https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86431
Bug ID: 86431
Summary: Legal code?
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86430
Bug ID: 86430
Summary: ambiguous overload?
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86361
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79133
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||husain.255 at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86401
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jul 6 21:42:41 2018
New Revision: 262485
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262485=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/86401
* fold-const.c (fold_binary_loc) : Move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86324
--- Comment #6 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Fri Jul 6 21:05:48 2018
New Revision: 262484
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262484=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/86324
* target.def (translate_mode_attribute): New
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86428
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86429
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The diagnostic should not mention the __closure name, as that's an
implementation details (see also PR 82643)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86429
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82643
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86429
Bug ID: 86429
Summary: lambda capture breaks constexpr-ness
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86428
Bug ID: 86428
Summary: strlen of const array initialized with a string of the
same length not folded
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86427
Bug ID: 86427
Summary: strlen not folded after strcpy into a zeroed-out local
array
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
version 9.0.0 20180706 (experimental) [trunk revision 262476] (GCC)
$ g++-trunk abc.c
abc.c: In substitution of ‘template int {anonymous}::f1(X...) [with T = ]’:
abc.c:4:26: required from here
abc.c:4:26: internal compiler error: tree check: expected class ‘expression’,
have ‘type’ (integer_type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86420
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86425
Bug ID: 86425
Summary: Spec 2006 soplex seems to be slower on PowerPC using
-ffast-math than without -ffast-math
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86424
Bug ID: 86424
Summary: Milc is slower on PowerPC using -ffast-math than
without using -ffast-math
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86423
Bug ID: 86423
Summary: Omnetpp is slower on PowerPC using -ffast-math than
not using -ffast-math
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82009
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The missing local variable exists in the fortran dump and it shows as the first
item in the namespace passed to gfc_process_block_locals. However, it has no
backend decl.
I do not understand enough to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86422
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On July 6, 2018 6:10:23 PM GMT+02:00, "boris.staletic at gmail dot com"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86422
>
>--- Comment #4 from Boris Staletic
>---
>I get the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86340
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86420
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86422
--- Comment #4 from Boris Staletic ---
I get the segmentations fault when running cc1plus directly. No matter if I
pass -quiet or not.
So what's the next step?
Also, I have just noticed "Known to work: 8.1.1". Is that a mistake?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86272
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86422
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86422
--- Comment #2 from Boris Staletic ---
> so this time it's not parsing but code-generation that blows up things.
That makes sense, when I was playing with the file, it took between 5 to 10
seconds to report syntax errors.
Another thing that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86420
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to nsz from comment #0)
> gcc has no flag to say 'floating-point exceptions matter' (like
> -frounding-math for non-default rounding mode)
There is -ftrapping-math (on by default), although its
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86422
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86422
Bug ID: 86422
Summary: G++ ICE(segmentation fault) when compiling a huge
static array of sufficiently complex structs
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86418
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84928
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84928
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Jul 6 14:16:13 2018
New Revision: 262477
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262477=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/84928 use std::move in algorithms
P0616R0 altered the effects of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86421
Bug ID: 86421
Summary: OpenMP declare simd linear ref in module causes
gfortran to bail out
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
On 06/07/18 12:11, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> On 06.07.2018 12:38, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>> On 06/07/18 11:32, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>> On 04.07.2018 20:55, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
--- Comment #2 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
--- Comment #4 from richard.earnshaw at arm dot com ---
On 06/07/18 12:11, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> On 06.07.2018 12:38, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>> On 06/07/18 11:32, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>> On 04.07.2018 20:55, rearnsha at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86420
Bug ID: 86420
Summary: [9 regression] nextafter(0x1p-1022,0) is constant
folded
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86419
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86419
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks, this is still present in the latest version of the code too.
This just includes the failing cases:
#include
#include
using namespace std;
// 2 code points, both are 4 byte in UTF-8.
// in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86419
Dimitrij Mijoski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #44359|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85494
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks, but please see https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#legal
We can't use a patch without those steps being completed.
Also patches should be sent to the mailing lists, not attached to bugzilla, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86419
--- Comment #1 from Dimitrij Mijoski ---
Created attachment 44359
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44359=edit
test cases that trigger the bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86419
Bug ID: 86419
Summary: codecvt::in() and out() incorrectly
return partial in some cases.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85494
--- Comment #3 from Dimitrij Mijoski ---
Created attachment 44358
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44358=edit
implements proper random_device for mingw-w64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85494
Dimitrij Mijoski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmjpp at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86417
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #6)
> It is run automatically now by typing "make -k check-fortran" at top level.
Ah, thanks for the remark (wasn't aware of that). Nice!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86417
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
---
On 06.07.2018 12:38, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 06/07/18 11:32, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> On 04.07.2018 20:55, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
>>>
>>> --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
>>> I'm not sure how relevant the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86417
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #4)
> The idea of the warning is to ensure that we have
> Location information everywhere, and that patches
> Which do not correctly set the location should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84711
--- Comment #14 from Tamar Christina ---
Author: tnfchris
Date: Fri Jul 6 10:44:35 2018
New Revision: 262472
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262472=gcc=rev
Log:
Require sse for testcase on i686.
PR target/84711
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
--- Comment #3 from richard.earnshaw at arm dot com ---
On 06/07/18 11:32, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> On 04.07.2018 20:55, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
>>
>> --- Comment #2 from Richard
On 06/07/18 11:32, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> On 04.07.2018 20:55, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
>>
>> --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
>> I'm not sure how relevant the netbsd-elf port is these days. I believe
>> they've
>> now
On 04.07.2018 20:55, rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86383
>
> --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
> I'm not sure how relevant the netbsd-elf port is these days. I believe
> they've
> now moved onto an EABI based ABI. But no GCC port of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86413
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86417
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
The idea of the warning is to ensure that we have
Location information everywhere, and that patches
Which do not correctly set the location should cause
something visible during testing. We do not have this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86417
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
The idea of the warning is to ensure that we have
Location information everywhere, and that patches
Which do not correctly set the location should cause
something visible during testing. We do not have this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86417
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86418
Bug ID: 86418
Summary: warn about mismatch in type between argument and
parameter type for declaration without prototype
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86417
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86417
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reduced test case:
module m
type dt
integer, allocatable :: h(:)
end type
end module m
use m
call foo (4)
contains
subroutine foo (n)
integer :: n
type (dt) :: x(2:n)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86417
Bug ID: 86417
Summary: [9 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/alloc-comp-3.f90
-O0 (test for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
60 matches
Mail list logo
