https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
Fritz Reese changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86415
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83819
Bug 83819 depends on bug 86415, which changed state.
Bug 86415 Summary: strlen() not folded for substrings within constant arrays
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86415
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86415
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Jul 10 00:02:36 2018
New Revision: 262528
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262528=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/86415 - strlen() not folded for substrings within constant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86446
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > The correct invocation of a GCC testsuite is "make -k check-blah", otherwise
> > the recursive Make processes will stop on errors.
> >
>
> Since when? I've been doing 'gmake check-fortran' and
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86446
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:21:20PM +, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86446
>
> --- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> > 'gmake -j6 check-fortran' has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86446
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> 'gmake -j6 check-fortran' has never died on an error
> like the one I've shown in the 15+ years that I've been
> contributing to GCC. Needing -k now, means someone has
> broken the build infrastructure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86446
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:05:23PM +, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86446
>
> --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> > Since when?
>
> The dawn of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86446
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Since when?
The dawn of time, see https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86417
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to janus from comment #10)
> (In reply to janus from comment #9)
> > The following patch seems to be sufficient to fix the regression:
>
>
> ... however, it lacks a safety check for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
Bug ID: 86450
Summary: Bootstrap failure due to -Wabi
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83819
Bug 83819 depends on bug 86428, which changed state.
Bug 86428 Summary: strlen of const array initialized with a string of the same
length not folded
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86428
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86428
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77357
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83819
Bug 83819 depends on bug 77357, which changed state.
Bug 77357 Summary: strlen of constant strings not folded
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77357
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77357
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon Jul 9 20:33:48 2018
New Revision: 262522
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262522=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/77357 - strlen of constant strings not folded
gcc/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86428
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon Jul 9 20:33:48 2018
New Revision: 262522
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262522=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/77357 - strlen of constant strings not folded
gcc/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86449
Bug ID: 86449
Summary: GCC 8 compiler generates slower code for spec 2006
calculix on a power9 using -mcpu=power9 than using
-mcpu=power8
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86448
Bug ID: 86448
Summary: GCC 9 compiler generates slower code for spec 2006
milc on a power9 using -mcpu=power9 than using
-mcpu=power8
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
=== gfortran Summary ===
# of expected passes8017
# of expected failures 3
# of unsupported tests 24
/safe/sgk/gcc/obj/gcc/gfortran version 9.0.0 20180709 (experimental) (GCC)
gmake[2]: Leaving directory '/safe/sgk/gcc/obj/gcc'
gmake[1]: Leavin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86447
Bug ID: 86447
Summary: gcc 9.0 from r262456 can't build cross compiler for
mingw-w64 target
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
or. The last few line are
=== gfortran Summary ===
# of expected passes6413
# of expected failures 18
# of unsupported tests 2
/safe/sgk/gcc/obj8/gcc/gfortran version 8.1.1 20180709 (GCC)
gmake[2]: Leaving directory '/safe/sgk/gcc/obj8/gcc'
gmake[1]: Leaving directory '
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86446
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86438
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Here is what happens:
compare operators in (insn 66) are substituted with their defs from (insn 64)
and (insn 14). The CC mode is calculated from SELECT_CC_MODE, which really
returns CCCmode. The flags reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86446
Bug ID: 86446
Summary: 'gmake check-fortran' broken in libgomp
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86445
Bug ID: 86445
Summary: [9 regression] Missing warning for test case
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr84100.c starting with r262513
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86440
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86421
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86444
Bug ID: 86444
Summary: [X86] Implementation of SSE comi/ucomi intrinsics does
not match recent versions of icc, clang, or MSVC
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86422
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On July 9, 2018 5:40:31 PM GMT+02:00, "boris.staletic at gmail dot com"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86422
>
>--- Comment #12 from Boris Staletic
>---
>If you're
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86426
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86422
--- Comment #12 from Boris Staletic ---
If you're wondering about clang, it hangs too, but doesn't hog memory.
> That's to be expected when it runs into swap.
Anything else I should try?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86442
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86397
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86422
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On July 9, 2018 5:18:40 PM GMT+02:00, "boris.staletic at gmail dot com"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86422
>
>--- Comment #10 from Boris Staletic
>---
>Running "g++ -S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86442
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Following wrong error is printed with LTO:
>
> $ cat global.cpp
> register int a __asm__("r12");
>
> class b {
> public:
> b();
> };
>
> b c;
>
> int main() { a = 3; }
>
> $ g++ global.cpp -O2 -flto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86422
--- Comment #10 from Boris Staletic ---
Running "g++ -S -fno-exceptions CodePoint.cpp" didn't run into OOM killer, but
gcc still hanged. The memory usage at maximum was 15.6GB. What I find strange
is that "htop" reported the g++ process as dead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86443
Bug ID: 86443
Summary: ICEs on #pragma omp distribute parallel for with class
iterators
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86441
--- Comment #1 from Boris Kolpackov ---
Created attachment 44366
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44366=edit
Test case that shows the problem if compiled with ODB
For the record, a test case that triggers the error if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86442
Bug ID: 86442
Summary: Wrong error: global register variable follows a
function definition when using LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86441
Bug ID: 86441
Summary: instantiate_class_template() unable to re-execute
constexpr function
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86438
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86438
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86438
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86422
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86422
--- Comment #8 from Boris Staletic ---
> ulimit -s unlimited
After running that command and enabling swap, for a total of 16GB available
memory, until about 5 minute mark, cc1plus was consuming >4GB. After about five
minute mark, cc1plus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86440
Bug ID: 86440
Summary: -Wignored-qualifiers diagnostic highlights wrong token
with pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82711
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49263
--- Comment #28 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #27)
> (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #26)
> > Author: olegendo
> > Date: Mon Jan 26 23:56:05 2015
> > New Revision: 220144
Well, it fixed some of the cases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86439
Bug ID: 86439
Summary: CTAD with deleted copy constructor fails due to
deduction-guide taking by value
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
-linux-gnu
--target=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --with-ld=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-262509-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.0 20180709 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86417
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #9)
> The following patch seems to be sufficient to fix the regression:
... however, it lacks a safety check for the existence of the ctor expression.
This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86420
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jul 9 10:56:47 2018
New Revision: 262517
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262517=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/86420
* real.c (real_nextafter): Return true if result is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86434
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Are these examples from real-world code? Because I can create examples where
early folding is necessary as well...
It's really not an easy black-and-white decision.
Consider
void f (int i)
{
if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86422
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #7 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86422
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
So with a debug build I can see
(gdb) run
Starting program: /home/abuild/rguenther/gcc8-g/gcc/cc1plus -quiet
/tmp/CodePoint.ii
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x01576cf6 in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86437
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #2)
> (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> > WORKSFORME. AFAIR -Ofast implies -fstack-arrays.
>
> Yeah, right, -fstack-arrays is the crucial flag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86437
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> WORKSFORME. AFAIR -Ofast implies -fstack-arrays.
Yeah, right, -fstack-arrays is the crucial flag here.
> What is the output of
>
> ulimit -s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86437
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86425
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86416
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Note, OpenMP 4.5 fortran support is incomplete, it is partially 4.0,
> partially 4.5. Only C/C++ are complete.
Does this apply also to pr86421? Would it be possible to have an error "not yet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86437
Bug ID: 86437
Summary: runtime segfault on Fortran code with large array and
-Ofast
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86220
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86357
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86429
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86412
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Started with r231671.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86416
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, OpenMP 4.5 fortran support is incomplete, it is partially 4.0, partially
4.5. Only C/C++ are complete.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86401
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86413
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86413
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jul 9 07:25:14 2018
New Revision: 262511
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262511=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-07-09 Richard Biener
PR debug/86413
* dwarf2out.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83192
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
73 matches
Mail list logo
