https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69120
Kirill Yukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69101
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #9 from F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69122
Bug ID: 69122
Summary: -Wmisleading-indentation false positive with empty
macros
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69034
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59155
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> By the way, the following:
>
> double f(double x){
> asm volatile("":"+X"(x));
> return x;
> }
> double g(){
> return f(1.);
> }
>
> is rejected with:
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69123
Bug ID: 69123
Summary: [6 Regression] --with-build-config='bootstrap-O3
bootstrap-debug' miscompiled stage 2
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69124
Bug ID: 69124
Summary: arm miss compiled code since gcc 5
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69124
--- Comment #1 from Sebastian Andrzej Siewior ---
Created attachment 37214
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37214&action=edit
-E output of the test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67552
Bug 67552 depends on bug 67841, which changed state.
Bug 67841 Summary: error: unable to find a register to spill if all registers
are callee-saved
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67841
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67841
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69125
Bug ID: 69125
Summary: [6 regression] Please don't print "‘visibility’
attribute ignored" when setting hidden visibility for
anonymous namespace classes
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62051
ziebell_marco at posteo dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ziebell_marco at posteo d
test.cpp
[nothing printed]
With GCC 6:
$ ~/gcc6/bin/gcc -O2 -Wall -c /tmp/test.cpp
/tmp/test.cpp: In function ‘int g()’:
/tmp/test.cpp:13:9: warning: unused variable ‘x’ [-Wunused-variable]
int x;
^
/tmp/test.cpp:17:5: note: in expansion of macro ‘MACRO’
MACRO;
^~~~~
GCC 6 built from trunk last night (20160103).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69125
--- Comment #1 from Thiago Macieira ---
On the pragma issue: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69126
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69101
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=69127
Bug ID: 69127
Summary: inconsistent handling of initializers of zero-length
array members
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65045
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Jan 3 20:55:19 2016
New Revision: 232042
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232042&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-03 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/65045
* gfortran.dg/pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69128
Bug ID: 69128
Summary: [4.9/5/6 Regression] OpenMP workshare problem with
SUM()
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62536
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69121
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65045
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
From https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-01/msg9.html
> Since I last looked at this PR, it seems to have fixed itself on
> trunk. I just committed a testcase as revision 232042.
It has been fixe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69128
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: doko at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
seen with trunk 20160103, building libgfortran
$ gcc/build/./gcc/xgcc
-B/scratch/packages/cross/6/gcc-6-cross-1/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69130
Bug ID: 69130
Summary: explicit atomic ops treating non-constant memory
orders as memory_order_seq_cst
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69123
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69119
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69131
Bug ID: 69131
Summary: [4.9/5/6 Regression] default constructor of union
incorrectly deleted
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67552
Bug 67552 depends on bug 67648, which changed state.
Bug 67648 Summary: No need to save callee-saved registers in interrupt handler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67648
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67648
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63304
--- Comment #38 from PeteVine ---
Hi all,
I'm trying to narrow down a similar issue on armv7 and would welcome any
suggestions where to start:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69082
Thx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69119
--- Comment #2 from PeteVine ---
Unfortunately I don't a have working 5.x at my disposal on arm. I'll remember
about this issue when it becomes available.
Anyway on 4.9, the suggestion is to recompile something with -fPIC but it's not
clear what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69119
--- Comment #3 from PeteVine ---
You were right about #2 - I passed LDFLAGS=-fPIC to both configure and later
make which solved the issue somewhere. Thanks a lot!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69065
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69098
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69132
Bug ID: 69132
Summary: AVX optimization bug: extra unnecessary code
insertion?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69077
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
36 matches
Mail list logo
