https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66034
Bug ID: 66034
Summary: Enhancement request: fiber-local storage
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66018
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66032
--- Comment #3 from Chris Johns chris at contemporary dot net.au ---
Built GNU sed from source and added to my path:
ruru rtems $ sed --version
GNU sed version 4.2
Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #23)
The bb-slp-14.c testcase now FAILs on Solaris/SPARC. Attaching the dump.
Rainer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 62283, which changed state.
Bug 62283 Summary: basic-block vectorization fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 6 06:47:38 2015
New Revision: 222843
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222843root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-05-06 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66033
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com ---
Right, but there will be when I have my split-stack implementation done.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66028
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Created attachment 35464 [details]
Follow-up patch fixing latest regression.
With this patch all code samples and the code in the tar-archive compile
and execute well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66009
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
That's an interesting idea - your argument is that if niter analysis was able
to compute an expression for the number of iterations and the cast we are
looking at
is a widening of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66020
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65947
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
You definitely need special support for COND_EXPR a reduction operator. And
yes, if it's in that simple form then reducing the condition is the thing to
do.
But then you have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66033
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192
Rahul rahul.gundecha at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rahul.gundecha at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66033
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sounds like there is no testcase for any places where gen_nop is used.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66010
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59678
--- Comment #20 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This patch is for trunk, aka 6.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192
--- Comment #10 from Matt Whitlock gcc at mattwhitlock dot name ---
(In reply to Rahul from comment #9)
I am also experiencing the same issue. Is there any solution for it?
You can wrap a preprocessor macro around string literals that you want to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66035
Bug ID: 66035
Summary: [5.1 Regression] gfortran ICE segfault
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66015
--- Comment #2 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Wed May 6 11:19:56 2015
New Revision: 222848
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222848root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-05-06 Christian Bruel christian.br...@st.com
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66036
Bug ID: 66036
Summary: strided group loads are not vectorized
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66036
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66002
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg00214.html
regresses
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr21559.c scan-tree-dump-times vrp1 Threaded jump 3
(a real missed optimization - a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66035
--- Comment #1 from Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de ---
Created attachment 35475
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35475action=edit
Full build log with failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
--- Comment #28 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35476
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35476action=edit
bb-slp-32.c.141t.slp2 dump
A reghunt just confirmed that the patch also caused
XPASS:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
--- Comment #29 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 6 May 2015, ro at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
--- Comment #28 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
--- Comment #30 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 6 12:21:01 2015
New Revision: 222849
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222849root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-05-06 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65991
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66036
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reduction case with unrolling
struct Xf {
float x;
float y;
};
float testf (struct Xf *x, int stride, int n)
{
int i;
float sum = 0.;
for (i = 0; i n; ++i)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66031
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #26 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #25 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
[...]
Not yet: those sparc boxes are slow, and it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66002
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm testing adding a mergephi pass instead of moving the existing one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65767
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66029
--- Comment #4 from JD t at sharklasers dot com ---
I tried as you advised; this is the configuration I'm trying to build:
$ ../gcc-5.1.0/configure --prefix=gcc5.1 --enable-languages=c,c++
--enable-gold=yes --enable-ld=yes --enable-lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59161
--- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com ---
valid for: gcc-5.1.1-1.fc23.x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64208
--- Comment #4 from Yvan Roux yroux at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: yroux
Date: Wed May 6 14:23:57 2015
New Revision: 222853
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222853root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
2015-05-06 Yvan Roux yvan.r...@linaro.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66029
--- Comment #6 from JD t at sharklasers dot com ---
Concerning the latest release of binutils, I have to admit I've never used a
local installation, so I might be doing something wrong here.
I downloaded and compiled version 2.25 and with that I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
Andrew Macleod amacleod at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35425|0 |1
is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59171
--- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com ---
valid for: gcc-5.1.1-1.fc23.x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66029
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
There is also PR 62077.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59170
--- Comment #3 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com ---
-D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG
gcc-5.1.1-1.fc23.x86_64
(gdb) p end._M_current == ((std::__debug::vectorint, std::allocatorint
*)end._M_sequence)._M_impl._M_finish
$11 = true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66029
--- Comment #5 from JD t at sharklasers dot com ---
Created attachment 35477
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35477action=edit
errors using binutils 2.25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66029
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64208
--- Comment #5 from Yvan Roux yroux at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The latent bug on trunk is now fixed, but the issue is still present in 4.9.2
branch as the patch needs validation on that branch. I don't plan to validate
it right now, as I don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66035
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66020
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amodra
Date: Wed May 6 13:10:59 2015
New Revision: 222850
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222850root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/66020
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66035
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66015
--- Comment #1 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Wed May 6 10:54:40 2015
New Revision: 222847
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222847root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-05-06 Christian Bruel christian.br...@st.com
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66033
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amodra
Date: Wed May 6 13:12:19 2015
New Revision: 222851
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222851root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/66033
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66020
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65955
--- Comment #11 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #6)
I'm now doing a nobootstrap build and test with and without the patch.
Test results:
...
$ diff -I guality -u FAILs.222758 FAILs.222758.patched
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66024
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Since this requires the base z Systems support on the LLVM side this BZ should
be addressed first: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23433
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66025
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Since this requires the base z Systems support on the LLVM side this BZ should
be addressed first: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23434
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59161
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65990
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65990
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Fixed everywhere.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #1 from Douglas Mencken dougmencken at gmail dot com ---
$ prev-gcc/xgcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=prev-gcc/xgcc
Target: powerpc-unknown-darwin
Configured with: ../gcc-5.1.0/configure --build=powerpc-unknown-darwin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Matt Whitlock from comment #11)
Created attachment 35479 [details]
put string literals into unique sections when -fmerge-constants
-fdata-sections
This patch puts each
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46029
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Maybe the patch was not committed because it was not ready before stage3:
GCC 4.6 Stage 3 (starts 2010-11-03). I will update the patch and resubmit
for review.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192
--- Comment #13 from Matt Whitlock gcc at mattwhitlock dot name ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
Would it better to use MD5 checksum on string contents?
MD5 would be slower for not much gain in uniqueness (assuming its output is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66040
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40115
Per Lundberg perlun at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||perlun at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65966
Mikhail Maltsev maltsevm at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maltsevm at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
--- Comment #29 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Further ideas:
- Handling of TRANSPOSEd arguments
- Temporaries for arguments which are not plain arrays
- Remove size0 checks (the DO loops will do that on their own)
- Remove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66040
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 09:09:57PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This appears to be an intentional ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58476
Michael Deutschmann michael at talosis dot ca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michael
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40115
--- Comment #6 from Per Lundberg perlun at gmail dot com ---
Well, the label is actually in the same function. It just happens to land there
on the other thread. I can't really use a function pointer here, since I have
no way (at least that I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65966
--- Comment #1 from Lewis Hyatt lhyatt at gmail dot com ---
Hello-
I have some additional information that I hope is helpful to look into this.
A. Regarding the first testcase, a regression from 4.9, which produces the
sorry, unimplemented
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131
--- Comment #28 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed May 6 20:23:48 2015
New Revision: 222864
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222864root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-05-06 Thomas Koenig tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40115
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In my case, I use the address for jumping but with indirect jumping
(in the new thread being created). Would you say that this is not supported?
yes that is not support is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Hi!
I did some more tests and it turns out, my current compiler can't even build
gcc-4.9 anymore. Inspecting the build log [1] closer hints at problems when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192
--- Comment #11 from Matt Whitlock gcc at mattwhitlock dot name ---
Created attachment 35479
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35479action=edit
put string literals into unique sections when -fmerge-constants -fdata-sections
This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #52 from Andrew Macleod amacleod at redhat dot com ---
(In reply to mwahab from comment #51)
The mips backend was the only one that stood out as needing some care,
because the way it uses the memory models (e.g. in function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66035
--- Comment #4 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35482
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35482action=edit
Candidate patch for latest regressions.
This is a candidate patch for trunk, aka 6.0, including all my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66040
Bug ID: 66040
Summary: ICE on misplaced sequence in function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66022
--- Comment #1 from James Mason jrm at exa dot com ---
Using the same machine and shell script (save changing the version variable
from gcc-4.8.4 to gcc-4.9.2), a nearly identical failure occurs:
gmake[2]: Entering directory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66040
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz gerhard.steinmetz.fort...@t-online.de
---
There are more cases for ICEs on misplaced statements in a function. For
example :
---
real function f()
block data
end
---
real function f()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66039
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66037
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66039
Bug ID: 66039
Summary: ICE on incomplete parentheses at rewind, flush,
endfile, backspace
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65990
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed May 6 16:21:07 2015
New Revision: 222859
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222859root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/65990
* config/i386/i386.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54303
--- Comment #16 from Matt Whitlock gcc at mattwhitlock dot name ---
Here's a working solution:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192#c11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65862
--- Comment #5 from Robert Suchanek robert.suchanek at imgtec dot com ---
Sorry for late reply, I was on vacation.
The costs are equal if cost of moving general regs to/from fp regs or
memory are equal. So it looks ok to me.
r218 spilled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65990
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed May 6 16:17:59 2015
New Revision: 222858
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222858root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/65990
* config/i386/i386.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66010
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35480
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35480action=edit
Tentative patch
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
apD.1859 = apD.1844;
# .MEM_7 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59675
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65862
--- Comment #6 from Matthew Fortune matthew.fortune at imgtec dot com ---
(In reply to Robert Suchanek from comment #5)
I am not sure, that the result code is better as we access memory 3
times instead of access to $f20.
On one hand, yes,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
Bug ID: 66038
Summary: SIGSEGV at stage 2 build/genmatch --gimple
../../gcc-5.1.0/gcc/match.pd
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54835
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #10)
I read DR 1630 again and cannot follow that conclusion - could you clarify?
It still says For copy-initialization, the candidate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66009
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Hahaha, finally figured out what was going on here.
The definition of types_match and single_use violate the C++ ODR in a
non-optimizing compilation (ie, then they do not get inlined).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66037
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg00051.html (whenever
an options structure pointer is available, you should use that rather than
global_*).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53792
Balakrishnan B balakrishnan.erode at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57558
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66037
Bug ID: 66037
Summary: [docs] what is the difference between global_options
and global_options_set?
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66041
Bug ID: 66041
Summary: [6.0 Regression] Matmul ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59675
--- Comment #5 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com ---
gcc-4.9.2-6.fc21.x86_64:
gcc-5.1.1-1.fc23.x86_64
#include debug/string
int main() { __gnu_debug::string s((const char *)0); }
g++ -o gcc59675b gcc59675b.C -Wall -g
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
