https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88140
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On December 23, 2018 7:45:01 PM GMT+01:00, "hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88140
>
>Jan Hubicka changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88587
Bug ID: 88587
Summary: [6.1/trunk] internal compiler error: in
expand_debug_locations, at cfgexpand.c:5450
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
crash_signal
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-9.0.0_alpha20181223/work/gcc-9-20181223/gcc/toplev.c:326
0x11e0350 free_lang_data_in_decl
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-9.0.0_alpha20181223/work/gcc-9-20181223/gcc/tree.c:5648
0x11e0350 free_lang_data_in_cgraph
/var/tmp/portage/sys
14 | }
| ^
0x6eb620 fld_incomplete_type_of
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-9.0.0_alpha20181223/work/gcc-9-20181223/gcc/tree.c:5295
0xfc1115 free_lang_data_in_type
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-9.0.0_alpha20181223/work/gcc-9-20181223/gcc/tree.c:5453
0xfc2d03 free_lang_da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87249
Konstanty changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||konstanty at ieee dot org
--- Comment #2 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88584
--- Comment #4 from Anders Granlund ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/docs/rr/dr_011.html
To me it looks like the resolution of that defect report (and the current
wording of the standard) i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88582
--- Comment #2 from Anders Granlund ---
Quote from the C17 standard (the bugfix version of C11) 6.7.6.3/5:
If, in the declaration “T D1”, D1 has the form D(parameter-type-list) or
D(identifier-list[opt]) and the type specified for ident in t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82920
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
It might be better to move all the CET tests into a separate directory with a
.exp file that tests for compile-time (and runtime) support, so that as
hardware becomes available - and assembler support, things j
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88584
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/docs/rr/dr_011.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82920
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
I believe that the target-supports test needs the -fcf-protection flag to
ensure that code generated is appropriate (the endbr* insns are not accepted
yet by the Xcode assembler, although they will be at some p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88581
--- Comment #3 from Anders Granlund ---
Yes. That is correct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88584
--- Comment #2 from Anders Granlund ---
By "merging" i suppose you mean the process described at 6.2.7.4 in the
standard:
"For an identifier with internal or external linkage declared in a scope in
which
a prior declaration of that identifier i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58770
s at martinien dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||s at martinien dot de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88343
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Sun Dec 23 21:17:46 2018
New Revision: 267387
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267387&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
fix PR target/88343 by backporting r267049
The PR is about unnecessary save
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87380
--- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Sun Dec 23 20:55:39 2018
New Revision: 267386
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267386&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
darwin, fix c++/87380 by backproting r266866.
This was [intentionally] bro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78444
--- Comment #17 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Sun Dec 23 20:34:13 2018
New Revision: 267384
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267384&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
backport r266853 to fix PR target/78444.
2018-12-23 Iain Sandoe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88584
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
> extern int a[];
Is already have the completed type in the global scope and the declaration
merged with it:
int a[1] = { 0 };
So I think GCC is correct here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77703
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77703
--- Comment #12 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Dec 23 20:01:44 2018
New Revision: 267383
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267383&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-12-23 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/77703
* resolve.c (ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88584
Bug ID: 88584
Summary: GCC thinks that the type is complete dispite
shaddowing.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88579
--- Comment #3 from Harald Anlauf ---
Suggested testcase for the patch in comment #1, derived from power_7.f90:
! { dg-do run }
! { dg-additional-options "-fdump-tree-original" }
! Test optimizations for bases that are powers of 2.
program p
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80661
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Le 23 déc. 2018 à 20:46, anlauf at gmx dot de a
> écrit :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80661
>
> Harald Anlauf changed:
>
> What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88582
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 88581 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88581
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80661
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88583
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88081
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
The checks that we do replace definition by non-defition in symbol merging.
=Would be possible to bisect this? GCC 8 produces:
_ZTVN10__cxxabiv117__class_type_infoE/1 (_ZTVN10__cxxabiv117__class_type_infoE)
@0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88049
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88583
Bug ID: 88583
Summary: -Wpacked-not-aligned shouldn't be in -Wall
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88573
ak at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88140
ak at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88140
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
Index: tree.c
===
--- tree.c (revision 267377)
+++ tree.c (working copy)
@@ -5372,7 +5372,8 @@ fld_simplified_type (tree t, struct free
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88140
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77703
--- Comment #11 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Dec 23 18:35:50 2018
New Revision: 267382
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267382&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-12-23 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/77703
* resolve.c (ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77703
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
After r267379, the test in comment 4 gives a segfault at run time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88130
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 45282
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45282&action=edit
patch I am testing
This seems like ages old isse where at compile time we decide to not ship the
vtable construct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77703
--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Dec 23 17:35:13 2018
New Revision: 267379
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267379&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-12-23 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/77703
* resolve.c (get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88027
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It's fixed now? Aaron, does this still need backports? Or can this PR be
closed :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88582
Bug ID: 88582
Summary: GCC does not unqualify return types in the case of
_Atomic qualified return type.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88308
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This is related to PR88347.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88581
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53917
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #4)
> David Malcolm recently greatly improved variable use location info for GCC
> 9; reminder to myself to check to see if that fixed this once I've finished
> buildin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88581
Bug ID: 88581
Summary: GCC thinks that
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79263
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80661
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-apple-darwin*,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88308
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-*-linux-gnu |powerpc*-*-*
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88346
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88346
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Sun Dec 23 13:28:20 2018
New Revision: 267375
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267375&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] PR88346, Inconsistent list of CPUs supported after r266502
This pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88579
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68241
Bug 68241 depends on bug 60122, which changed state.
Bug 60122 Summary: Unexpected warning for uninitialised character variable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60122
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60122
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56670
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fmartinez at gmv dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88578
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger ---
It turns out, that the order of the static objects is
reversed by -O2, so each test clobbers the previous one
after the assertion is run.
If the test case is changed to run the functions twice
the second run
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68241
Bug 68241 depends on bug 77325, which changed state.
Bug 77325 Summary: ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:1933
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77325
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77325
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77325
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Dec 23 09:33:43 2018
New Revision: 267368
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267368&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-12-23 Paul Thomas
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/77
56 matches
Mail list logo
