https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65550
--- Comment #5 from Mikhail Maltsev ---
Or even simpler:
#!/bin/bash
mkdir -p ./src
mkdir -p ./build/src/preproc.h.gch
touch ./src/preproc.h
cat << EOF >./src/include.h
#include "src/preproc.h"
/* line 1 */
/* line 2 */
EOF
cat << EOF >./src/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65089
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> In a slightly altered patched, I've added a precondition which examines
> first the locus of the current symbol and finally the error reported seems
> to comply with the testsuites.
Indeed, however
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65500
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
After some discussion with Torvald I'm wondering whether it would be better to
never use the PTHREAD_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER macro anyway, so we can initialize the
rwlock with (non-standard) attributes such as
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59499
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59716
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59795
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65469
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.price at monash dot edu
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016
--- Comment #13 from drikosev at otenet dot gr ---
Hi Dominiq,
The new patch (gcc-4.8.4) worked as the older one but since the locus is
corrupted I'm not surprised that a test case you tried failed. Could you post
it here please?
The corrupted l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32676
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|gcc-bugs at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38068
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|anubhav.saxe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59024
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
AFAICT the errors with the trunk (5.0) are now
pr59024.f90:6.6:
TYPE tc
1
Error: Syntax error in PUBLIC statement at (1)
pr59024.f90:7.5:
END TYPE tc
1
Error: Expecting END MODULE sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39934
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org|jason at gcc dot
gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65469
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65469
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Comment 4 was based on
[Book15] f90/bug% gfc pr65469.f90
pr65469.f90:6:14:
type(my_type) :: crap
1
Error: Derived type 'my_type' at (1) is being used before it is defined
[Book15] f9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016
--- Comment #14 from drikosev at otenet dot gr ---
Indeed, the new patch in comment 10 does not prevent the ICEs with the the
first example bug.f90 (in Description before comment 1).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Apr 4 10:47:08 2015
New Revision: 221866
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221866&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-04 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/64909
PR tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64909
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Apr 4 10:47:08 2015
New Revision: 221866
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221866&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-04 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/64909
PR tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59024
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The change of behavior occurred between revisions r214073 (2014-08-17, ICE)
> and r214113 (2014-08-18, error). A candidate could be r214076,
> but I don't see why.
This seems to depend on the mood o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58033
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
Another example on SH:
const char* test (const char* s0, int c, int* rout)
{
int r = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < c; ++i)
r += s0[i];
*rout = r;
return s0;
}
compiled with -O2:
_test:
cmp/pl r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On April 3, 2015 8:35:00 PM GMT+02:00, rguenther at suse dot de
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
>
>--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de
>---
>On April 3, 2015
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55190
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
Another example:
const char* test (const char* s0, int c, int* rout)
{
int r = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < c; ++i)
//r += s0[i];
r += *s0++;
*rout = r;
return s0;
}
On SH compiles to:
_test:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65665
--- Comment #8 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #5)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> > Hello.
> >
> > I've just sent patch to mailing list:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57519
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The test succeeds on darwin with the following patch
--- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/imported-decl-2.C2014-06-04
00:42:23.0 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/impo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43622
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65550
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65648
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65647
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Sat Apr 4 14:35:59 2015
New Revision: 221867
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221867&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-04 Vladimir Makarov
PR target/65647
* lra-int.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997
--- Comment #18 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #17)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #16)
> > This testcase fails on aarch64 when SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS is true.
>
> hmm, yes.
>
> there are targets that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59964
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65672
Bug ID: 65672
Summary: type attribute "aligned" can decrease alignment
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65535
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Tobler ---
Here a native build seems to succeed, right now in stage three with sources
from today.
[tritium:head/objdir/gcc] andreast% grep -i fbsd_major *
Makefile:tm_defines= LIBC_GLIBC=1 LIBC_UCLIBC=2 LIBC_BIONIC=3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65535
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Tobler ---
Btw, cool bug ID ;) 0x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65535
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Tobler ---
Unfortunately the build fails with:
/usr/local/bin/ld: libbackend.a(tree-diagnostic.o): bad reloc symbol index
(0x1 >= 0x39) for offset 0x3ee6 in section `.debug_info'
libbackend.a: error adding symbols
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65581
--- Comment #15 from Rainer Emrich ---
Bug report opened for ld.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18199
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
Thanks,
32-bit eon runs improved today, though I am not 100% sure it is ude to
vectorization or the unit growth change
http://gcc.opensuse.org/SPEC/CINT/sb-frescobaldi.suse.de-head-64-32o-32bit/252_eon_recent_
Thanks,
32-bit eon runs improved today, though I am not 100% sure it is ude to
vectorization or the unit growth change
http://gcc.opensuse.org/SPEC/CINT/sb-frescobaldi.suse.de-head-64-32o-32bit/252_eon_recent_big.png
Overall we had better scores on 32bit eon in the past however
http://gcc.opensuse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65673
Bug ID: 65673
Summary: Compound literal with initializer for zero-sized array
drops other initializers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
39 matches
Mail list logo
