https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66550
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66068
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
Andrew and all,
as i explained, i already marked the global variable as volatile to get it work.
my (and other Open MPI folks) question is more about gcc :
- is this a bug ? (and it will be fixed, and volatile will not be
needed in the future)
- is this a known "feature" and it will not be fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66550
Bug ID: 66550
Summary: [6 Regression] internal compiler error: verify_type
failed
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55805
Gubbins changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave.gittins at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66530
--- Comment #2 from Jennifer Yao ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Does the
> /cygdrive/c/Users/yaoj3/Code/gcc/build/trunk/x86_64-pc-cygwin/./libstdc++-v3/
> src/.libs directory in the LD_LIBRAY_PATH contain the libstdc++.so.6 l
_64-unknown-linux-gnu/6.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --disable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150615 (experimental) (GCC)
$ gfortran -c test2.F90 -O2 -fopenmp
test2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58583
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58616
Bug 58616 depends on bug 58583, which changed state.
Bug 58583 Summary: [c++11] ICE with invalid non-static data member
initialization in template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58583
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58583
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Tue Jun 16 01:59:55 2015
New Revision: 224502
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224502&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
cp/
PR c++/58583
* cp-tree.h (DECL_INSTANTIATING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66548
--- Comment #1 from TC ---
See also http://stackoverflow.com/q/30856911/2756719
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rs2740 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following code is accepted by GCC 5.1 and 6.0.0 20150615 (experimental),
even though it is plainly invalid:
struct Meow {};
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66547
--- Comment #1 from Matthew Peters ---
Adding some notes.
The stack is a local stack generated with "static WORK_AREA(...)" from ChibiOS.
I've checked and the stack is aligned at the beginning of
performance_suite_thread.
I've been unable to ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66547
Bug ID: 66547
Summary: arm-none-eabi-gcc - stack misaligned when calling
va_arg function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60407
Eugene Zelenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eugene.zelenko at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66516
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66545
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:19:45PM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > I have
> >
> > if (!sym->value)
> > goto error;
> >
> > which leads to the same error.
>
> I think your approach is b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66546
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #0)
> Currently libgccjit always issues a hard error about unconditional blocks.
"unreachable", that should say
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66546
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #0)
> instructions, so it should make it easier for client code if they can have a
jit client code, that is, i.e. interpreters linking against libgccjit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66545
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|tkoenig at gcc do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66546
Bug ID: 66546
Summary: No way to disable check for unreachable blocks
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: jit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66542
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #1)
> This seems to be a regression versus gcc 4.8.2
That's why I changed the title to say [4.9/5/6 Regression] :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66545
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66545
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51048
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51048
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Jun 15 19:26:27 2015
New Revision: 224492
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224492&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2015-06-15 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/51048
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66545
--- Comment #2 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
FYI, it's astonishing, but this code compiles without an ICE
and prints some reasonable error messages :
$ cat z2_type.f90
program p
type t
integer :: n
end type
type(t), parameter :: c1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66544
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Originally not the above z0.f90, but this code was thought as test case :
$ cat z0.f90
module m
contains
function f() result(z)
procedure(f), pointer :: z
end
end module
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66514
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66542
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66535
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Thanks for the quick fix!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66244
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Perhaps it's better to make the target array a bit larger.
And to provide a not so minimalistic version :
program p
integer, target :: a(4)
integer, pointer :: z => a(3)
call s
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66545
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Trivially, the following cases behave similar :
$ cat z1_real.f90
program p
real, parameter :: c1 = (c1)
real, parameter :: c2 = c2
real :: c3 = (c3)
real :: c4 = c4
real :: c5
real :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66545
Bug ID: 66545
Summary: ICE on using undefined parameter/variable values
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66544
Bug ID: 66544
Summary: ICE on function with pointer result in combination
with implicit none
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64589
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Works with current trunk as of r224477. Please cross check!
Not for me at r224485 (clean):
[Book15] f90/bug% gfc pr64589.f90
Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:
"___vtab_INTEGER_4_.3443",
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54013
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66535
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66535
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Mon Jun 15 16:34:53 2015
New Revision: 224486
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224486&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/66535
* dwarf2out.c (gen_subprogram_die): Do not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66535
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54835
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|SUSPENDED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66537
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60417
Bug 60417 depends on bug 54835, which changed state.
Bug 54835 Summary: [C++11][DR 1518] Explicit default constructors not respected
during copy-list-initialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54835
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54835
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66523
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to kassafari from comment #2)
> status check
you can use the patch in the short-term, but I want to check for other
solutions too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66523
kassafari at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kassafari at gmail dot com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65767
--- Comment #9 from Rainer Orth ---
It's been more than a month without any activity to fix this. There's now also
PR testsuite/65944 about the same issue.
Please fix.
Rainer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #7 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #6)
> Please try to find out which revision/patch caused the regression as
> mentioned above. That would be really helpful.
I am currently waiting for the bui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65168
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #5)
> Just as a heads up: This particular problem did not occur with the snapshot
> as of 2014-12-20 (r218987) and we actually always built gdc in Debian. So
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66358
--- Comment #12 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #11)
> Any news on this issue? The sh4 buildds in Debian are currently building a
> snapshot as of 2015-06-13 (r224454), let's see how far it gets.
It will ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66543
Bug ID: 66543
Summary: False positive warning "variable set but not used"
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66473
Andrew Senkevich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|VERIFIED
--- Comment #11 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66429
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66030
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66030
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Jun 15 12:31:15 2015
New Revision: 224478
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224478&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2015-06-09 Jonathan Wakely
PR libstdc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66541
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66432
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35783
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35783&action=edit
tentative patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64589
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51048
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini ---
*** Bug 59975 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59975
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #5 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Hello!
Just as a heads up: This particular problem did not occur with the snapshot as
of 2014-12-20 (r218987) and we actually always built gdc in Debian. So it's
definitely a regression as a resu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66358
--- Comment #11 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Any news on this issue? The sh4 buildds in Debian are currently building a
snapshot as of 2015-06-13 (r224454), let's see how far it gets.
Adrian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66483
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Patch can be backported without any changes and fixes the issue. I'll launch
regression testing tomorrow and ask for it to be committed on 4.9 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66514
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> There is some minimal support in -fsanitize=vptr, but that catches only
> destructed objects with virtual methods (by disabling the clobbers and
> clearing the vpt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51048
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66530
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jennifer Yao from comment #0)
> My hypothesis (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that the libstdc++
> that is being loaded at runtime is the preexisting (unaltered/unpatched)
> library in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66512
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
In that case I'd like to contribute a documentation patch to make that clear in
the pure/const attribute information, but I need more explanation. I see that
int p(void) __attribute__((const));
void f()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66542
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66542
Bug ID: 66542
Summary: [C++11] Can create static variable of type that has
deleted destructor
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57307
--- Comment #3 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Mon Jun 15 10:08:04 2015
New Revision: 224477
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224477&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2015-06-15 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45440
--- Comment #12 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Mon Jun 15 10:08:04 2015
New Revision: 224477
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224477&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2015-06-15 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44672
--- Comment #9 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Mon Jun 15 10:08:04 2015
New Revision: 224477
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224477&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2015-06-15 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66541
Bug ID: 66541
Summary: r224314 causes ICE in gcc.dg/torture/pr52429.c
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66432
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
At fnsplit, we split off f.part.0 from f.
That introduces a debug_insn and ssa-name that references param B in f:
...
# DEBUG D#4ptD.0 => B_3(D)
..
And a debug_insn that references param B in f.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66473
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66540
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66534
HEMMI, Shigeru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||textdirected at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65168
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66537
--- Comment #3 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Oh well, I guess CWG 1518 as referenced in the other bug should solve this.
I'm fine either way, if explicit default constructors are decided to
work with the example, we can close this bug as invalid, an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66514
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||y.gribov at samsung dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66540
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66540
Bug ID: 66540
Summary: [5/6 Regression] glibc testsuite: error:
unrecognizable insn with -mavx512f
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
83 matches
Mail list logo
