https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71027
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71028
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71030
Bug ID: 71030
Summary: Strange segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70796
--- Comment #2 from TC ---
It occurred to me that one issue here is whether initialization of the
parameter object (of the constructor) is considered a "value computation [or]
side effect associated with" an initializer-clause. If not, then the c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71030
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71029
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71013
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2016-05-09 7:29 AM, John David Anglin wrote
> LLONG_MAX is not defined in hpux11.11. It comes from fixed limits.h:
> ./lib/gcc/hppa64-hp-hpux11.11/5.3.1/include-fixed/limits.h:# undef LLONG_M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71030
--- Comment #2 from Mateusz Forc ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
> Please provide f.i.
f.i is not generated using -save-temps, how am I supposed to get this file?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71031
Bug ID: 71031
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE in
extract_range_from_binary_expr_1, at tree-vrp.c:2535
w/ -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71030
Mateusz Forc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71014
--- Comment #6 from Keith Lindsay ---
Harald,
The problem does go away if I add a PRIVATE(i) clause to the OMP directive.
However, my understanding of OpenMP in fortran is that all loop iteration
variables, even inner nested loops, in an OpenMP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71032
Bug ID: 71032
Summary: explicit interface and must not have attributes
generates gfortran: internal compiler error: Abort
trap: 6 (program f951)
Product: gcc
Vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71014
--- Comment #7 from Keith Lindsay ---
The Linux system that I'm working on has multiple versions of gcc/gfortran
installed. I've compiled and run my example program with different versions and
have found the following:
Versions 4.9.0, 4.9.1, 4.9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71033
Bug ID: 71033
Summary: Segmentation fault c + intel assembly, unable to use
EBX
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71033
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
x86 ABI requires that %ebx is preserved across function call. So, you need to
save it to stack in f.s and restore it before function returs. Or, you can use
%edx instead, which can be clobbered in function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71027
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Yes, you are right, and probably in real programs the subroutine would
not be optimized away.
Thank you for the explanation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71033
Mateusz Forc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69363
--- Comment #8 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cesar
Date: Mon May 9 20:23:31 2016
New Revision: 236047
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236047&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport trunk r235290:
2016-04-20 Ilya Verbin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71014
--- Comment #8 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Keith Lindsay from comment #6)
> Harald,
>
> The problem does go away if I add a PRIVATE(i) clause to the OMP directive.
>
> However, my understanding of OpenMP in fortran is that all loop iter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70626
--- Comment #6 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cesar
Date: Mon May 9 20:42:47 2016
New Revision: 236049
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236049&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport trunk r235651:
2016-04-29 Cesar Philip
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70988
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|missing buffer overflow |missing buffer overflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71034
Bug ID: 71034
Summary: abs(f) u>= 0. is always true
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71034
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is the optimizations that should be done:
abs(x) < 0 -> x != x
abs(x) >= 0 -> x u== x
abs(x) == 0 -> x == 0
abs(x) <= 0 -> x == 0 (since this is an ordered comparison)
abs(x) u< 0 -> false
abs(x)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71034
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I think this is the optimizations that should be done:
> abs(x) < 0 -> x != x
for x=NaN, abs(x) is NaN, and NaN<0 is false. So the current simplification to
false
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #30 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 02:55:01PM +, fritzoreese at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
>
> --- Comment #29 from Fritz Reese ---
> (In reply to Andreas Schwab from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70963
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
The xxswapd's are a bit of a red herring. These are part of the little-endian
normalization code that are required with the funky lxvd2x and stxvd2x
instructions. The problem appears to be the register assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70957
--- Comment #9 from Bill Seurer ---
Systems where I see it fail:
granola
yavin3
Systems where I do not:
bns
All are power7 BE systems. I didn't do anything special on any of the systems.
I ran configure like this on all of them:
/home/seurer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70963
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Note also that your asm constraints are wrong. You need VSX registers, not
Altivec registers, so you should be using the "wa" constraint instead of the
"v" constraint. This is why you get some apparently wro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71035
Bug ID: 71035
Summary: GNU does not give error on declaration of non literal
type in template function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70963
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, there is an obvious bug in the define_expand for vsx_xvcvdpsxds_scale. If
the scale factor is 0, wrong code is always generated. I'll get a patch going.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71032
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71014
--- Comment #9 from Keith Lindsay ---
Harald,
Thanks for your tips on validation/sanitizing tools.
I am not sufficiently fluent in standard-ese to know what 'associated
do-loops(s)" means. It doesn't help that BLOCK and ASSOCIATE appear in othe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70947
--- Comment #1 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Mon May 9 23:12:20 2016
New Revision: 236052
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236052&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] Stop regrename twiddling with split-stack prologue
PR targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68945
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> * In runtime/config/sparc/os-unix-sysdep.c (__cilkrts_getticks) I needed
> different
> 32- and 64-bit versions. I tested the result in standalone program which
> just
> printed the result.
This looks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71035
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71013
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 38460
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38460&action=edit
Patch
This fixes build failure on hppa64-hpux. Not sure its the right place
or even right fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71035
--- Comment #2 from Judy Ward ---
Yes I have a beta copy of EDG
4.11 which has relaxed constexpr and they give an error. Unfortunately some
Boost code (I think inadvertently) relies on not giving a diagnostic.
Yes I see your point that this is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71036
Bug ID: 71036
Summary: create_directory(p, ...) reports a failure when 'p' is
an existing directory
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71037
Bug ID: 71037
Summary: Exceptions thrown from "filesystem::canonical(...)"
should contain both paths.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71038
Bug ID: 71038
Summary: copy_file(...) returns false on successful copy.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71039
Bug ID: 71039
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (error:
definition in block 4 does not dominate use in block
5) w/ -O1 and above
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71040
Bug ID: 71040
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error:
invalid operand in unary operation; error: incorrect
sharing of tree nodes) w/ -O3
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70963
--- Comment #5 from Konstantinos Margaritis ---
Ack, thanks for the heads up on VSX registers, it does print more reasonable
results now.
101 - 143 of 143 matches
Mail list logo