https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70144
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regression] g++|[4.9/5 Regression] g++ ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70260
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Another situation :
$ cat z3.f90
subroutine s (f)
integer, external :: f, g
integer :: h
g = f(2)
h = g(2)
end
$ gfortran-6 -c z3.f90
gimplification failed:
g
QI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70145
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70139
--- Comment #18 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 18 20:17:04 2016
New Revision: 234346
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234346&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70139
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_call_expression): Do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67896
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70273
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70264
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70218
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70273
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think the problem is that after the r234261 change the new flag is set only
during gimplification, which is too late for the C++ ctors and dtors, which
need to check copy_forbidden already before gimplifica
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70295
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70271
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70262
--- Comment #4 from nickdu at msn dot com ---
That doesn't explain why it works with alloca().
> From: gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org
> To: nic...@msn.com
> Subject: [Bug c/70262] Segmentation fault with large stack array, no fault
> when alloca the s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70281
Bug ID: 70281
Summary: valgrind error in can_be_stored_compactly_p
(line-map.c:148)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70192
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to psturm from comment #7)
> Built hjl/pr70192 both with and without --enable-default-pie. The test
> results were almost identical, the only difference being the number of test
> cases run. gcc didn't ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70185
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70288
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70048
--- Comment #22 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Wed Mar 16 21:23:05 2016
New Revision: 234269
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234269&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70048
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (virt_or_elim_regno_p): N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70306
Bug ID: 70306
Summary: wrong code at -O2 and -O3 in 32-bit and 64-bit mode on
x86_64-linux-gnu [related to
__attribute__((destructor)) and
__attribute__((constructo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70263
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70268
--- Comment #3 from hongxu jia ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> IMHO it doesn't make sense to prune system header paths here and having them
> is desired.
Hi Richard,
It is just a simple example to explain the requirements.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70284
Faraz Shahbazker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||faraz.shahbazker at imgtec dot
com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70283
Bug ID: 70283
Summary: [6 regression] bogus vtable mismatch warnings
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70259
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70307
Bug ID: 70307
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: in gimplify_expr, at
gimplify.c:10915 on valid code
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70306
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70286
Bug ID: 70286
Summary: ICE on template specialization
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70245
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 16 17:52:20 2016
New Revision: 234265
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234265&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70245
* rtlanal.c (replace_rtx): For REG, if fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70147
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Consider:
// PR c++/70147
// { dg-do run }
// { dg-options "-fsanitize=vptr" }
static int ac, ad, bc, bd, cc, cd, dc, dd;
struct A { A () { ac++; } virtual void f () {} ~A () { ad++; }; };
struct D { D (int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70252
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70255
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I should point out that there is a proposed standard way of controlling
various floating-point optimizations, in the form of pragmas in draft TS
18661-5 (current public draft N2004) (in thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66146
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, I think we need to do that, because even if glibc were to change that
wouldn't help on non-gnu targets.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70150
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to psturm from comment #7)
> Created attachment 38007 [details]
> test suite summary
>
> I built hjl/pr70150 branch and while the prior test suite failures are gone,
> 6 new ones appeared. Full test suit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70113
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70150
--- Comment #9 from psturm at computervoice dot com ---
I didn't finish the full system build with --enable default-pie yet. I'll build
it without next and let you know.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70299
Bug ID: 70299
Summary: pow(long double, int) gives more imprecise result than
pow(long double,long double) in c++03 mode
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69604
--- Comment #5 from Harald Anlauf ---
The problem in case for is in the l.h.s. of the assignment, not the r.h.s:
program p
complex :: z[*]
real:: x[*], y
! z = x / cmplx(0.0, x)
z = 1 / cmplx(y)
end
pr69604-z4.f90:5:0:
z = 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70290
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70299
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70272
Bug ID: 70272
Summary: [5/6 Regression] -flifetime-dse miscompilation
starting with r217967
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70205
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
This patch makes us compile the testcase and also passes dg.exp testsuite. But
my understanding of BASELINK stuff is too weak to gauge whether this is
reasonable approach.
--- a/gcc/cp/call.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70255
--- Comment #8 from shatz at dsit dot co.il ---
Now a bit of philosophy.
Bugs aside, I should say that use of function attribute optimize() does not
look to me as an ideal solution for forcing ISO rules.
>From theoretical point of view, when we a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70301
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70261
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looking at 20011029-1.c -Os on ppc64le, replace_rtx is called from
rs6000_frame_related from rs6000_emit_prologue, on a large parallel containing
(use (reg:DI 12 12))
and from is:
(reg:DI 12 12)
(but not poin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70251
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69047
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70280
Bug ID: 70280
Summary: -fcompare-debug failure (length) with
--param=integer-share-limit=4016 -mavx512bw
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68566
--- Comment #6 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #5)
The patch in comment #5 regtests without new failures.
It appears that a testcase based on comment #4 is sufficient:
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr68566.f90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70274
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70267
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 18 07:59:36 2016
New Revision: 234319
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234319&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70267
* init.c (build_new_1): Complain and return e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70289
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70267
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |c++
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70296
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc*-linux*
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70139
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70299
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The difference is due to a change between C++03 and C++11, see
http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#550, but I don't know why the
calls to __builtin_powl and __builtin_powil should give different
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70261
Bug ID: 70261
Summary: r234265 causes fails on rs6000
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70232
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70192
--- Comment #7 from psturm at computervoice dot com ---
Built hjl/pr70192 both with and without --enable-default-pie. The test results
were almost identical, the only difference being the number of test cases run.
gcc didn't have any issues, but g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70261
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68686
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70144
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 17 15:58:22 2016
New Revision: 234297
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234297&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70144
* cp-tree.h (magic_varargs_p): Return int ins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70232
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68215
--- Comment #6 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Wed Mar 16 23:53:10 2016
New Revision: 234272
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234272&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Revert r231575
PR middle-end/70240
PR middle-end/68215
2015-12-11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70093
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Mar 16 15:51:47 2016
New Revision: 234259
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234259&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/70093
* c-typeck.c (build_function_call_vec): Cre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69766
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70273
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70255
--- Comment #7 from shatz at dsit dot co.il ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Confirmed. The issue seems to be that you add the optimize attribute after
> the function definition.
>
> This causes .original to be already
>
> ;;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70308
Bug ID: 70308
Summary: memset generates rep stosl instead of rep stosq
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69047
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Might be related to PR36409 and PR49157
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70285
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70150
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |testsuite
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70278
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70276
Bug ID: 70276
Summary: Writing to standard output concurrently through
`std::cout` triggers a datarace
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70251
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016, ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70251
>
> --- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich ---
> Here is a responsible match.pd pattern:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70264
Bug ID: 70264
Summary: ICE at -O0 to -O3 in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes on
x86_64-linux-gnu (compatible_locations_p, at
diagnostic-show-locus.c:490)
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70269
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code, patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70296
Bug ID: 70296
Summary: Incorrect handling of vector X; if X is function-like
macro
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70147
--- Comment #26 from Bernd Edlinger ---
I just fail to understand why we cannot just clobber the whole
object once in the in-charge constructor,
then if sanitizing vptrs initialize every vptr once to zero.
and skip all the clobber and vptr initia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70227
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160319 (experimental) [trunk revision 234350] (GCC)
$:
$: gcc-trunk -O2 small.c ; ./a.out ; echo $?
1
$: gcc-trunk -O1 small.c ; ./a.out ; echo $?
0
$: gcc-4.8 -O3 small.c ; ./a.out ; echo $?
1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058
--- Comment #20 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
And FWIW, the test in this BZ is totally compromised on the trunk. Two primary
reasons. First DOM does a much better job at finding & eliminating redundant
loads. Second, erroneous path isolation finds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70251
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70284
Bug ID: 70284
Summary: ICE: in replace_rtx at rtlanal.c for mips n32
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70259
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Another reproducer:
struct Empty { };
struct A { A() : a(true) { } bool a; };
struct B : Empty { B() : Empty() { } };
struct C : A, B { C() : A(), B() { } };
int main() {
C c;
if ( c.a == false )
_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70030
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #3)
> (In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #2)
> > Waiting.
>
> Actually, I have a candidate patch to deal with scratches created during
> LRA. Bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70295
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70224
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So I realized that given the nature of this bug a simple bootstrap on sparc
wasn't going to be particularly interesting -- bootstraps don't tickle this
code (if they did, it'd fault in a manner similar to Ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70309
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Does adding -fno-strict-aliasing "fix" the issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70287
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68566
--- Comment #4 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Simplified a bit :
$ cat z7.f90
program p
integer, parameter :: a(:) = 1
integer, parameter :: b(2,2) = reshape([a], [2,2])
end
$ gfortran-6 z7.f90
*** Error in `/usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-suse-linu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70272
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 17 15:56:19 2016
New Revision: 234296
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234296&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70272
* decl.c (begin_destructor_body): Don't inser
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70262
--- Comment #2 from nickdu at msn dot com ---
Why is this resolved as invalid? I realize I can increase my stack size.
However, I believe I'm currently under the limit. In addition, alloca of the
same size works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70048
--- Comment #21 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #19)
> (In reply to Jiong Wang from comment #16)
> > But there is a performance issue as described at
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00281.ht
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70254
--- Comment #3 from Daniel ---
Created attachment 37992
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37992&action=edit
test case
g++ -m64 -g -Wall -Wextra -pipe -fvisibility=default -x c++ -std=c++14 -fPIC
example.cpp
results in a cras
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69602
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.0 |7.0
Summary|[6 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70273
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or better yet decide whether to walk the initializers or not based on
!gimple_body (fndecl) && !fun->cfg ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70192
--- Comment #9 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Mar 17 15:11:35 2016
New Revision: 234295
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234295&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Properly set flag_pie and flag_pic
We can't set flag_pie to the de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66146
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anthony.ajw at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70263
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra ---
Created attachment 38017
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38017&action=edit
possible fix
Maybe something as simple as this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69407
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Mar 17 18:43:08 2016
New Revision: 234304
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234304&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/69407
* c-common.c (resolve_overloaded_builtin): S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70310
Bug ID: 70310
Summary: [6 Regression] wrong code with vector compare at -O0
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 376 matches
Mail list logo
