https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68862
Bug ID: 68862
Summary: [6 Regression] g++.dg/torture/pr59163.C FAILs with
-flive-range-shrinkage
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68862
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 37006
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37006&action=edit
reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68853
--- Comment #9 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Thanks Andrew.
Turned out the issue from comment 2 is similar.
Both issues are solved with -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks.
Maybe the chromium devs should add that flag to their default gcc flags...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59768
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64919
--- Comment #26 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Alexander from comment #25)
> ../gcc-4.8.5/configure \
> --enable-languages=c,c++
> --prefix=/import/home/nskdvlp/CC_Libs/CC/ia64-hp-hpux_11.31_-64 \
> --with-local-prefix=/usr/CC/ia64-hp-hp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68848
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Kahn Gillmor ---
Created attachment 37007
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37007&action=edit
ignore -fdebug-prefix-map when generating DW_AT_producer
Here is an alternate approach (suggested by Bern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68863
Bug ID: 68863
Summary: Regular expressions: Backreferences don't work in
negative lookahead
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
--- Comment #18 from Hossein Talebi ---
I am now trying this bug and the Bug 68415 with the new GCC from trunc and it
is fine. Nevertheless, this other code does not compile.
(gcc version 6.0.0 20151129 (experimental))
Module part_base2_clas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64919
--- Comment #27 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to John Buddery from comment #24)
> You can use --disable-libgomp in the configure command, I had to do this on
> my HP builds.
I rebuilt without --disable-libgomp and get:
/opt/build/gcc-4.8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
--- Comment #19 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Hossein Talebi from comment #18)
> I am now trying this bug and the Bug 68415 with the new GCC from trunc and
> it is fine. Nevertheless, this other code does not compile.
> (gcc ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68864
Bug ID: 68864
Summary: bug 61819 is not completely fixed
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
--- Comment #20 from Hossein Talebi ---
I just submitted a new bug. It is a pity that my code cannot be compiled
with gfortran 4.9 and above for more than a year now..
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 9:01 PM, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68543
--- Comment #4 from Michael Collison ---
Okay thanks. After looking into the topic I did not see the direct
connection either.
On 12/11/2015 7:21 AM, ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68543
>
> --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68847
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68851
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68847
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Whoops pasted to the wrong bug. Please ignore.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68865
Bug ID: 68865
Summary: [6 regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-2.c fails
since r231165
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68865
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68866
Bug ID: 68866
Summary: ICE in set_lattice_value, at tree-ssa-cpp.c:490
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59768
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Dec 11 21:45:51 2015
New Revision: 231574
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231574&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix std::invoke support for reference_wrappers
PR libstdc++/5976
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59768
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41628
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Roland, could you please clarify the request, or I'll close this report as
WORKSFORME. What do you mean by "unstable iterator" and what is the problem you
want to solve?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68215
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Dec 11 21:58:48 2015
New Revision: 231575
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231575&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/68215
* tree-vect-generic.c (tree_vec_ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68215
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67116
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68864
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68864
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|bug 61819 is not completely |[6 Regression] ICE: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
--- Comment #21 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I just submitted a new bug. It is a pity that my code cannot be compiled
> with gfortran 4.9 and above for more than a year now..
(Part of) your code should compile with the 5.3.0 release.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68865
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68856
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46496
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||valeryweber at hotmail dot com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63617
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The currently supported releases are shown on https://gcc.gnu.org/
At any time there are two supported releases series, currently 4.9.x and 5.x,
which changes annually when the new release happens (GCC 6 i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61617
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56564
--- Comment #21 from H.J. Lu ---
This bug isn't fixed in GCC 4.9. -O3 increases alignment from
64 bits to 128 bits on the original testcase:
Hardware watchpoint 6: *(unsigned int *) 0x7fffee9b4468
Old value = 64
New value = 128
ensure_base_ali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67116
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The thread model is determined using:
target_thread_file=`$CXX -v 2>&1 | sed -n 's/^Thread model: //p'`
where $CXX is *supposed* to be the newly-built GCC, e.g. for my native builds
the value of CXX is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68865
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
That's very possible. No doubt r231165 just caused it to come out of the
woodwork again. However, I verified that it didn't ICE with r230600 - r231164,
so something about r231165 managed to trigger the issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
Bug ID: 68867
Summary: numeric formatting problem in the fortran library
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68844
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67116
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, this would happen if you're setting CC and CXX, causing libstdc++ to be
configured using the compiler specified by those variables, not the one that
has just been built. So I think this is user error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
--- Comment #22 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Hossein Talebi from comment #20)
> I just submitted a new bug. It is a pity that my code cannot be compiled
> with gfortran 4.9 and above for more than a year now..
It is comments lik
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68799
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 37008
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37008&action=edit
test patch to gather more information
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68799
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
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=68867
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56861
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53477
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50703
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
six
gcc version 6.0.0 20151211 (experimental) [trunk revision 231573] (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68844
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Dec 11 23:18:22 2015
New Revision: 231577
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231577&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH][PR tree-optimization/68844] Fix testcase expected output
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68844
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68868
Bug ID: 68868
Summary: atomic_init emits an unnecessary fence
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68869
Bug ID: 68869
Summary: map::insert(P&&) broken in some cases
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
-trunk/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20151211 (experimental) [trunk revision 231553] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O0 -c small.c
$ gcc-5.3 -O1 -c small.c
$
$ gcc-trunk -O1 -c small.c
small.c: In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68869
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That's a recent edit to the draft, not yet part of the standard. I don't think
it was meant to change any behaviour, so I don't consider this a bug in
libstdc++ until I get some clarification whether this c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68869
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Hmm, maybe the change was already in C++14. I'll still look into what was
intended, my memory is that it was just an editorial simplification.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68869
--- Comment #3 from TC ---
This was http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2005.
I don't think the S example breaks any rule in the pre-LWG2005 version, either.
That version requires that "P shall be convertible to value type", and
st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64919
--- Comment #28 from Alexander ---
this one file should recompile with -O1 optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68863
Tim Shen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||timshen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
In the test case, I need to adjust the line;
if (astring(2:2) /= '9') then
to:
if (astring(3:3) /= '9') then
since the previous patch corrected a missing leading zero on the formatting.
I will do so tomo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819
--- Comment #23 from Hossein Talebi ---
Thank you also for the great work and such a nice compiler. I should have
actually noticed this a lot sooner but I was trying to keep my code
compiling with gcc 4.8.
> It is comments like the above that i
101 - 163 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
