https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78345
Bug ID: 78345
Summary: ice on invalid c++ code on x86_64-linux-gnu (internal
compiler error: in cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr,
at cp/constexpr.c:4464)
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78300
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78300
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Target Milesto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78093
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Nov 14 10:25:34 2016
New Revision: 242379
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242379&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/78093
* doc/invoke.texi (AVR Options) [-ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78312
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 14 10:33:15 2016
New Revision: 242380
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242380&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-14 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/78312
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78312
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78112
Pierre-Marie de Rodat changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78317
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
The issue is probably that we very early end up with
return x & 0x10 ? 0x10 : 0;
and uncprop transforms that only to
return x & 0x10 ? 0x10 : x;
rather than
return x & 0x10 ? x : x;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78319
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
Summary|PASS->FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78322
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
We produce an abstract copy for use by repeated inline copies.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78120
--- Comment #9 from James Greenhalgh ---
I haven't had a chance to bootstrap or benchmark it, but your patch looks
reasonable to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78334
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78335
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm, not sure if we want to expose rotates for this particular case (rotates
are generally not well handled by passes).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78333
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78325
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78338
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78342
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78343
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78345
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78344
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78341
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2016-11-14
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78341
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78337
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78346
Bug ID: 78346
Summary: std::search with binary comparison predicate uses
invalid reference
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78317
--- Comment #5 from dhowells at redhat dot com ---
Note that the issue doesn't require the value to be returned directly to
trigger it:
struct A { unsigned a; };
struct B { unsigned b; };
unsigned test5(struct A *x, struc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78069
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Nov 14 12:09:48 2016
New Revision: 242386
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242386&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Introduce -fprofile-update=prefer-atomic
PR bootstrap/78069
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78069
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78093
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78327
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Well, the issue is that we don't always use the "nice" unsigned rep
for anti-range tests but "simplify" the special case
(unsigned char) n + 125 <= 127
to a cheaper signed comparison against zero via
/*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78319
--- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Thomas,
I am trying to cross-build for cortex-m4 to reproduce the issue locally.
Could you please share the configure opts you used ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #26 from Jack Howarth ---
Created attachment 40034
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40034&action=edit
trace.h differences between darwin15 and darwin16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #27 from Jack Howarth ---
IMHO, the fixincludes approach looks much more fragile than simply using the
approach suggested in Comment 5 of...
Index: libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_mac.cc
==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #28 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
So, perhaps I can commit it (from #15) as Jakub suggested to restore GCC
bootstrap for now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #29 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Maxim Ostapenko from comment #28)
> So, perhaps I can commit it (from #15) as Jakub suggested to restore GCC
> bootstrap for now?
if we're going down that path can we make the conditional __BLOCK
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #30 from Jack Howarth ---
Created attachment 40035
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40035&action=edit
proposed fix for fixing darwin15 and earlier bootstraps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #31 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #29 from Iain Sandoe ---
[...]
> FWIW, the SDKs don't generally change once N+1 is out, so I think that the
> fixes to 10.10 and 10.11 will not be fragile, they just need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78319
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #2)
> Hi Thomas,
> I am trying to cross-build for cortex-m4 to reproduce the issue locally.
> Could you please share the configure opts you used ?
>
> Thanks,
>
eveloper/usr/bin/make
make[3]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
make[3]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
make[3]: *** No rule to make target `../../gcc-7-20161114/gcc/c/c-parser.h',
needed by `s-gtype'. Stop.
make[2]: *** [all-stage1-gcc] Error 2
make[1]: *** [stage1-bubble] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78269
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
This seems to have been fixed. I do not see this anymore.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78326
--- Comment #5 from mib.bugzilla at gmail dot com ---
Thanks so much. It would be great if this problem could be identified in the
compiler, could you create a bug report, or just add another remark if you want
me to create the bug report. Best r
-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings
-Wcast-qual -Wno-format -Wmissing-format-attribute -Woverloaded-virtual
-pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings
-fno-common -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DGENERATOR_FILE -fno-PIE -I. -Ibuild
-I../../gcc-7-20161114/gcc -I../../gcc-7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78347
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78322
--- Comment #2 from David Blaikie ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> We produce an abstract copy for use by repeated inline copies.
Yep! Is it still reasonable to consider it a bug (or at least a feature
request) that this is sti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69600
--- Comment #4 from sshannin at gmail dot com ---
FWIW, this seems to be fixed on trunk. Still fails for at least 6.2, 5.4, and
4.9.4, but does compile with 7/trunk and 4.8.5
https://godbolt.org/g/hx9q4S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78300
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78348
Bug ID: 78348
Summary: [7 REGRESSION] 15% performance drop for
coremark-pro/nnet-test after r242038
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78348
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 40036
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40036&action=edit
test-case to reproduce
Must be compiled with -O3 option to reproduce.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77445
--- Comment #4 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Ping.
Do you have any progress on this?
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78306
--- Comment #2 from Markus Fenske ---
Thanks for the suggested workaround. Moving all the always_inline functions
into a wrapper was no option, because it's not just memset but my code relies
on avx intrinsics and would be dead slow if I would ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78306
Markus Fenske changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iblue at gmx dot net
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78300
--- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon Nov 14 16:55:01 2016
New Revision: 242392
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242392&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-14 Janus Weil
PR fortran/78300
* re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #33 from Jack Howarth ---
Alternative fix posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg01366.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78300
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78349
Bug ID: 78349
Summary: function returning std::basic_string missing
[abi:cxx11] tag
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78258
--- Comment #6 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Indeed, ICE is gone. Confirmed with gfortran-7-20161113.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78350
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Whereas, wrapped in a program :
$ cat z2.f90
program p
type t
character(2) :: c(1) = [character(3) :: 'abc']
end type
type(t) :: x
print *, x
end
$ gfortran-7-20161113 z2.f90
$ a.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67631
--- Comment #4 from Howard Hinnant ---
This bug needs some attention because Howard Hinnant's date library is making
it common for people to hit this bug.
The date library:
https://github.com/HowardHinnant/date
This library is sufficiently pop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78350
Bug ID: 78350
Summary: ICE in gfc_code2string(): Bad code, at
fortran/misc.c:193
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78351
Bug ID: 78351
Summary: comma not terminating READ of formatted input field -
ok in 4.1.7, not 4.4.7- maybe related to 25419?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.7
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67631
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
A workaround is to drop the "explicit" specifier for the operator.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67631
--- Comment #6 from Howard Hinnant ---
Dropping the `explicit` specifier for the operator is an "over my dead body",
sorry. That would be horrible. The next best workaround is to "respell" the
explicit int operator() as `as_int() const`. But t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78351
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jb at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78351
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78328
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78351
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=77346
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
Bug ID: 78352
Summary: GCC lacks support for the Apple "blocks" extension to
the C family of languages
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #34 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #23)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #22)
> >
> > To be specific, they're not supported by the FSF release of GCC. Apple's
> > fork of GCC supported blocks ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53796
toK changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t.kondic at leeds dot ac.uk
--- Comment #17 from t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77922
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78252
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78351
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at charter dot net ---
On 11/14/2016 11:09 AM, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78351
>
> kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78325
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78353
Bug ID: 78353
Summary: -flto omits some -Wl flags
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78325
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra ---
Created attachment 40040
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40040&action=edit
proposed fix
This hasn't been bootstrapped yet anywhere, but ought to keep pr70890 fixed and
does result in mips c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78258
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78121
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerhard.steinmetz.fortran@t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47785
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nico at linaro dot org
--- Comment #10 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78353
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78348
--- Comment #2 from Jim Wilson ---
The testcase doesn't produce runable code, and I'm not sure if I have access to
any haswell parts, but I can make a few comments.
The testcase requires -O3 -ftree-loop-distribution to reproduce.
Without my pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78354
Bug ID: 78354
Summary: range information lost after unsigned conversion
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78354
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78355
Bug ID: 78355
Summary: LRA generates unaligned accesses when
SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS is 1
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78356
Bug ID: 78356
Summary: segfault allocating polymorphic variable with
polymorphic component with allocatable component
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
--- Comment #19 from Bill Schmidt ---
I have a patch that solves this problem by always versioning loops when
vectorization is enabled, and also sets up if-conversion for outer loops so
that outer-loop vectorization can succeed as before. Surpri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77505
--- Comment #5 from Elizebeth Punnoose ---
Hi Steve,
To answer your first question, I am covered by the HPE corporate assignment.
When posting the patch, I will be doing so from my corporate email id.
The Fortran 2008 standards page at
http://w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68933
--- Comment #3 from Zaak ---
I have confirmed this bug. Are has anyone else looked at this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78357
Bug ID: 78357
Summary: nios2 uses non-standard atomic functions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78358
Bug ID: 78358
Summary: [7 Regression] wrong types for std::typle
decomposition
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78359
Bug ID: 78359
Summary: Redeclaration of global variables is not reported
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78359
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Because
int Counter
in the global scope is consider a tentative definition.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78359
--- Comment #2 from hugo74 ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Because
> int Counter
>
> in the global scope is consider a tentative definition.
What is meant by "tentative declaration" ? It is very misleading.
It should not work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78359
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
http://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/extern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78359
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to hugo74 from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > Because
> > int Counter
> >
> > in the global scope is consider a tentative definition.
>
> What is meant by "tentativ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78360
Bug ID: 78360
Summary: missing throw()s in explicit instantiation
declarations for has_facet()
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78361
Bug ID: 78361
Summary: [7 regression][c++1z] std::__is_referenceable doesn't
handle noexcept function types
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
97 matches
Mail list logo
