https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66088
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab ---
The modification cannot be observed outside of the function, thus removing the
assignment would not change the behaviour of the whole program.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66088
Vladimir changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66086
--- Comment #3 from Andrea Griffini ---
The problem remains even storing the intermediate result to a named variable
(not really surprising)...
uintptr_t ip = (uintptr_t)ptr;
return (double)ip;
but of course goes away if storing the poi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66086
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Is don't think there is a way turn back a double into a point reliability. if
pointers are 32bit and double are 64 bit, it might work. But really it is
unportable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66086
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
> note that on x86-64 the used values are 48-bit only and a double provides
> enough
> accuracy to store them correctly.
These kind of assumptions are bad and very unportable. I can think of targets
were pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66086
--- Comment #6 from Andrea Griffini ---
The question is however: with a 32-bit intptr_t and a 64-bit double (that
has no problem with ints up to 2^53) is it legal for gcc to avoid
initialization of the memory? This is what gcc is doing.
Where it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66089
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 35513
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35513&action=edit
Patch v2
A patch that tries to avoid copies if possible.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60322
Bug 60322 depends on bug 65894, which changed state.
Bug 65894 Summary: [6 Regression] severe regression in gfortran 6.0.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66086
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66021
Nuno Lopes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35467|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66076
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66076
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58586
--- Comment #5 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Contrary to Dominique's comment in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894#c30
adding the patch in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-04/msg00058.html
on top of r222970 doesn't break our code, an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66041
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun May 10 18:08:33 2015
New Revision: 222982
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222982&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-10 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/66041
* frontend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66041
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66093
Bug ID: 66093
Summary: g++ produces incorrect output on code with constexpr
function initializing class with private fields
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66076
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66094
Bug ID: 66094
Summary: Handle transpose(A) in inline matmul
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66094
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66014
--- Comment #1 from Matt Breedlove ---
This issue is still present on 5.1.0 and trunk. The issue seems to be related
to libiberty's implementation of stpcpy being replaced with the GCC builtin and
then causing linker errors due to that symbol no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66095
Bug ID: 66095
Summary: Unexpected __gnu_cxx::__concurrence_lock_error with
_GLIBCXX_DEBUG
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66096
Bug ID: 66096
Summary: Unexpected __gnu_cxx::__concurrence_lock_error with
_GLIBCXX_DEBUG
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66097
Bug ID: 66097
Summary: Program fails to run with -O1 but runs with individual
settings.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66097
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66021
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66096
--- Comment #1 from MikeMirzayanov ---
The code is:
#define _GLIBCXX_DEBUG
#include
#include
using namespace std;
map > > q;
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
set can;
can.insert(1);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66021
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Basically GCC understands that memcpy takes non-null arguments and optimizes
based on that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66098
Bug ID: 66098
Summary: #pragma diagnostic 'ignored' not fully undone by pop
for strict-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66099
Bug ID: 66099
Summary: _Pragma diagnostic 'ignored' in macro with
strict-overflow not suppressing warning fully with
-Werror
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66099
--- Comment #1 from Stefan H. ---
I actually meant to link https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66098 as
a potentially related bug and not 53469. Sorry about that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66098
--- Comment #1 from Stefan H. ---
I should probably mention that I found this while trying to create a repro case
for a potentially related g++ issue I encountered:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66099 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66100
Bug ID: 66100
Summary: [6.0 Regression] Matmul ICE in simplify_bound
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66100
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
36 matches
Mail list logo
