https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15596
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64892
--- Comment #1 from Eric Niebler ---
I think this is user error. I was confused between the difference between
decltype(x.y) and decltype((x.y)). It seems the decltype(auto) is semantically
the same as decltype((x.y)) in this case. From that pers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58400
Yoshinori Sato changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ysato at users dot
sourceforge.jp
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64893
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Ok, the problem is related to sizeof.
Let me see if I can make the gimplifier fold the statements or something
similar. Note we might want to change the first argument of
__builtin_aarch64_im_lane_boundsi to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #12 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to howarth from comment #11)
A fixincludes doesn't solve the problem as the libstdc++ test suite doesn't
seem to use those fixed headers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64123
--- Comment #21 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, I am currently on a trip with sporadic internet access but I can try to
build the shared libraries. In meantime you can also just try out firefox
profiledbuild ;)
What happens IMO is that
1) fork calls _
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64893
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This was caused/exposed by revision 218532.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64893
Bug ID: 64893
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE while doing a bootstrap with the
latest compiler
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build, ice-on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64893
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64892
Bug ID: 64892
Summary: C++1y: generic lambdas, decltype(auto), and rvalue
references, oh my!
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53949
--- Comment #13 from Oleg Endo ---
A more interesting real-world example from libjpeg would be function
jpeg_idct_ifast (jidctint.c).
If we take the code as-is, there are few mac opportunities due to sharing of
the terms. The expressions could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64123
--- Comment #20 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Adding a call to __gcov_fork doesn't cause breakage. I'd much rather start
from a failing testcase than stab in the dark at various hypotheses.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #11 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
What is so dangerous about just using...
Index: fixincludes/inclhack.def
===
--- fixincludes/inclhack.def(revision 220306
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64123
--- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka ---
I guess the problem is that with fork we invoke dumping by hand instead of
relying on dtors?
honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Perhaps unconditionally or conditionally for Darwin only include some C
> header or headers before defining those macros, then include the STL headers?
Yes, s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #7)
> (a) given that the __attribute__((xyzzy)) etc. versions are in pretty wide
> use "in the wild".
>
> (b) Section 6.33 of the current GCC manual doesn't really me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #8 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #7)
Certainly getting the current GCC manual in sync with this new restriction and
emitting a clear warning in the gcc 5.0 release compiler would get th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4)
> > hmm .. so cdefs.h does indeed use __attribute__((no return)) and
> > __attribute__((deprecated)).
> >
> > (although
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64123
--- Comment #18 from Jan Hubicka ---
Reducing firefox may be fun, ICE happen during fork, so perhaps adding fork to
your testcase? :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63707
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reduced from PR 64887:
struct string
{
string(const char*) { }
~string(); // make this type non-trivial
};
struct A
{
string s;
A() = delete;
A(const A&) = delete;
A(A&&) = delete;
A(const c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63707
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cth027 at yahoo dot de
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64887
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63577
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Also note that doing GC during the pass will not reduce the compile
time or the amount of garbage created at all, so won't fix the actual
problem; it does of course make it more bearable on smaller mach
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4)
> hmm .. so cdefs.h does indeed use __attribute__((no return)) and
> __attribute__((deprecated)).
>
> (although both are still valid by GCC documentation)
It's va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64256
Zoltan Hidvegi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zoltan at hidvegi dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64890
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64884
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64891
Bug ID: 64891
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/pr64307.c (test for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64890
Bug ID: 64890
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/pr64809.c (test for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64756
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson ---
Also fails on m68k, but not on powerpc64, sparc64, or ARMv5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64877
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|strange warning message |[5 Regression] strange
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64888
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64889
Bug ID: 64889
Summary: [h8300] ICE maybe_record_trace_start, at
dwarf2cfi.c:2318
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64888
Bug ID: 64888
Summary: ubsan doesn't work with openmp
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64887
--- Comment #4 from Christophe ---
Created attachment 34638
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34638&action=edit
Test case 2: same code compile if user-defined move ctor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64887
--- Comment #3 from Christophe ---
Created attachment 34637
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34637&action=edit
Test case 4: Failure to compile (copy ctor deleted, move implicit)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64887
--- Comment #2 from Christophe ---
Created attachment 34636
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34636&action=edit
Test case 2: same code compiles if private string member replace by int member
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64887
--- Comment #1 from Christophe ---
Created attachment 34635
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34635&action=edit
Test case 2: same code compile if private member removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64887
Bug ID: 64887
Summary: Brace initialization of array members when move
constructor is deleted or implicit.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64886
Bug ID: 64886
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/pr64434.c scan-rtl-dump-times expand
"Swap operands" 1
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64756
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64813
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> This looks like a bug in darwin's system headers which should be using
> __noreturn__ not noreturn and __deprecated__ not deprecate, but I'll change
> the test to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64791
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini ---
Weird, I tried on my machine yesterday's r220267 and same result, no warning
(with -std=gnu++1z -Wall -Wextra). I guess that before closing this bug we need
either to figure out what's special about that web
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64877
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
And just for the sake of completion, the warning we trigger is:
else if (((code0 == POINTER_TYPE || TYPE_PTRDATAMEM_P (type0))
&& null_ptr_cst_p (op1))
/* Han
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64877
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64885
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64885
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That's a bug in gthr-single.h
--- a/libgcc/gthr-single.h
+++ b/libgcc/gthr-single.h
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ typedef int __gthread_recursive_mutex_t;
#define __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION(mx)
#define __GTHREAD_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This looks like a bug in darwin's system headers which should be using
__noreturn__ not noreturn and __deprecated__ not deprecate, but I'll change the
test to avoid it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11911
--- Comment #9 from Frédéric Buclin ---
(In reply to anthony from comment #4)
> That was I. Any way to change the reporter to acq...@optonline.net?
Done (12 years later)!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
See also pr64885.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64885
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Related to (duplicate of) pr64883.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64885
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-ibm-aix
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64882
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.0 |4.8.5
Summary|[5 Regression] IC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64885
--- Comment #1 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 34633
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34633&action=edit
gzipped pre-processed source of testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64885
Bug ID: 64885
Summary: libstdc++ all_attributes failure
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64882
--- Comment #12 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sat Jan 31 15:30:30 2015
New Revision: 220306
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220306&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-31 Uros Bizjak
PR target/64882
* config/i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64159
--- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn ---
Author: dje
Date: Sat Jan 31 14:57:43 2015
New Revision: 220305
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220305&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/64159
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-cse-2.c: Add XFAI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64884
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64884
Bug ID: 64884
Summary: [5 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/tm/pr47573.C -std=gnu++98
(test for excess errors) on x86_64-apple-darwin*
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64342
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8)
> The failures are gone after r220296. However I think the "fix" (skipping the
> test on pic targets) does not answer
>
> > So, it seems the r216154 patch int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58321
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Still present at r220301 (see
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-01/msg03581.html). Does the patch
in comment 2 makes sense or is there a better fix?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64342
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64775
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 34632
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34632&action=edit
compressed preprocessed file
See also https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-01/msg03581.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
Bug ID: 64883
Summary: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++*/all_attributes.cc (test
for excess errors) on x86_64-apple-darwin14
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64882
--- Comment #11 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 34631
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34631&action=edit
Proposed patch
Patch in testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64882
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> But what about vsib_address_operand, address_mpx_no_base_operand,
> address_mpx_no_index_operand?
(define_predicate "vsib_address_operand"
- (match_operand 0 "a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64791
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini ---
I know that web page, but today, 20150131, I can't reproduce the issue with the
current tree on my machine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61458
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
Hi Jon. Frankly Are you 100% sure (in terms of middle-end/back-end details)
that the maximum alignment supported for a type of less than 4 bytes is 4? In
that case, your proposal of using __aligned__((_Len))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64791
--- Comment #6 from Ville Voutilainen ---
I ran it with this thing:
http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/gAsh89NaSSFspYjq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64791
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini ---
Hi ville. With r220303 I don't see the warning, at any optimization level and
various combinations of other flags + -Wunused-but-set-variable of course. Can
you please double check / provide more information?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64882
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> But what about vsib_address_operand, address_mpx_no_base_operand,
> address_mpx_no_index_operand?
These *do* check modes, the problematic predicate is defined as a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64882
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
FYI, testcase tweaked to be 32-bit clean and still exhibit the issue with -m64:
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr64882.c.jj2015-01-31 11:40:35.492612235 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr64882.c2015-01-31 11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64882
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
But what about vsib_address_operand, address_mpx_no_base_operand,
address_mpx_no_index_operand?
Even address_operand is used directly:
[(prefetch (match_operand:P 0 "address_operand" "p")
(cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64882
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|uros at gcc do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64882
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
This is target problem, address_no_seg_operand should check the mode for all
non-CONST_INT_P operands (please see the comment above the predicate).
So, we have to narrow the condition to:
--cut here--
Index:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64882
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> And the problem seems to be that the mode argument to address_no_seg_operand
> predicate is completely ignored.
>
> The big question is where to fix this.
> I've
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64882
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64882
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64882
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64688
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Known to work|
85 matches
Mail list logo
