https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62055
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #2)
> Created attachment 46464 [details]
> for vectors
>
> A naive try to handle it for vectors (because it seems a bit easier),
> copying the existing pattern for neg or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60262
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhonghao at pku dot org.cn
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90803
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90781
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90802
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90805
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62055
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> The patch is OK, but please let me cleanup this (and scalar) part a bit
> first.
Of course, thanks. And you are more than welcome to take over if you feel like
it ;-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90796
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90794
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90806
Bug ID: 90806
Summary: Warray-bounds-2.c fail on cross-aarch64 on RH6 host
Product: gcc
Version: 6.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90799
--- Comment #2 from franwade33 at googlemail dot com ---
It throws a different compiler error if you give the template parameter (Move
`bool is_noexcept` to the start of the template list and call
`is_noexcept_function(foo)`). To my knowledge, thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90807
Bug ID: 90807
Summary: Wrong debug message
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90781
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90799
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, that's standard as long as you provide the bool as an explicit template
argument. Deducing it from the function type is the GCC extension.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78902
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90808
Bug ID: 90808
Summary: gcc fails to build/bootstrap with XCode 10.2
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: boots
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90808
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90808
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
So that means this is something that can be solved by editing the gcc code?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90808
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90808
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Jun 10 09:53:46 2019
New Revision: 272114
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272114&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add missing ATTR_UNUSED (PR bootstrap/90808).
2019-06-10 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90808
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90809
Bug ID: 90809
Summary: -finstrument-functions-exclude-function-list
mishandles comma escaping
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90810
Bug ID: 90810
Summary: Different intrinsics behavior on G++ 7.4 and G++ 8.3
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90810
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90810
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Hmm, s/num4/denom4/
(void) (*res = (__v4sf) num4 / { 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 })
not sure why denom4 gets replaced but not num4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90810
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90810
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88348
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87250
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90809
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90811
Bug ID: 90811
Summary: [nvptx] ptxas error on OpenMP offloaded code
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90811
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|9.0 |8.3.1
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90811
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46471
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46471&action=edit
gcc10-pr90811.patch
Completely untested patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64242
--- Comment #25 from Wilco ---
I believe this is now fixed for generic code - however targets which implement
the nonlocal_goto expander (eg. pa, sparc, vax) need similar fixes in their
backends.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90812
Bug ID: 90812
Summary: Tests misuse "dg-require-effective-target int32plus"
to check for 64-bit integer support
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90812
--- Comment #1 from Jozef Lawrynowicz ---
To check for 64-bit integer support, it seems that the "stdint_types" effective
target keyword should be sufficient, although I'm not sure if it might be
possible for a target to provide __INT64_TYPE__ bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813
Bug ID: 90813
Summary: [10 regression] gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_51.f90 fails
(SIGSEGV) after 272084
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90810
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46472
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46472&action=edit
gcc10-pr90810.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90794
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90814
Bug ID: 90814
Summary: gcc accept invalid constexpr defaulted constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90815
Bug ID: 90815
Summary: New test case
21_strings/basic_string_view/requirements/constexpr_it
er.cc fails
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90695
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90695
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Jun 10 15:55:36 2019
New Revision: 272121
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272121&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR other/90695 reduce testcase to remove library dependency
This reprodu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50391
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Jun 10 15:55:36 2019
New Revision: 272121
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272121&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR other/90695 reduce testcase to remove library dependency
This reprodu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90666
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90815
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90772
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jun 10 16:18:52 2019
New Revision: 272122
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272122&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/90772
* g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx14.C: Use std::s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90811
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
Thanks. The change in the attached patch looks good to me, but I must admit I
don't see how the testcase triggers the problem. Basically, it's not obvious
how the controlling if condition becomes true:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90772
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90816
Bug ID: 90816
Summary: -finstrument-functions-exclude-function-list
improperly handles namespace/class definitions
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278
--- Comment #28 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #27)
> >
> > I think that's reasonably easy to do for LTO. We'd want to keep
> > the default boolean_type_node size BOOLEAN_TYPEs separate but
> > can glob larger ones
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90811
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #3)
> Thanks. The change in the attached patch looks good to me, but I must admit
> I don't see how the testcase triggers the problem. Basically, it's not
> obvious
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> See also https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-06/msg00034.html.
I have responded to Christophe on the above thread to the effect that I cannot
see anything t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90817
Bug ID: 90817
Summary: i386 inline assembly invalid register emitted
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90805
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Yeah, in switch we have:
case constant-expression :
where the constant-expression shall be a converted constant expression of the
adjusted type of the switch condition. And narrowing is not allowed in a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90818
Bug ID: 90818
Summary: Lambda with __attribute__ and explicit return type not
accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90818
--- Comment #1 from Mark Atkinson ---
Error message FYI:
source>: In lambda function:
:3:43: error: expected '{' before '->' token
3 | auto foo = []() __attribute__((cold)) -> bool { return false; };
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90760
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35102
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michaelrasmussen1337@gmail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90817
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90817
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-9.1.0/gcc/Extended-Asm.html#x86-Operand-Modifiers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90806
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>What host component can affect this behavior?
Dejagnu versions? I had issues with older versions of Dejagnu (e.g. the one
included with RHEL 6 or before).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90817
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90817
--- Comment #4 from Michael Rasmussen
---
Sorry for the duplicate, don't know why I didn't find it when searching.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90819
Bug ID: 90819
Summary: [10 regression] -Walloc-size-larger-than error in
trans-mem.c
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90819
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90808
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90808
--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Yes, there two things. The missing library comes from the fact that I didn't
install the system header and libraries under /usr/. I copied the files, now I
get these warnings (but everything works):
ld: warni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813
--- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I don't know Fortran but will try to get some more information about the
failure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87250
--- Comment #2 from Matthew Beliveau ---
Reduced code:
template struct a {
constexpr a(int) {}
};
template struct atomic;
template <> struct atomic {
a b;
constexpr atomic(bool c) : b(c) {}
};
~/bld/gcc7/gcc/cc1plus k.ii -Os -fsyntax-on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87250
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Matthew Beliveau from comment #2)
> Reduced code:
>
> template struct a {
> constexpr a(int) {}
> };
> template struct atomic;
> template <> struct atomic {
> a b;
> constexpr atomic(boo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87250
--- Comment #4 from Matthew Beliveau ---
Fixed in r269059
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90818
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90333
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark.atkinson99 at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813
--- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So, adding in a -g3 I see:
Program received signal SIGSEGV: Segmentation fault - invalid memory reference.
Backtrace for this error:
#0 0x3fffb7f80477 in ???
#1 0x1878 in MAIN__
at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71367
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90786
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90781
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90786
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 46475
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46475&action=edit
Assembly for test case on aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71367
--- Comment #2 from Howard Hinnant ---
Just so this point doesn't go unnoticed, parsing should be case-insensitive.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87765
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71367
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Right, I think _M_extract_name already handles that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90786
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
Stepping through the assembly, the segfaulting instruction is
"blr x3", which jumps to a NULL pointer, with predictable results:
│165 // proc_ptr_51.f90:30: end module f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87765
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r251423.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90773
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 46476
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46476&action=edit
I am testing this patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90737
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
I don't understand very well why the cast to an integer before returning is
relevant. What if I return the pointer, and convert it to an integer afterwards
in the caller? Or what if there is no cast, but I test
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ro at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Between 20190609 (r272089) and 20190610 (r272121), many C++ tests started to
ICE:
+FAIL: g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90820
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90821
Bug ID: 90821
Summary: missing strlen range after a char store at non-zero
index
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87250
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Jun 10 20:35:00 2019
New Revision: 272129
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272129&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/87250
* g++.dg/cpp0x/pr87250.C: New test.
Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87250
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90786
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
The segfault occurs at
35res => c_()
according to gdb.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88245
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90819
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90819
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90822
Bug ID: 90822
Summary: Remove PowerPC lfiwax and lfiwzx patterns
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90820
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
