https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60976
Rene Koecher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rene.koecher@wincor-nixdorf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
--- Comment #22 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #21)
> Another option is not to add -mdynamic-no-pic for clang and other compilers
> that don't support -mno-dynamic-no-pic.
clang supports (and generates appropriate c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #50 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 7 Apr 2015, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
>
> --- Comment #49 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
> Richi, see c#45. Basically the regression is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #17)
> Actually it seems that the tester was used to test the change and it was
> applied at
Note that frescobaldi (or vangelis) both don't use -march=native and thus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65691
Bug ID: 65691
Summary: libgccjit documentation typo in gcc_jit_context_one
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65690
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 35250
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35250&action=edit
gcc5-pr65690.patch
So what about this? The first hunk being a fix for the 4.9 -> 5 regression,
the
second hunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
--- Comment #23 from Iain Sandoe ---
something like this
dnl Check if the current compiler supports -mno-dynamic-no-pic.
AC_DEFUN([GCC_CHECK_FLAG_NO_DYNAMIC_NO_PIC], [
AC_CACHE_CHECK([whether the current compiler supports -mno-dynamic-no-pic]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016
--- Comment #26 from drikosev at otenet dot gr ---
Hello,
It was my impression that small changes can be accepted by FSF without a
copyright disclaimer or a copyright assignment on file, according to:
https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#legal
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65692
Bug ID: 65692
Summary: Repeating error for each array entry
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65692
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65689
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57032
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ra |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
too bad :/ As this doesn't reproduce with a cross it's impossible to debug for
me as well (are there instructions somewhere how to "install"
x86_64-w64-mingw32 using wine ...? would that even work and rep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So perhaps for the top level something like:
--- config/mh-darwin2013-09-30 22:13:57.243907474 +0200
+++ config/mh-darwin2015-04-08 10:36:58.100665592 +0200
@@ -1,18 +1,29 @@
# The -mdynamic-no-pic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60976
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65690
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
I also considered just copying over the stuff that layout_decl fills. I guess
it is better than calling it and copying back TYPE_SIZE, but this is far from
being my area.
I think we also want to preserve attr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
--- Comment #15 from Kai Tietz ---
That is my issue too. I try to reproduce this issue with cross and native.
But I see some issues only in combination with upstream binutils, and here only
in native case, which is the curious part ...
I am stil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65690
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #8)
> I also considered just copying over the stuff that layout_decl fills. I
> guess it is better than calling it and copying back TYPE_SIZE, but this is
> far from bei
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60976
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I spent several hours trying to find the cause of the slowdown, without
success. Currently I am focused on fixing regressions and conformance errors. I
will come back to this when I can.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65684
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65420
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64704
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64570
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65554
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65684
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Vogt ---
Fair enough... I have no experience in coding for GCC. Could you give me a hint
where (which file) to start?
I would propose a message like
> At line 5 of file test.F90
> Fortran runtime error: End of rec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
--- Comment #25 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #24)
> So perhaps for the top level something like:
yeah looks better than what i was drafting.
> --- config/mh-darwin 2013-09-30 22:13:57.243907474 +0200
> +++ confi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65422
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
Bug ID: 65693
Summary: [5.0 Regression] ICE in assign_by_spills, at
lra-assigns.c:1419
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
--- Comment #1 from Gianfranco ---
Created attachment 35252
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35252&action=edit
log with -Wall -Wextra -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #25)
> > +DARWIN_GCC_MDYNAMIC_NO_PIC := \
> > +`case ${host} in i?86-*-darwin* | powerpc-*-darwin*) \
> > + $(CC) -S -xc /dev/null -o /dev/null -mno-dynamic-no-pic 2>/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
Gianfranco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||costamagnagianfranco@yahoo.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65644
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #9 from Daniel Richard G. ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #8)
>>
>> Looking closer, you are *not* using the Solaris assembler (/usr/ccs/bin/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65684
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Fair enough... I have no experience in coding for GCC. Could you give me
> a hint where (which file) to start?
The content of the message is set by 'translate_error (int code)' (line 412 of
libgfor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65653
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65689
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65689
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't see why this should compile with -O0 actually, it assumes optimization
being performed at -O0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65694
Bug ID: 65694
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE (in decompose, at rtl.h:2007) on
arm-linux-gnueabihf
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65694
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose ---
seen when building the dnaclust package, also seen in the qtbase-opensource-src
package. currently reducing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Well, this testcase only ICEs with gcc-5:
markus@x4 tmp % < foo.ii
int a, b;
unsigned c;
static void
invoke_copy_to_stack (unsigned long *p1, int, int)
{
for (; b;)
if (a)
*p1 = 0;
}
void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65694
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
gcc-4.9 combines udivmoddi4 to :
(insn 30 5 8 2 (set (reg:DI 103)
(const_int 16 [0x10])) pr65693.ii:6 -1
(nil))
[...]
(insn 9 8 10 2 (parallel [
(set (reg:DI 94)
(udi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65684
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Vogt ---
I think this happens in io/transfer.c:
413 void *
414 read_block_form (st_parameter_dt *dtp, int * nbytes)
415 {
...
419 if (!is_stream_io (dtp))
420 {
421 if (dtp->u.p.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
--- Comment #8 from Gianfranco ---
Nope, I can build on debian (I'm the maintainer BTW) with 4.9 successfully.
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=virtualbox&arch=amd64&ver=4.3.26-dfsg-1&stamp=1426696248
for now I forced gcc-4.9 as a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65684
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Vogt ---
Then, it would be as simple as passing generate_error the message instead of
NULL.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65695
Bug ID: 65695
Summary: [4.9/5 Regression] calling constexpr constructor with
pointer-to-member is not a constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65689
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65695
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65695
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.3
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65694
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65671
Kirill Yukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65695
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.9.2, 5.0
--- Comment #3 from Jonatha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65695
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35249|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65696
Bug ID: 65696
Summary: ASAN reports global-buffer-overrun for local tagged
types
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
--- Comment #10 from Gianfranco ---
Hi @Markus, I'm *really* impressed about your efficiency.
I reported the progresses on the vbox official mail list, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
Bug ID: 65697
Summary: __atomic memory barriers not strong enough for __sync
builtins
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65698
Bug ID: 65698
Summary: Non-optimal code for simple compare function for x86
32-bit target
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65698
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 35256
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35256&action=edit
test-case to reproduce
It needs to be compiled with "-O3 -m32" options.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65698
--- Comment #2 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 35257
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35257&action=edit
assembly for test.c
Additional option '-march=slm' was used for it but it is non-essential.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #1 from Matthew Wahab ---
I'm working on this but it isn't obvious how to fix it. The strong barriers
aren't needed for the __atomics and will have an effect on performance so
simply strengthening the MEMMODEL_SEQ_CST implementation i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65689
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 35258
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35258&action=edit
gcc5-pr65689.patch
Untested fix. For aarch64, there are lots of constraints determined by this
patch to not al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
--- Comment #28 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I have successfully bootstrapped r221917 on x86_64-apple-darwin14 with the
patch in comment 27.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65699
Bug ID: 65699
Summary: online docs lacks version that it documents
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65694
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
Created attachment 35259
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35259&action=edit
reduced file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65700
Bug ID: 65700
Summary: Documentation of internals is inconsistent in itself
and diverges from reality
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65701
Bug ID: 65701
Summary: r221530 makes 187.facerec drop with -Ofast -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: lto, missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65089
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Sounds like either libgfortran bug, or fortran FE bug.
What asan_finish_file sees for .LC3 is:
unit size
align 8 symtab -244602288 alias set -1 canonical type
0x715083f0 precisi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65701
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
-Ofast -march=native, that is. (which may be the key to the issue?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65689
--- Comment #6 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Whilst I think this probably would fix the problem - surely this will change
the meaning of loads of constraints, on loads of platforms? I will of course
defer to the release manager(s) (!), but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65701
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
build log
/gcc/spec/sb-megrez-head-64/x86_64/install-201503200620/bin/gfortran -c -o
FaceRecTypes.o -Ofast -march=native -flto=8 -fno-fat-lto-objects
FaceRecTypes.f90
/gcc/spec/sb-megrez-head-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65689
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to alalaw01 from comment #6)
> Whilst I think this probably would fix the problem - surely this will change
> the meaning of loads of constraints, on loads of platforms? I will of course
> defer to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I see GCC not trying to throw away the useless arm of the parallel,
just as comment 7 mentions. I wonder why that is, investigating.
This isn't the root cause; it is just exposing a problem in the RA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64118
--- Comment #2 from Angelo Graziosi ---
In my original test case, if I move the definition of function f(x) before the
subroutine foo(), does not produce warnings. In other words:
real(dp) function f(x) result(y)
real(dp), intent(in) :: x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63731
--- Comment #37 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
Created attachment 35260
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35260&action=edit
libgo/go/go/build/doc.go documentation update
Adding comments about the use of the netgo tag and the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65699
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
That link is always the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 35261
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35261&action=edit
gcc5-pr65693.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65699
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Goswin von Brederlow from comment #0)
> The online docs do not mention what version of the compiler they document.
The latest one.
> When something doesn't work as documented this makes it ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65694
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60333
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59969
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59969
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
P.S. http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4064.html will
improve things in this area, but isn't implemented yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41759
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41759
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And we could replace the clunky "template argument substituting _UIntType" with
simply "result_type" e.g.
"result_type must be an unsigned integer type"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65694
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #4)
> This looks similar to PR 64600.
> The problem seems to be arm_canonicalize_comparison that
> canonicalizes a comparison with 2147483647 (0x7fff)
> int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65701
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Yep, I looked into this regression a bit. The patch just avoids some "false
positives" of inlining functions called once (i.e. case where we think the
function will optimize out but it really won't so we end u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61645
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65694
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #5)
> (In reply to ktkachov from comment #4)
> > This looks similar to PR 64600.
> > The problem seems to be arm_canonicalize_comparison that
> > canonicalizes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65699
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41759
--- Comment #6 from W E Brown ---
I hadn't realized this was still open :)
FWIW, my paper N3846
(http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n3846.pdf) summarizes
on p. 3 my recommended "guidelines for programmers to follow in crafti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65702
Bug ID: 65702
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE (tree check: expected ssa_name,
have var_decl in expand_gimple_basic_block, at
cfgexpand.c:5506) on arm-linux-gnueabihf
Product: gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65702
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose ---
seen building the aseprite package on armhf
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
