https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81513
Bug ID: 81513
Summary: __has_cpp_attribute returns non-zero in C++03 mode,
but attributes don't work
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81504
--- Comment #1 from Zoltan Hidvegi ---
This may not be a gcc-7 regression, my application fails even with gcc-6, even
with -O1 when I use vec_ld and vec_st, but works if I replace them with vec_xl
and vec_xst, and also works when I replace it wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45928
--- Comment #4 from Jay ---
Sorry wrong thread.
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:09 PM Jay wrote:
> The ifndef pid_t makes it a little unconvincing. I'll see if I can find my
> "sysroot".
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:42 AM egallager at gcc dot gnu.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45928
--- Comment #3 from Jay ---
The ifndef pid_t makes it a little unconvincing. I'll see if I can find my
"sysroot".
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:42 AM egallager at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81492
--- Comment #2 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Can't reproduce that with a cross compiler, can you please run --save-temps
> --verbose and execute 'cc1 ...' in GDB so that you can paste here a
> back-trace
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56882
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56727
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81512
Bug ID: 81512
Summary: duplicate note in -Walloca-larger-than and alloca in a
return statement
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71962
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
The null pointer check inserted by the sanitizer is eventually removed (see
below) so there's obviously no point in emitting it to begin with. The DSP
case you men
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56727
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56727
--- Comment #16 from Yury Gribov ---
Author: ygribov
Date: Fri Jul 21 19:48:51 2017
New Revision: 250442
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250442&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-07-21 Yury Gribov
PR middle-end/56727
* ipa-visi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71962
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6)
> The difference between success and failure is due to this bit of code in
> symtab.c:
>
> /* With !flag_delete_null_pointer_checks we assume that symbols may
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71962
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
.
$ gcc-trunk --version
gcc-trunk (GCC) 8.0.0 20170721 (experimental) [trunk revision 250425]
$ gcc-trunk -O3 abc.c
during GIMPLE pass: vect
abc.c: In function ‘fn1’:
abc.c:3:6: internal compiler error: in operator[], at vec.h:749
void fn1() {
^~~
0x7624ac vec<_stmt_vec_info*, va_h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81510
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81510
Bug ID: 81510
Summary: ice in operator[], at vec.h:749
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38743
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81468
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler ---
Shouldn't add a DR-1177 tag? (I forgot the exact construction pattern for this)
This may also help to validate that all other wording changes by this issue had
been implemented.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81508
--- Comment #3 from Juraj Oršulić ---
Update: tested on 7.1.0, bug doesn't happen there (i.e. building without
optimisation is successful).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43952
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38182
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||corsepiu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44425
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44002
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43301
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81508
--- Comment #2 from Juraj Oršulić ---
Apologies for the spam, I have now attached an even smaller minimal working
example (without the glog dependency), along with some useful info:
- when optimisation is enabled, GCC correctly uses __attribute_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45928
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32690
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81508
Juraj Oršulić changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41804|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81509
--- Comment #2 from ripero84 at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 41807
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41807&action=edit
Compilation output - gfortran v7.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81509
--- Comment #1 from ripero84 at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 41806
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41806&action=edit
Compilation output - gfortran v6.4.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81495
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Looks like the compiler itself is not functioning properly.
Do you mean the cross-compiled native compiler or the cross-compiler itself?
> I have tried building libgmpada, for example, and when trying to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81509
Bug ID: 81509
Summary: Wrong compilation error: iand/ieor/ior + boz +
-std=f2008
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37996
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81508
Bug ID: 81508
Summary: Control reaches end of non-void function - warning not
emmited when optimization is turned on
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27516
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
--- Comment #11 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #10)
> > >
> > > Yep, I've noticed. It's strange for me why it's not working. I've just
> > > asked
> > > at GCC ML: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-07/msg00144.html
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31840
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28466
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81487
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Fri Jul 21 15:58:14 2017
New Revision: 250428
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250428&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
lto-plugin/
PR lto/81487
* lto-plugin.c (claim_file_handl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81468
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71905
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
I still see the same warnings with a 64-bit GCC 8.0.0 20170717 on x86_64-linux.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81317
--- Comment #23 from Randy MacLeod ---
Here is the 'bt' and 'bt full' with line numbers and symbols. YP diff to enable
this is below as well. Thanks for you patience as I re-learn these ropes.
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81482
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81507
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Adding even more output doesn't necessarily make it easier to see the problem.
It also wouldn't always be correct: maybe the overload that was found *is* the
intended one, and there really is a problem wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32840
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28758
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71962
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3550
egallager at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65068
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81495
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #1)
> You're on your own here; try maybe to compare with a bootstrap on x86.
Looks like the compiler itself is not functioning properly. I have tried
build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81507
--- Comment #5 from Benjamin Buch ---
Yes, but in a long list of template heavy calls it is not trivial to see it, if
you don't expect such an error in your code.
It would be nice to have something like the 'did you mean …' hints, if an
argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81303
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jul 21 11:32:39 2017
New Revision: 250424
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250424&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-07-21 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/81303
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81500
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81500
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jul 21 11:32:01 2017
New Revision: 250423
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250423&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-06-21 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/81500
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81507
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
/home/bebuch/media/programme/gcc-7/include/c++/7.1.1/tuple:1670:44: required
from 'constexpr decltype(auto) std::apply(_Fn&&, _Tuple&&) [with _Fn = const
std::vector&; _Tuple = long unsigned int]'
^^^ th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81502
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Note that with -mtune=intel we already get
_Z3barPv:
.LFB526:
.cfi_startproc
movq%rdi, %xmm0
movd%xmm0, %eax
ret
but yes, the intermediate temporary is unnecessary.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81507
Benjamin Buch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81507
--- Comment #2 from Benjamin Buch ---
Same with clang, and I found the reason:
Since the first argument is std::vector, the function std::apply is called
instead of my apply function …
So it's not a bug. But maybe you can add some kind hint for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80165
--- Comment #4 from Benjamin Buch ---
Sorry, wrong thread!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80165
Benjamin Buch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||benni.buch at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
Dominik Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d...@dominik-schmidt.de
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80236
Dominik Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80236
--- Comment #18 from Dominik Schmidt ---
Created attachment 41803
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41803&action=edit
Patch working for us
Indeed, it seems to be a duplicate of the other bug.
We backported the GCC-7 patch and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81507
--- Comment #1 from Benjamin Buch ---
Same with:
$ /home/bebuch/media/programme/gcc-7/bin/g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 7.1.1 20170721
Copyright (C) 2017 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81505
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81507
Bug ID: 81507
Summary: map header kills variant of vectors
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81491
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81374
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81430
--- Comment #7 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Jul 21 09:46:05 2017
New Revision: 250421
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250421&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add nvptx_override_options_after_change
2017-07-21 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81442
--- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Jul 21 09:46:22 2017
New Revision: 250422
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250422&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add missing edge probabilities in nvptx_goacc_reduction_init
2017-07-21 T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81018
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Guess this reveals a miss-optimization in graphite. Pending this issue for now
till it's fully understood.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81500
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, dcb314 at hotmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81500
>
> --- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
> Possible duplicate for this reduced code:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81306
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Problem still seems to exist a couple of weeks later in latest gcc.
Any progress ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81500
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Possible duplicate for this reduced code:
struct a {
int b;
int c
};
struct d {
struct a *e
} f(struct d *g) {
int h;
int b;
for (; h; ++h) {
int i = g->e[h].c + 1;
g->e[h].c = g->e[h].
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81496
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Strangely I've just today tried icc on
typedef int V __attribute__((vector_size (32)));
V
f1 (int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int f, int g, int h)
{
return (V) { a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h };
}
with -O3 -ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81500
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81496
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81303
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
So if in addition to this patch we do
Index: gcc/tree-vect-loop.c
===
--- gcc/tree-vect-loop.c(revision 250386)
+++ gcc/tree-vect-loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81497
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81492
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81506
Bug ID: 81506
Summary: Invalid declaration with decltype accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
if (a + b * -2)
c = (b-1073741824)*-2;
might let you find an earlier culprit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81500
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53598
--- Comment #3 from Arnaud Bienner ---
For the record, bug 62182 (closed as duplicate of this one) contained a patch I
wrote. It's not really working/neat, and I didn't have time to spend more time
on it, but might be useful for someone trying to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81505
Bug ID: 81505
Summary: [5/6/7/8 Regression] ICE in tree-ssa-loop-manip.c:95
with -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81504
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81303
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jul 21 07:13:57 2017
New Revision: 250416
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250416&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-07-21 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/81303
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58502
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81504
Bug ID: 81504
Summary: gcc-7 regression: vec_st in loop misoptimized
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
92 matches
Mail list logo
