by checking the
> __cpp_exceptions fea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64483
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64483
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Sun Jan 4 14:03:11 2015
New Revision: 219174
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219174&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/64483
* testsuite/18_support/exception_ptr/64241.cc:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64482
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Olaf van der Spek from comment #0)
> Currently -fno-exceptions is partially implemented in the std library.
That's not really accurate, it is implemented entirely in the compiler, but the
libr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56126
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Why would you want an operator new that can't throw but is declared to
potentially throw? The exception specification is defined by the language to
inform the compiler whether to check the result or not, so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56126
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Using -fno-exceptions says "I do not want ISO C++" so quoting the standard
isn't very relevant.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64483
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64478
--- Comment #15 from Bernd Edlinger ---
you could avoid that scenario by probing say 4K of stack in __gnat_malloc ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52033
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64478
--- Comment #14 from Bernd Edlinger ---
hmm, ok, but how about this:
--- ../gcc-trunk/gcc/testsuite/ada/acats/tests/cb/cb1010d.ada2014-05-24
19:26:45.338568486 +0200
+++ cb1010d.adb2015-01-04 12:55:21.458653242 +0100
@@ -29,14 +29,23 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63552
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Ian Harvey from comment #8)
> The syntax rule for an /actual-arg/ in 14-007r2 is R1225. None of the child
> syntax rules of R1225 permit a type bound procedure, noting that a binding
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63494
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bud Davis from comment #4)
> my comment sounded snarky; not intended.
No worries!
> I did not know that you were also
> reducing this test case !!!
Your version is indeed more conci
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64484
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64478
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
45 matches
Mail list logo
