[Bug other/63509] Misleading error message when building gcc without C++ compiler installed

2015-05-02 Thread chenrylee at qq dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63509 Chenry changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chenrylee at qq dot com --- Comment #4 from Che

[Bug bootstrap/65988] New: Trying to compile GCC 5.1 in my (customized) Solaris 10/x86-64 fails with GMP errors

2015-05-02 Thread jcea at jcea dot es
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65988 Bug ID: 65988 Summary: Trying to compile GCC 5.1 in my (customized) Solaris 10/x86-64 fails with GMP errors Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Seve

[Bug web/64968] Upgrade GCC Bugzilla to 5.0

2015-05-02 Thread LpSolit at netscape dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968 --- Comment #33 from Frédéric Buclin --- I found only one user account which uses the Asia/Kolkata timezone. But no reason why this would interact with the local timezone.

[Bug web/64968] Upgrade GCC Bugzilla to 5.0

2015-05-02 Thread LpSolit at netscape dot net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968 --- Comment #32 from Frédéric Buclin --- For some reason, DateTime::TimeZone->new(name => 'local') sometimes returns Asia/Kolkata, which explains the -05:30 offset observed in the famous 2% of bugmails with an incorrect timestamp. I added extra d

[Bug target/65987] [6 Regression] [SH] Wrong jump generated for gcc.dg/tree-prof/va-arg-pack-1.c with -fprofile-use

2015-05-02 Thread kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65987 --- Comment #1 from Kazumoto Kojima --- Created attachment 35445 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35445&action=edit patch for section crossing jumps It turns out that some SH specific jump optimizations don't take into accoun

[Bug target/65987] New: [6 Regression] [SH] Wrong jump generated for gcc.dg/tree-prof/va-arg-pack-1.c with -fprofile-use

2015-05-02 Thread kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65987 Bug ID: 65987 Summary: [6 Regression] [SH] Wrong jump generated for gcc.dg/tree-prof/va-arg-pack-1.c with -fprofile-use Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/17995] gcc-3.4.2/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/eh_alloc.cc:34

2015-05-02 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17995 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug target/65986] New: [6 Regression] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2244 (insn does not satisfy its constraints) with -mavx512ifma

2015-05-02 Thread zsojka at seznam dot cz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65986 Bug ID: 65986 Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2244 (insn does not satisfy its constraints) with -mavx512ifma Product: gcc Versi

[Bug c++/65985] compiler segfault with assert() in constexpr constructor body

2015-05-02 Thread rhalbersma at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65985 --- Comment #1 from rhalbersma --- See also LWG active issue 2234 http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2234

[Bug c++/65985] New: compiler segfault with assert() in constexpr constructor body

2015-05-02 Thread rhalbersma at gmail dot com
-code Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: rhalbersma at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- The following code segfaults with -std=c++1y for g++ 5.1.0 and trunk 20150502 on the combination of

[Bug middle-end/65984] New: ICE: definition in block 4 does not dominate use in block 2 with -fnon-call-exceptions -fsanitize=enum

2015-05-02 Thread zsojka at seznam dot cz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65984 Bug ID: 65984 Summary: ICE: definition in block 4 does not dominate use in block 2 with -fnon-call-exceptions -fsanitize=enum Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRME

[Bug libstdc++/17995] gcc-3.4.2/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/eh_alloc.cc:34

2015-05-02 Thread cary.lewis at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17995 --- Comment #16 from Cary Lewis --- Sorry, here is the output of the command that generates the error during make bootstrap. I appreciate the help very much. Here is the configure command: ../gcc-3.4.3/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-3.4.3x

[Bug libstdc++/65641] unordered_map - __detail::_Mod_range_hashing is slow

2015-05-02 Thread glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65641 --- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse --- Currently, the only implemented policy uses primes from a hard-coded list for the number of buckets. This makes it easy to precompute (and hard-code in the library) anything that may be helpful to speed-up modu

[Bug target/65983] New: [6 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in mark_label_nuses (emit-rtl.c:3618) with -fsanitize=thread -mavx512ifma -march=barcelona

2015-05-02 Thread zsojka at seznam dot cz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65983 Bug ID: 65983 Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in mark_label_nuses (emit-rtl.c:3618) with -fsanitize=thread -mavx512ifma -march=barcelona Product: gcc Version

[Bug libstdc++/17995] gcc-3.4.2/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/eh_alloc.cc:34

2015-05-02 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17995 --- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely --- It can't be this exact error, because the line number will have changed, and it would be useful to know the exact line numbers where the errors happen with the current sources (we have three different vers

[Bug libstdc++/17995] gcc-3.4.2/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/eh_alloc.cc:34

2015-05-02 Thread cary.lewis at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17995 --- Comment #14 from Cary Lewis --- It's this exact error. The 3rd stage fails. With the conflict about ::strstr and std::strstr

[Bug fortran/65976] gfortran man-page lists the -fno-fixed-form flag but does not define it, and it doesn't work

2015-05-02 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65976 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |5.2

[Bug fortran/65976] gfortran man-page lists the -fno-fixed-form flag but does not define it, and it doesn't work

2015-05-02 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65976 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug fortran/65976] gfortran man-page lists the -fno-fixed-form flag but does not define it, and it doesn't work

2015-05-02 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65976 --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Sat May 2 16:40:18 2015 New Revision: 222726 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222726&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-05-02 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/65976

[Bug fortran/65976] gfortran man-page lists the -fno-fixed-form flag but does not define it, and it doesn't work

2015-05-02 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65976 --- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Sat May 2 16:37:35 2015 New Revision: 222725 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222725&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-05-02 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/65976

[Bug libstdc++/17995] gcc-3.4.2/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/eh_alloc.cc:34

2015-05-02 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17995 --- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Cary Lewis from comment #12) > gcc-core builds fine on sco 5.0.7, but the I would like to be able to build > a more modern version of the c++ compiler. Try it, if it still fails then re-open

[Bug ipa/65972] ICE after applying a patch to enable verify_ssa

2015-05-02 Thread hiraditya at msn dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65972 --- Comment #1 from AK --- PS: The bootstrap fails after applying this patch and emits the error reported above.

[Bug lto/65982] New: [5/6 Regression] ICE: in lto_output_varpool_node, at lto-cgraph.c:623

2015-05-02 Thread trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65982 Bug ID: 65982 Summary: [5/6 Regression] ICE: in lto_output_varpool_node, at lto-cgraph.c:623 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/17995] gcc-3.4.2/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/eh_alloc.cc:34

2015-05-02 Thread cary.lewis at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17995 Cary Lewis changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cary.lewis at gmail dot com --- Comment #12

[Bug target/65979] Multiple issues in conftest.c prevent build on sh4-linux-gnu

2015-05-02 Thread kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979 --- Comment #4 from Kazumoto Kojima --- (In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #3) > I can't see these failures on my cross builds of gcc-5, though. > It could be a problem of the build compiler too. Although I can't see them in my cross buil

[Bug target/65979] Multiple issues in conftest.c prevent build on sh4-linux-gnu

2015-05-02 Thread kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979 Kazumoto Kojima changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug fortran/65975] !$ is not recognized as a comment when -fopenmp flag is used

2015-05-02 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65975 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug debug/65980] [6 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure building Linux kernel

2015-05-02 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65980 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug lto/65950] Loop is not vectorized with lto.

2015-05-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65950 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Do we eventually think the loop is cold?

[Bug target/65951] [AArch64] Will not vectorize 64bit integer multiplication

2015-05-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65951 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||53947 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biene

[Bug lto/65559] [5/6 Regression] lto1.exe: internal compiler error: in read_cgraph_and_symbols, at lto/lto.c:2947

2015-05-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559 --- Comment #34 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Rainer Emrich from comment #30) > I'm testing the following instead: > > Index: gcc/lto-wrapper.c > === > --- gcc/lto-wrapper.c

[Bug fortran/65981] FAIL: gfortran.dg/bound_9.f90 -O execution test

2015-05-02 Thread sch...@linux-m68k.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65981 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/37131] inline matmul for small matrix sizes

2015-05-02 Thread sch...@linux-m68k.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug libstdc++/65978] missing constexpr on std::forward_as_tuple and std::tie (LWG issues 2275 and 2301)

2015-05-02 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65978 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/65978] missing constexpr on std::forward_as_tuple and std::tie (LWG issues 2275 and 2301)

2015-05-02 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65978 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Sat May 2 11:20:03 2015 New Revision: 222719 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222719&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR libstdc++/65978 * include/std/tuple (forward_as_tuple,

[Bug fortran/65975] !$ is not recognized as a comment when -fopenmp flag is used

2015-05-02 Thread CPonder at nVidia dot Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65975 --- Comment #3 from Carl Ponder --- So the compiler is really complaining about the "external" qualifier here !$ external, logical:: omp_in_parallel right? Is this something not supported in gfortran?

[Bug fortran/65981] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/bound_9.f90 -O execution test

2015-05-02 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65981 Bug ID: 65981 Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/bound_9.f90 -O execution test Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug fortran/65975] !$ is not recognized as a comment when -fopenmp flag is used

2015-05-02 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65975 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug libstdc++/65861] libstdc++ is silently generating wrong code when its std::search is given an input iterator

2015-05-02 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65861 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- There are actually good reasons *not* to reject input iterators at compile-time. You could have an iterator which meets most, but not all, the forward iterator requirements, and so must have input_iterator

[Bug c/65958] -fstack-check breaks alloca on architectures using generic stack checking

2015-05-02 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65958 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug c/65958] -fstack-check breaks alloca on architectures using generic stack checking

2015-05-02 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65958 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Target|arm | Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug debug/65980] New: [6 Regression] -fcompare-debug building Linux kernel

2015-05-02 Thread trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65980 Bug ID: 65980 Summary: [6 Regression] -fcompare-debug building Linux kernel Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug target/65979] internal compiler error: in make_edges, at tree-cfg.c:923

2015-05-02 Thread glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979 --- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- Additional comment: There seem to be multiple (unrelated?) errors which prevent the built but all of them, including the one I reported seem to relate to conftest.c. So I'll rename the bug title

[Bug c++/65973] segmentation fault when compiling C++14 code

2015-05-02 Thread trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65973 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/65979] internal compiler error: in make_edges, at tree-cfg.c:923

2015-05-02 Thread glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979 --- Comment #1 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- Created attachment 35441 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35441&action=edit Preprocessed source files for gcc-5

[Bug target/65979] New: internal compiler error: in make_edges, at tree-cfg.c:923

2015-05-02 Thread glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979 Bug ID: 65979 Summary: internal compiler error: in make_edges, at tree-cfg.c:923 Product: gcc Version: 5.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prio

[Bug libstdc++/65978] New: missing constexpr on std::forward_as_tuple and std::tie (LWG issues 2275 and 2301)

2015-05-02 Thread rhalbersma at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65978 Bug ID: 65978 Summary: missing constexpr on std::forward_as_tuple and std::tie (LWG issues 2275 and 2301) Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severi

[Bug c++/65977] New: Constexpr should be allowed in declaration of friend template specialization

2015-05-02 Thread rhalbersma at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65977 Bug ID: 65977 Summary: Constexpr should be allowed in declaration of friend template specialization Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: no

[Bug c/59098] Unwarranted warning: promoted ~unsigned is always non-zero [-Wsign-compare]

2015-05-02 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59098 --- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to fenugrec from comment #3) > Probable duplicate of Bug 38341 I don't think so. The problem here is not only whether the warning is correct or not. A major issue is that the original code do