https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97367
Bug ID: 97367
Summary: powerpc64 g5 and cell optimizations result in .machine
power7
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63332
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> Looks like this is still failing for solaris 11:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2020-October/610818.html
True. However, t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70358
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> Rainer, what's the status of this one? Are those tests still UNSUPPORTED, or
> now PASSing?
Looking back at old testresults, the tests were F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97368
Bug ID: 97368
Summary: randomly build failure for mesa with lto on armhf
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97368
Fabio changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|lto |c
--- Comment #1 from Fabio ---
>From the error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97368
Fabio changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97323
Fabio changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pedretti.fabio at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96655
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71414
Freddie Witherden changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||freddie at witherden dot org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97369
Bug ID: 97369
Summary: undefined reference to std::_***""
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97366
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97370
Bug ID: 97370
Summary: comedy of boolean errors for '!a & (b|c)'
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97369
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97369
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If that's a linker error not a run time error, then it looks like you're not
using the right GCC to link. It could be that you're compiling with GCC 6.3.0
but then using a different GCC to link, which doesn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97370
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97063
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot
gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97371
Bug ID: 97371
Summary: evrp problem with gcc.target/s390/pr77822-2.c and -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97371
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Reduced C code is
int a, b;
void c() {
if (b >> 38)
a = b;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97063
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-October/055169.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97372
Bug ID: 97372
Summary: Segmentation fault using Tracy 0.7.3 in template class
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97372
--- Comment #1 from marian ---
Created attachment 49342
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49342&action=edit
pre-processed reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97372
--- Comment #2 from marian ---
Created attachment 49343
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49343&action=edit
CVise reduced reproducer (possibly a different bug)
Attached testcase.ii was produced with CVise from the original rep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97372
--- Comment #3 from marian ---
Created attachment 49344
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49344&action=edit
CVise differently reduced reproducer (possibly a different bug as well)
Attached automatically reduced reproducer does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97372
--- Comment #4 from marian ---
Running gcc under valgrind with the original testcase produces some interesting
output. These binaries of course barely have any symbols at all, but it might
at least provide a hint:
==882380== Invalid read of size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68288
Yuriy Solodkyy changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||solodon at mail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68288
--- Comment #4 from Yuriy Solodkyy ---
P.S. I added my previous example to this bug as they seemed to be related, feel
free to split it into a separate bug if they are not.
P.P.S. Change that return expression to 42_sp-p and the parser seems to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97373
Bug ID: 97373
Summary: missing warning on sprintf into allocated destination
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97373
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||85741
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97374
Bug ID: 97374
Summary: missing essential detail in array parameter overflow
warning
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97374
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Martin Seb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97374
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
This was prompted by warnings like the one below in a build of the kernel:
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c:3062:9: warning: ‘intel_print_wm_latency’
reading 16 bytes from a region of size 10 [-Wstringop-overr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97249
--- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Guess you want to figure what built the (vec_select:V8QI (V16QI)) and if
> it was appropriately simplified (and simplify_rtx would handle this case).
> In any case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97286
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
Seems similar issue as PR97366?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97375
Bug ID: 97375
Summary: Unexpected top-level const retainment when declaring
non-type template paramter with decltype(auto)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97376
Bug ID: 97376
Summary: Function type to function pointer type adjustment for
non-type template paramter does not work when using
decltype(auto)
Product: gcc
Versi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97353
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97354
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97356
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97377
Bug ID: 97377
Summary: Segmentation fault while compiling Marlin code
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97357
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Summary|ICE in range_on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97365
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97366
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||93943
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97371
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|evrp problem with |[11 Regression] evrp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97372
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-12
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97354
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm, possibly a dup of PR97347, this fixed by
5d708c6315e0fc57992cda7b466a5a9877ced4e3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-10-12 2:18 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Guess nobody will feel responsible without more info ... maybe you can bisect
> or provide a good initial hint (last known good rev. v
50 matches
Mail list logo
