https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65867
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64230
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Do you see this too?
Yes, and the test runs if I remove/comment the line
Deallocate (x)
The test gfortran.dg/class_allocate_18.f90 has the same problem: see pr64921.
> I hope that reopening th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65882
Bug ID: 65882
Summary: Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines
re-entered
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Henlich ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #10)
> gfortran currently does this with default formatting, list directed outout:
> -
> ( 1., 0.) ( -1.00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65841
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> This PR is fixed by Andre's patch for pr59678 (all tests).
>
> > Note that the last test in comment 1 segfault with only the [fist patch]
> > for pr65792 +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65882
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65882
--- Comment #2 from yan12125 at gmail dot com ---
Sorry, I don't know why the attachment is lost. I re-attach the file here:
https://gist.githubusercontent.com/yan12125/b5498cb6ac2be4a5649a/raw/json.ii
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65882
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Summary|Internal co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52085
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Sat Apr 25 10:12:01 2015
New Revision: 222440
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222440&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/52085
* c-decl.c (finish_enum): Copy over TYPE_ALIGN. Als
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52085
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65883
Bug ID: 65883
Summary: numeric_limits::max() returns
incorrect value
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65883
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61907
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still in 5.1.0 at trans-array.c:2223
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61908
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Stiil in 5.1.0 at interface.c:2701
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65861
--- Comment #7 from Jack Howarth ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> And even if they don't read the libstdc++ documentation, std::search doesn't
> work with input iterators, that's always been true:
>
> https://www.sgi.com/tech/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65884
Bug ID: 65884
Summary: libgccjit fails to link on ia64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48852
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Thomas Henlich from comment #12)
--- snip ---
> There is also case C (right-flush in 2*w+3):
--- snip ---
Oh yes, Thanks Thomas. I now see you mentioned this in your previous comment.
It wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65818
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #12 from vri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65885
Bug ID: 65885
Summary: lambda expressions in templates fail to capture `const
int' variables
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65861
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jack Howarth from comment #7)
> Is there e reason for gcc not to detect such wrong code issues by default?
Read the docs, the concept checks only enforce C++03 requirements, so turning
them on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
Bug ID: 65886
Summary: [5/6 Regression] External reference in PIE to DSO
created with -Wl,-Bsymbolic
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65885
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65843
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||myoga.murase at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65887
Bug ID: 65887
Summary: remove va_arg ap copies
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65823
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53313
--- Comment #13 from David Stone ---
I understand the difference between the two. I just prefer an opt-out system of
warnings instead of opt-in. If absolutely no one could possibly want a warning,
it shouldn't exist. If some users would want the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg01546.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65888
Bug ID: 65888
Summary: Need a way to disable copy relocations
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65889
Bug ID: 65889
Summary: ICE on invalid(?) with sizeof polymorphic variable
[OOP]
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thiago at kde dot org
--- Comment #2 from H.J.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65888
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #3 from Thiago Macieira ---
Thanks H.J.!
Can I ask that -fsymbolic be the default? Otherwise, code with -fPIE MUST add
-fsymbolic in GCC 5+, but can't add it prior because the option didn't exist.
Please leave that for a release or t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #3)
> Thanks H.J.!
>
> Can I ask that -fsymbolic be the default? Otherwise, code with -fPIE MUST
> add -fsymbolic in GCC 5+, but can't add it prior because the option didn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #3)
> Thanks H.J.!
>
> Can I ask that -fsymbolic be the default? Otherwise, code with -fPIE MUST
> add -fsymbolic in GCC 5+, but can't add it prior because the option didn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5)
>
> BTW, you should add -fsymbolic to -fPIC if the shared library will be
> created by -Bsymbolic. It will improve shared library performance.
Here is an example:
[hjl@gnu-t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #7 from Thiago Macieira ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> (In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #3)
> > Thanks H.J.!
> >
> > Can I ask that -fsymbolic be the default? Otherwise, code with -fPIE MUST
> > add -fsymbolic i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
Frédéric Buclin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #8 from Thiago Macieira ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5)
> >
> > BTW, you should add -fsymbolic to -fPIC if the shared library will be
> > created by -Bsymbolic. It will improve shared
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #7)
> You're not accounting for loss of performance in the shared libraries that
> can't use -Bsymbolic due to the copy relocations, both at load-time
> (relocations by na
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #7)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #3)
> > > Thanks H.J.!
> > >
> > > Can I ask that -fsymbolic be the default? Oth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65890
Bug ID: 65890
Summary: [C++03]sizeof(qualified-id) accepted when the operand
denotes a non-static member
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #8)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
> > /export/build/gnu/gcc-5/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/xgcc
> > -B/export/build/gnu/gcc-5/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/ -flto -Wl,-Bsymb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65890
--- Comment #1 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com ---
Oops, wrong version of case pasted ... I once wanted to use this minimal one:
sizeof(Tag::m);
Nevertheless, the conclusion is the same for this issue.
(There are other mess, e.g. Clang++ 3.6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65881
Shawn Landden changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65890
--- Comment #2 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com ---
Tested here: http://melpon.org/wandbox/, both G++ 5.1 and 6.0 accepted the
invalid code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65891
Bug ID: 65891
Summary: -Wlogical-op now warns about logical ‘and’ of equal
expressions even when different types/sizeofs are
involved
Product: gcc
Version: unknow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65891
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65792
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
Bug ID: 65892
Summary: gcc fails to implement N685 aliasing of union members
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Some folks think that resolution is not fully correct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14319
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also if we follow that defect resolution, basically strict aliasing does not
mean anything any more and we would have to turn off strict aliasing for all
structs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64782
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64782
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
56 matches
Mail list logo
