https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81199
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80928
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jun 26 07:19:37 2017
New Revision: 249638
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249638&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-06-26 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/80928
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79483
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #14)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> > Fixed on trunk sofar.
>
> Odd. Looks broken to me in 20170622. Did the patch go in ?
Your reduced testcas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81203
Bug ID: 81203
Summary: [8 Regression] tail recursion: internal compiler
error: verify_ssa failed
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81203
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81203
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I think the proper fix would be a larger rewrite of tree-tailcall to properly
isolate the path from call to return stmt. This particular PR can be fixed
with sth like the following which lacks handling of d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80779
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
I made some progress a while back with that, mostly by adding
__attribute__((bnd_legacy)) just as in Martin's patches. I don't like that
approach though, as it does not look natural. The two thinks that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38497
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2010-03-03 10:57:32 |2017-6-26
--- Comment #9 from Richard B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #55 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #54 from Daniel Santos ---
> Created attachment 41627
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41627&action=edit
> darwin fixup (on top of v6) -- second atte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81204
Bug ID: 81204
Summary: [7/8 Regression] Rejects boost headers
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81204
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.3.1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81191
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81192
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80164
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> I will take this over, test the proposed patch, and see where we get soon.
Great!
I have the patch in my working tree and it fixes the issue (even the ieee ones)
without regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81194
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81192
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81195
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp, wrong-code
Status|W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81196
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80116
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Jun 26 10:02:27 2017
New Revision: 249643
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249643&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/80116
* c-common.h (warn_for_multistatement_macros
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81205
Bug ID: 81205
Summary: Hybrid MPI and OpenMp: Blocking code in loops
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.7
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81205
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81204
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Started with r236221
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81203
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jun 26 10:33:12 2017
New Revision: 249644
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249644&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-06-26 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/81203
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81175
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jun 26 10:34:49 2017
New Revision: 249645
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249645&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-06-26 Richard Biener
PR target/81175
* config/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81175
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Component|tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81194
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81203
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66313
Bug 66313 depends on bug 81203, which changed state.
Bug 81203 Summary: [8 Regression] tail recursion: internal compiler error:
verify_ssa failed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81203
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81206
Bug ID: 81206
Summary: missed tail recursion
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80116
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81192
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tom at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81196
--- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Probably some more elaborate handling in number_of_iterations_cond is
> required:
>
> /* We can handle the case when neither of the sides of the com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81207
Bug ID: 81207
Summary: tree check fail in simplify_builtin_call
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81207
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81207
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81196
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Probably some more elaborate handling in number_of_iterations_cond is
> required:
>
> /* We can handle the case when neither of the sides of the com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81207
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Apparently in the IR we have
# VUSE <.MEM>
_13 = __builtin_strchr (_12, 39);
(gdb) p vuse
$1 =
and SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT crashes on that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70173
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70098
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81207
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'll have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68690
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This now compiles to
main:
.LCF1:
0: addis 2,12,.TOC.-.LCF1@ha
addi 2,2,.TOC.-.LCF1@l
.localentry main,.-main
addis 9,2,.LC0@toc@ha # gpr load fusion, type lon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81204
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67856
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81138
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
Summary|std::mone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67483
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81205
--- Comment #2 from Pasha ---
This is my main routine for example
.
.
.
!!$OMP PARALLEL DO DEFAULT(SHARED) PRIVATE(K,jL)
DO k=1,nG3
DO jL=1,nL2
j = idx2start + jL
IF(masque(j,k))THEN
! dudx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81147
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81147
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81205
--- Comment #3 from Pasha ---
For example, in this case index variables are not the same in both subroutines
but it blocks running.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81177
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81194
--- Comment #4 from Peter Bergner ---
Will do, but as Jakub said, we'll need the compiler options used.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81208
Bug ID: 81208
Summary: 'uninitialized' warning is missed while self
initializing
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81209
Bug ID: 81209
Summary: [7/8 Regression] -fsanitize=undefined ICE on darwin
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81210
Bug ID: 81210
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr68037-*.c -O* execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71815
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon Jun 26 14:19:33 2017
New Revision: 249649
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249649&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-06-26 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/71815
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68037
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Some tests are failing on darwin: see pr81210.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71815
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81196
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm, the function can only be vectorized with "-march=skylake"? So what
requirement is needed to add a test case for this?
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81058
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81210
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81211
Bug ID: 81211
Summary: Unhelpful error messages using template instance with
non-copyable type argument
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70472
--- Comment #8 from Askar Safin ---
Recently I noticed this bug can be easily fixed simply by manually implementing
is_copy_constructible. So, please, apply the fix. And same for other type
traits (is_copy_assignable etc).
#include
#include
#i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81210
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #2 from Dominique
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81211
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Stephen Kell from comment #0)
> (It may also be a bug in libstdc++ that std::function should require this of
> its argument type, although that's not completely bonkers.)
It's explicitly requi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81208
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81193
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81210
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #2)
> > Is this a regression?
>
> AFAICT the tests have never passed.
These tests try to emulate interrupt in user space. If the emulation
doesn't work on darwin, t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81211
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> (In reply to Stephen Kell from comment #0)
> > (It may also be a bug in libstdc++ that std::function should require this of
> > its argument type, although th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70472
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That would only work for vector not vector , for the reasons given
above.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81212
Bug ID: 81212
Summary: -Wreturn-type is disabled when used together with
-fsanitize=return
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81211
--- Comment #3 from Stephen Kell ---
I agree that this message is better (my bad for not trying a supported
release).
It'd be nice if I didn't have to guess that the reason it's not callable is
that I omitted the copy constructor. The rules for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81213
Bug ID: 81213
Summary: GCC target_clone support does not work for static
functions
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80775
--- Comment #14 from Peter Bergner ---
I don't see this on powerpc64le-linux using -O3. What target are you using?
Any options other than -O3?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81214
Bug ID: 81214
Summary: GCC target_clone support does not work for global
functions with no references
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81210
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The following reduced test segfault also on darwin
#define IP 0x12345671
#define CS 0x12345672
#define FLAGS 0x12345673
#define SP 0x12345674
#define S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81207
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81147
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80775
--- Comment #15 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #14)
> I don't see this on powerpc64le-linux using -O3. What target are you using?
> Any options other than -O3?
Doesn't fail for me on x86_64 either, so I'll need t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81194
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> I don't see g++ options mentioned anywhere, the testcase compiles even with
> latest trunk just fine with -O0 -std=c++17 or -O2 -std=c++17.
...and compiles fine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81169
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81169
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon Jun 26 17:19:15 2017
New Revision: 249660
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249660&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/81169 - -Wclass-memaccess illegitimate warning related to volatile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81211
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That's not really very practical. std::function uses std::result_of to check
for a callable type, and it's not an error for std::result_of to decide the
type isn't callable. The error happens when std::func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81196
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to amker from comment #4)
> Hmm, the function can only be vectorized with "-march=skylake"?
Er, it also vectorizes without any -march on x86_64 (with shorter vectors).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81211
--- Comment #5 from Stephen Kell ---
I take the point in general, and I see the specific difficulty in how result_of
works.
In this specific case, there still seems to be a more low-hanging solution.
Perhaps having a lambda that is not callable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81205
--- Comment #4 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Pasha from comment #2)
> This is my main routine for example
> .
> .
> .
> !!$OMP PARALLEL DO DEFAULT(SHARED) PRIVATE(K,jL)
> DO k=1,nG3
>DO jL=1,nL2
> j = idx2start + jL
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81194
--- Comment #6 from Marc Mutz ---
Sorry. Here it comes:
make[2]: Entering directory
'/home/marc/Qt/qt5-build/qtdeclarative/src/qmldevtools'
g++ -c -pipe -Wno-error=expansion-to-defined -Wno-error=maybe-uninitialized
-Wno-error=expansion-to-defin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81215
Bug ID: 81215
Summary: [7/8 Regression] deduction failure with variadic
template template parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81215
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81205
--- Comment #5 from Pasha ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #4)
> (In reply to Pasha from comment #2)
> > This is my main routine for example
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > !!$OMP PARALLEL DO DEFAULT(SHARED) PRIVATE(K,jL)
> > DO k=1,nG3
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81215
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jun 26 18:49:18 2017
New Revision: 249664
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249664&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/81215 - deduction failure with variadic TTP.
* pt.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81215
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jun 26 18:49:25 2017
New Revision: 249665
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249665&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/81215
* pt.c (unify_bound_ttp_args): Restore old l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81205
--- Comment #6 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Pasha from comment #5)
> (In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Pasha from comment #2)
> > > This is my main routine for example
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > > !!$OMP PARALLE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81216
Bug ID: 81216
Summary: [8 Regression] bootstrap failed on i386
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81209
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81194
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81217
Bug ID: 81217
Summary: Makefile:22754: warning: overriding recipe for target
'profiledbootstrap'
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81217
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81217
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Confirmed, I saw this over the weekend also.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81218
Bug ID: 81218
Summary: libgcc_s.so.1 call to __get_cpuid does not correctly
code around 486 cpus lacking cpuid instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
-solaris2.12
Between 20170625 (r249632) and 20170626 (r249656), bootstrap broke on several
targets.
E.g on i686-pc-linux-gnu and sparc-sun-solaris2.12, building stage2 libstdc++:
In file included from
/var/gcc/regression/trunk/12-gcc/build.bad/sparc-sun-solaris2.12/libstdc++-v3/include/bits
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
