https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64457
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64494
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64492
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64492
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64492
--- Comment #5 from simon at pushface dot org ---
(In reply to Luke A. Guest from comment #2)
> But, I noticed this in the gnat makefile a while back and was going to
> investigate, but haven't got around to it yet:
>
> # *-elf, *-eabi, or *-eabi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64495
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64492
--- Comment #7 from charlet at adacore dot com ---
> Unfortunately you can???t build the cross gnattools, because
> --disable-libada
> adds gnattools to the list of unconfigured directories, which means that
> the
> directory gcc/ada/tools is ne
> Unfortunately you can???t build the cross gnattools, because
> --disable-libada
> adds gnattools to the list of unconfigured directories, which means that
> the
> directory gcc/ada/tools is never created, let alone populated.
> gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in touches stamp-tools, but that???s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64492
--- Comment #6 from simon at pushface dot org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #4)
> Correction: some bits were incorrectly removed from
> gcc-interface/Makefile.in.
Do you mean the parts where the creation and population of gcc/ada/to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64493
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64495
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64487
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64415
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64494
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64487
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64411
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64353
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64496
Bug ID: 64496
Summary: [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] ICE with NSDMI and lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64496
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64182
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5 Regression] wide-int |wide-int rounding division
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64492
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Jan 5 10:17:28 2015
New Revision: 219184
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219184&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/64492
* gcc-interface/Makefile.in (../stamp-tools): Rei
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64492
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Jan 5 10:17:12 2015
New Revision: 219183
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219183&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/64492
* gcc-interface/Makefile.in (../stamp-tools): Rei
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64492
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Version|4.9.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63304
--- Comment #12 from David Abdurachmanov
---
I decided to re-enable -Os for OpenLoops. Then use powerful hardware with
32-physical-cores (x86_64) and 0.5TB of RAM to see if I could get lucky. Fired
up QEMU user mode with Fedora for AArch64 chroo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64497
Bug ID: 64497
Summary: std::scalbln does not round correctly for long doubles
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: markus at trippelsdorf dot net
Hello.
With gcc version 5.0.0 20150105 (experimental) (GCC) and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64465
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I get the same ICE as H.J., and the bug is that redirect_all_calls
redirects a call to __builtin_unreachable , before it was
_10 = __open_alias (__path_6(D), __oflag_3(D), __builtin_va_arg_pack ());
and aft
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64492
--- Comment #11 from Luke A. Guest ---
(In reply to simon from comment #5)
> (In reply to Luke A. Guest from comment #2)
> > But, I noticed this in the gnat makefile a while back and was going to
> > investigate, but haven't got around to it yet:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64465
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 34377
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34377&action=edit
non-working patch (at least contains reduced testcase)
For some reason this doesn't work :(.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64423
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Jan 5 12:03:57 2015
New Revision: 219186
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219186&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/64423
c-family/
* c-common.c (warn_array_subscript_with_ty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64423
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64448
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Looks like something for combine?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64497
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
GCC just calls the scalnlnl() function in libm, so it's not a GCC bug, and is
not specific to C++ either. I suggest you report it to your libc vendor.
Complete testcase in C:
#include
#include
#include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64497
--- Comment #2 from Walter Mascarenhas ---
What if there is a difference in the expected behavior
for this function in C and C++11? Is it not up to g++
for implementing what is mandated in C++11? (This
is not a rhetorical question, I really do n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64499
Bug ID: 64499
Summary: -gsplit-dwarf splits objcopy argument at spaces in
file path
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64500
Bug ID: 64500
Summary: push_to_top_level() shows up high during Chromium
build.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64417
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64492
--- Comment #12 from simon at pushface dot org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #10)
> This should work with Arno's incantation now.
Confirmed. Thanks.
I have to say, though, that configuring with --disable-libada
--enable-cross-gnatt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63922
John Donners changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64497
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Walter Mascarenhas from comment #2)
> What if there is a difference in the expected behavior
> for this function in C and C++11?
There isn't any difference, so it doesn't matter.
> Is it not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64497
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Looking at the C standard, it seems that the result is implementation-defined
on underflow, and zero is a valid result. C++ doesn't change that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64492
--- Comment #13 from simon at pushface dot org ---
(In reply to Luke A. Guest from comment #2)
> But, I noticed this in the gnat makefile a while back and was going to
> investigate, but haven't got around to it yet:
>
> # *-elf, *-eabi, or *-eab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64472
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
I think marking it inline is best fix: with static the inliner may get smart
rnough to consider it used once.
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64465
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34377|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64489
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ville.voutilainen at
gmail do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64061
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64480
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I don't see this with trunk - maybe the same as bug 60784?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64480
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64028
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64465
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Updated patch that works on this testcase. From the cgraph.c comments, it
> looks
> like e.g. during function versioning we rely on fixup_cfg to fix it up, but
> during inlining I think we need to do it imme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64465
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #6)
> > Updated patch that works on this testcase. From the cgraph.c comments, it
> > looks
> > like e.g. during function versioning we rely on fixup_cfg to fix it up, b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61871
--- Comment #6 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Mon Jan 5 16:13:06 2015
New Revision: 219192
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219192&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/61871
runtime: Increase stack size on 64-bit non-split-st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64266
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> C++11 says that the address of __func__ can be the same as address of other
> string literals, so I think that allows putting it into mergeable section.
> But wha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64501
Bug ID: 64501
Summary: Unreachable catch BB for try blocks that cannot create
an exception of specific type
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64467
--- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #0)
> I'll triage the revision range to exclude that.
It's one of 217063-217066, inclusive.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64467
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Almost certainly r217066.
Is this a newlib target? I would expect to see the same failure for all newlib
targets, as I defined std::ctype_base::blank to be equal to
std::ctype_base::space for newlib (and a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64465
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
> > execute_fixup_cfg is called from inline_transform, I wonder why it does not
> > catch
> > this case? Anyway updating things immediately after redirection seems like
> > right
> > thing to do. Any reason w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64501
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
There are a lot of possible optimizations related to exceptions, and most
compilers perform almost none :-(
The compiler could notice that t is nothrow, but it doesn't. If you mark it
explicitly (add throw() f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64415
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at ucw dot cz
--- Comment #2 from H.J.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59708
--- Comment #31 from Pat Haugen ---
(In reply to Pat Haugen from comment #30)
> builtin-arith-overflow-10/11 are target problem, I'm working on a fix.
builtin-arith-overflow-10/11 are fixed with the patch for pr64358.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64465
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I believe with function versioning you create a new function and fixup_cfg pass
is what will be run first on that, isn't that the case? In any case, there is
no guarantee TODO_cleanup_cfg will be executed ri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47674
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Jan 5 17:15:17 2015
New Revision: 219193
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219193&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-05 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/47674
* dependency.c:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64467
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> Almost certainly r217066.
>
> Is this a newlib target?
Yes.
> I would expect to see the same failure for all
> newlib targets, as I defined std::ctype_b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64417
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
I have a patch for rejecting such code, but the question is if it is desirable
to not accept that code, since e.g. glibc used to (?) misuse this feature.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64492
--- Comment #14 from Luke A. Guest ---
(In reply to simon from comment #13)
> TOOLS_TARGET_PAIRS is set in both gnattools/Makefile (when it has been
> configured) and gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in. Your patch is to the
> gnattools/ one, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64502
Bug ID: 64502
Summary: Incorrect warning about empty translation units when
using pre-compiled headers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64502
--- Comment #1 from johnst...@inn-soft.com ---
Created attachment 34381
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34381&action=edit
GCC pre-compiled intermediate output of Hello.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64502
--- Comment #2 from johnst...@inn-soft.com ---
Created attachment 34382
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34382&action=edit
GCC intermediate output of MyProgram.c WITHOUT GCH
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64494
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jan 5 18:53:44 2015
New Revision: 219194
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219194&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/64494
* tree-ssa-loop-im.c (move_computations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64503
Bug ID: 64503
Summary: [5 Regression] gcc.dg/ipa/iinline-4.c:210:1: internal
compiler error: Floating point exception
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64503
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The values at sreal::to_double are highly suspicious (these values are the same
on x86_64 and alpha), following is on x86_64:
125 val *= exp2 (m_exp);
(gdb) p val
$5 = -1073741826
(gdb) p m_exp
$6 = 20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64503
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47674
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Jan 5 19:21:12 2015
New Revision: 219195
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219195&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-05 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/47674
* dependency.h:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64504
Bug ID: 64504
Summary: Invalid free() with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG and -fwhole-program
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64417
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab ---
The glibc sources never contained such an array of incomplete type. The
example in bug28865#c3 has nothing to do with glibc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64505
Bug ID: 64505
Summary: Powerpc compiler generates insn not found for -m32
-mpowerpc64
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64505
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64465
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jan 5 21:45:08 2015
New Revision: 219200
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219200&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/64465
* tree-inline.c (redirect_all_calls):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64344
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jan 5 21:46:31 2015
New Revision: 219201
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219201&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/64344
* ubsan.h (ubsan_instrument_float_cast): Add AR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64265
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jan 5 21:47:51 2015
New Revision: 219202
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219202&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/64265
* gimplify.c (gimplify_function_tree): Add TSA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64465
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|jakub at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64344
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61871
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64492
--- Comment #15 from simon at pushface dot org ---
(In reply to Luke A. Guest from comment #14)
> (In reply to simon from comment #13)
> > map feature yet.
>
> The what?
indepsw-gnu.adb contains the switch to tell GNU ld to create a map file; I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64287
--- Comment #3 from clm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: clm
Date: Mon Jan 5 23:42:27 2015
New Revision: 219208
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219208&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-05 Radovan Obradovic
PR rtl-optimization/64287
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31397
--- Comment #16 from tbsaunde at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tbsaunde
Date: Tue Jan 6 02:02:47 2015
New Revision: 219213
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219213&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
implement -Wsuggest-override
c-family/
PR c++/31397
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64497
Sergey Zubkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cubbi at cubbi dot org
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64506
Bug ID: 64506
Summary: FORMAT Parse Error with Continuation Line
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64417
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
89 matches
Mail list logo
