https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65097
Bug ID: 65097
Summary: Common code for mkoffload implementations
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc, openmp
Severity: minor
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65096
Chris changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||karlowatz_chris at hotmail dot
com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61538
--- Comment #24 from Joshua Kinard ---
This might have been inadvertently fixed by this patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg02282.html
Which is commit 0d18e650 in the master branch. Can't pin down when that was
merged into the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65098
Bug ID: 65098
Summary: ada/gnat_rm.texi:8889: warning: undefined flag:
gnat_version
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65099
Bug ID: 65099
Summary: nvptx offloading: hard-coded 64-bit assumptions
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65090
--- Comment #3 from Dirk Bonne ---
The bug is elusive --- I then hope it is really gone from later versions and
not just hidden...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65100
Bug ID: 65100
Summary: ada/gnat-style.texi:568: warning: @itemize has text
but no @item
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #20 from Dominik Vogt ---
runtime_MProf_Malloc() calls runtime_callers() without going through
runtime.Callers():
#0 runtime_callers (skip=skip@entry=1, locbuf=locbuf@entry=0xc2094734b8,
m=m@entry=32, keep_thunks=keep_thunks@en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61538
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65015
--- Comment #23 from conchur at web dot de ---
Awesome :)
Just tested it and it seems to work quite well here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65081
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Feb 18 09:46:59 2015
New Revision: 220784
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220784&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/65081
* ubsan.c (OBJSZ_MAX_OFFSET): Define.
(u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65101
Bug ID: 65101
Summary: cppcheck for vector.tcc: Variable '__new_finish' is
reassigned a value before the old one has been used.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65101
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
cppcheck is wrong. If the std::__uninitialized_move_if_noexcept_a operation
throws an exception then __new_finish doesn't get a new value and is left
value-initialized, which is checked for in the catch cla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65101
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
i.e. __new_finish = pointer() is used as a check-point so the catch-block knows
whether an exception was thrown by _Alloc_traits::construct() or by
__uninitialized_move_if_noexcept_a(). That avoids having t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65091
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65081
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65094
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Feb 18 09:48:57 2015
New Revision: 220785
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220785&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-18 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/62217
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64935
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34674|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51017
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51017
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
We do already inhibit creating loop-carried dependencies of some kind, but only
when vectorization is enabled (because it can inhibit vectorization). But we
still PRE invariant loads:
Replaced MEM[(vtype
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65093
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62630
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Mircea Namolaru from comment #7)
> Graphite generates MAX/MIN expressions.
>
> I've modified Graphite to use the original types of "n" and "mid" in MIN and
> MAX, and to not generate the casts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65102
Bug ID: 65102
Summary: gnat-style.texi warning from including fdl.texi
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62630
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Note that as far as vectorization is concerned the issue is that the IV used to
perform the memory accesses is not affine:
:
# graphite_IV.4_34 = PHI <0(5), graphite_IV.4_35(7)>
_37 = (int) graphite_I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65087
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 18 11:37:02 2015
New Revision: 220786
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220786&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/65087
* cgraphclones.c (cgraph_node::create_virtual_clone):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64963
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65103
Bug ID: 65103
Summary: [i386] GOTOFF relocation is not propagated into
address expression
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65093
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65102
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |trivial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62630
--- Comment #10 from Mircea Namolaru ---
On my Intel x86-64 platform changed in graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c:
- static int graphite_expression_type_precision = 128 <= max_mode_int_precision
?
- 128 : max_mode_int_precisi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65064
--- Comment #15 from Andreas Schwab ---
The first patch works without regressions.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-02/msg02066.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65104
Bug ID: 65104
Summary: gnat_rm.texi 'next/prev in menu and sectioning
difffer' warnings
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65104
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |trivial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65092
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65104
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34800
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34800&action=edit
tentative patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65105
Bug ID: 65105
Summary: [i386] XMM registers are not used for 64bit
computations on 32bit target
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #21 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Ah, thanks. So we should change that to
r->stk[i] = locstk[i].pc + 1;
too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65098
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This would fix it:
...
diff --git a/gcc/ada/gnat_rm.texi b/gcc/ada/gnat_rm.texi
index 04f3d0b..1fd0534 100644
--- a/gcc/ada/gnat_rm.texi
+++ b/gcc/ada/gnat_rm.texi
@@ -8886,7 +8886,7 @@ attribute.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65105
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62630
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, graphite generates expressions like MIN_EXPR <(long)n, (long)mid> < 0
that fold does not simplify. Adding a match.pd pattern to shorten min/max
expressions we end up with
:
_28 = MIN_EXPR ;
_29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65063
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Feb 18 13:08:58 2015
New Revision: 220788
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220788&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-18 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/65063
* tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65063
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9/5 Regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #22 from Dominik Vogt ---
You mean the function saveg() code in mprof.goc?
I'm actually not sure how the above patch to runtime_callers() interacts with
all the other functions that call runtime_callers(). :-/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65064
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
A new patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg01105.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65105
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich ---
For this test I see 'plus' and 'minus' ops have DI mode until RA and get GPR
pairs:
(insn 12 35 13 2 (parallel [
(set (reg:DI 0 ax [orig:98 D.1945 ] [98])
(plus:DI (reg:DI 0 ax [o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56852
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> There is a simple fix, may be too big hammer:
> ...
The patch in comment 3 fixes the ICE, bur breaks many tests (700+) for error:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/abstract_type_3.f03 -O (test for errors, line
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64864
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65087
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65107
Bug ID: 65107
Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/eof_4.f90, runtime error: File
'test.dat' already exists
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64491
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ams at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65108
Bug ID: 65108
Summary: Missing DWARF info for static const class members
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64634
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65106
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
See the definition of "modifiable lvalue" (6.3.2.1#1): "... if it is a
structure or union, does not have any member (including, recursively, any
member or element of all contained aggregate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65107
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65106
Bug ID: 65106
Summary: C99 intialization of struct with const member through
a non-const pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
Bug ID: 65109
Summary: [5 Regression] r220674 causes FAIL:
gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-1.c execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64935
--- Comment #17 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Maxim Kuvyrkov from comment #16)
> Created attachment 34799 [details]
> Patch v2
>
> I'm happy with this version of the patch and will post it for review after
> testing.
>
> Markus, I w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65108
--- Comment #1 from Andy Wingo ---
I mentioned this bug to Dodji Seketeli who said that this was probably an
instance of early constant folding causing Foo::one to appear unused.
On Dodji's suggestion I recompiled with -fno-eliminate-unused-debu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65104
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||charlet at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65104
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65098
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62630
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 34801
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34801&action=edit
use VRP to interpret an expr and compute its range
The attached patch is a prototype that tries to replace ni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62630
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Ah, expand_simple_operations will not expand the MIN/MAX_EXPRs. If we change
that the patch makes data-ref analysis fail differently (we correctly can
then compute bounds for the loops!), as we still may w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65109
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64634
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64491
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Stubbs ---
Just silencing the warning may not be enough. The compiler may optimize away
loop exit conditions based on this analysis. The warning mirrors the logic
rather than shares it (due to the way the logic is distr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64491
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Stubbs from comment #8)
> Just silencing the warning may not be enough. The compiler may optimize away
> loop exit conditions based on this analysis. The warning mirrors the logic
> rather
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65107
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> > But cleaning after itself does not guarantee that this failure is fixed.
> > We need to ensure that all tests that use test.dat clean up after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
--- Comment #31 from H.J. Lu ---
If I dis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65078
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65064
--- Comment #17 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Feb 18 17:24:20 2015
New Revision: 220792
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220792&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Return false for common symbols in sdata_symbolic_operand
Althoug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65064
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #32 from H.J. Lu ---
_ZN18eonImageCalculatorC2Ev has an alias, _ZN18eonImageCalculatorC1Ev.
It is only called once in main. _ZN18eonImageCalculatorC1Ev calls
_ZmlRK10ggSpectrumS1_. But _ZN18eonImageCalculatorC1Ev is ignored
by ipa_r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58910
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64983
--- Comment #2 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
I am not seeing identical g++.log's being created here from dejagnu 1.5.1 and
1.5.2 on x86_64-apple-darwin14 with separate runs of...
make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix'{-m32,-m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58123
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65008
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #23 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Yes, I do mean to change saveg in mprof.goc.
runtime_callers in general returns full file/line information, which is
required for full correctness when using gccgo. When it devolves back to a
plain PC,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65110
Bug ID: 65110
Summary: Does not accept multi-argument template in member
initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65111
Bug ID: 65111
Summary: null checks on pointers created from references not
optimized away
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52595
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stanshebs at earthlink dot net
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65110
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #33 from H.J. Lu ---
There are many calls to _ZmlRK10ggSpectrumS1_ in LTO IR. Some calls have
parameters with unknown alignment. But they are ignored by IPA-CP, which
applies parameter alignment from calls with known parameter alignm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65111
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64983
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
running with dejaGNU 1.6 also produces the wrong output.
I did a small amount of analysis - and it looks like the content of the
xxx.sum.sep files is not what's expected by the combiner script.
*guess* that t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52231
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||froydnj at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52231
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Froyd ---
FWIW, clang (>= 3.5) understands how to optimize the original testcase in
comment 0; it even issues a -Wtautological-undefined-compare warning.
This also showed up in the context of trying to hint to the comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63892
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #22 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #21)
> Created attachment 34798 [details]
> Full Patch
>
> This patch attempts to do it all. I have not tested the mingw/cygwin side of
> it.
>
> Any testing/comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65107
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Feb 18 20:07:48 2015
New Revision: 220794
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220794&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add missing cleanup in gfortran.dg/read_eof_8.f90
2015-02-18 T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #23 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #21)
> Created attachment 34798 [details]
> Full Patch
>
> This patch attempts to do it all. I have not tested the mingw/cygwin side of
> it.
>
> Any testing/comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #34 from H.J. Lu ---
propagate_alignment_accross_jump_function seems wrong:
if (cur.known)
{
if (!dest_lat->alignment.known)
{
dest_lat->alignment = cur;
return true;
}
We can't ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64983
--- Comment #4 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
FYI, I posted this to
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-dejagnu/2015-02/msg1.html and emailed
Ben Elliston the g++.log files generated under dejagnu 1.5.1 and 1.5.2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65112
Bug ID: 65112
Summary: [5 Regression] -fsanitized=thread Fortran program
crashes at startup
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #35 from Jan Hubicka ---
> propagate_alignment_accross_jump_function seems wrong:
>
> if (cur.known)
> {
> if (!dest_lat->alignment.known)
> {
> dest_lat->alignment = cur;
> return true;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64983
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to howarth from comment #4)
> FYI, I posted this to
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-dejagnu/2015-02/msg1.html and
> emailed Ben Elliston the g++.log files generated under dejagnu 1.5.1 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #24 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #22)
> count_rate(8),count_max(1) =0 127
>
> OK, but the last line looks strange: lacking documentation,
> I'd expect the rate to be 1, not 0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65008
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
