Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: doko at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
seen with trunk 20171221, r255910
libtool: compile: /<>/build-nvptx/./gcc/xgcc
-B/<>/build-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83525
Bug ID: 83525
Summary: open(newunit=funit, status="scratch") fails if an
internal file (characters) was read previously.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83488
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 21 08:45:30 2017
New Revision: 255937
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255937&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/83488
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_target_string)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83526
Bug ID: 83526
Summary: -Wrestrict makes no sense with -fno-strict-aliasing
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83526
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83488
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Leaving open for the
case OPT_mavx512vnni:
if (value)
{
opts->x_ix86_isa_flags2 |= OPTION_MASK_ISA_AVX512VNNI_SET;
opts->x_ix86_isa_flags2_explicit |= OPTION_MASK_ISA_A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82973
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 21 09:11:29 2017
New Revision: 255938
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255938&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/82973
* emit-rtl.h (valid_for_const_ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82973
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 21 09:11:58 2017
New Revision: 255939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255939&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/82973
* emit-rtl.h (valid_for_const_ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So just a note. We *could* pick this up without waiting on Aldy's work.
After the second DOM pass we're failing to merge a pair of blocks because there
are still SSA_NAMEs queued for renaming. If we were
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82831
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Summary|[8 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83527
Bug ID: 83527
Summary: [8 Regression] Another statement-frontiers
-fcompare-debug failure
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83520
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83520
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ctice at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82973
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83521
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65294
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83081
--- Comment #4 from Christophe Lyon ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #3)
> Is this on a cross? I still can't reproduce on an x86_64 x
> arm-non-linux-gnueabi as specified above.
Yes, I'm using a cross-compiler, on an x86_64 host.
M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83081
--- Comment #6 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 42939
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42939&action=edit
generated assembly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83081
--- Comment #5 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 42938
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42938&action=edit
dump file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83081
--- Comment #7 from Christophe Lyon ---
I've attached the .s and .ira dump generated by the above command +
-save-temps.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83521
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83436
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu Dec 21 10:34:35 2017
New Revision: 255940
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255940&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-12-21 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83436
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83436
--- Comment #16 from Daan van Vugt ---
Thanks guys :) What version will this be included in?
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:36 AM, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83436
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83496
--- Comment #2 from Hauke Mehrtens ---
Should I git bisect this or will someone else do this?
If I should do that, is there some documentation on how to setup a test case
and build and run this automatically?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83508
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm |arm, sparc
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
(But it doesn't work because it breaks the "canonical types differ for
identical types %qT and %qT" test...)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83523
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83367
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Dale Weiler from comment #5)
> Except they are referenced via their this pointer (which should alias the
> static storage in that translation unit). I don't see how this is any
> different than ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83523
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.5
Summary|[8 Regression] IC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82764
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #6)
> Not sure about Martin's c#2. It just reproduced on the trunk for me.
> r255837
Yep, sorry. Forget about the comment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83496
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83528
Bug ID: 83528
Summary: Nios2: redundant pointers to the record fields
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I certainly didn't mean this kind of change, after all, it will also break
testing on what the alignof of the type is etc.
What I meant is in calls.c, when considering alignment of arguments ignore it
for TY
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Adjusted testcase, so that it is valid C and C++:
struct __attribute__ ((aligned)) A {};
struct A a;
void bar (int, int, int, int, int, int, int, struct A);
void
foo (void)
{
bar (6, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, a)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps:
--- gcc/config/i386/i386.c.jj 2017-12-21 09:44:34.0 +0100
+++ gcc/config/i386/i386.c 2017-12-21 13:04:03.172252517 +0100
@@ -8973,6 +8973,8 @@ ix86_function_arg_boundary (machine_mode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83529
Bug ID: 83529
Summary: ICE in canonical types differ for identical types
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82027
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
We create an "artificial_thunk" for an IPA-CP clone, which is really
nothing but a thunk with skipped arguments but we do not stream its
args_to_skip because output_cgraph_opt_summary_p returns false because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83512
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83513
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83528
--- Comment #1 from Michael_S ---
I did a little more research and found out that it is relatively recent
regression introduced in gcc version 4.9.2 (Altera 15.1 Build 185).
gcc version 4.8.3 20140320 (prerelease) (Altera 14.1 Build 186) still g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83530
Bug ID: 83530
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in
reset_sched_cycles_in_current_ebb, at sel-sched.c:7150
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83527
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83326
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Nesterovskiy ---
Thanks! I see performance gain on 648.exchange2_s (~6% on Broadwell and ~3% on
Skylake-X) reverting performance to r255266 level (Skylake-X regression was
~3%).
And loops unrolled with 2 and 3 iterat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82027
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
OK, so I did not realize that duplicate_thunk_for_node does not set
clone_of but former_clone of, which is of course what it must do. I
have checked and this is the only place where we currently set
former_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83527
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83528
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||nios2-elf
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82096
--- Comment #4 from sudi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I can see this failing with:
$./arm-none-linux-gnueabi-gcc
./src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/di-longlong64-sync-1.c -mthumb -march=armv5t
-O[g,1,2,3]
and
$./arm-none-linux-gnueabi-gcc
./src/gcc/gcc/t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu ---
There were discussions in the x86-64 psabi
group to make empty class passed the same
way for C and C++. We were waiting for
GCC to implement it before updating the
psabi.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83528
--- Comment #3 from Michael_S ---
Well, the guidline here https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ specifically tells me that
it's one of the things that you don't want ;)
But yes, I can.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83528
--- Comment #4 from Michael_S ---
Created attachment 42943
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42943&action=edit
bad asm output (gcc 5.3.0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83528
--- Comment #5 from Michael_S ---
Created attachment 42944
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42944&action=edit
good asm output (gcc 4.8.3)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
My understanding is that GCC and G++ now handle those the same. But for the >
16 byte aggregates the psABI would need some rule, like say:
If in C++ the object has a non-POD structure or union type, or con
ign 2
bars:
.zero 220
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 8.0.0 20171221 (experimental)"
So the issue looks to be fixed already.
The only question is for which version it was fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu ---
Please raise the issue at the psabi group.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83528
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83531
Bug ID: 83531
Summary: Build broken on macOS 10.13.2
Product: gcc
Version: 5.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83528
Michael_S changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I thought I've done it here by CCing relevant people. Or who else stands
behind the x86-64 psABI these days?
Anyway, I was looking at 0.95, seems newer psABI has more rules in there.
Perhaps we can say th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83531
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83528
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83528
--- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
And BTW in the future you can easily check all this yourself by building a
stage1 cross-compiler:
gcc_build_dir % ../gcc/configure --disable-bootstrap --enable-languages=c
--target=nios2-elf
gcc_bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83532
Bug ID: 83532
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in apply_scale, at
profile-count.h:955
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83509
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Dec 21 14:22:08 2017
New Revision: 255941
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255941&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix gcov-dump tool for GCDA files (PR gcov-profile/83509).
2017-12-21 Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83533
Bug ID: 83533
Summary: error: no type named 'X' in 'using = ...'
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83513
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abel at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #31 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
I'm having a look at what's still going wrong with Eric's updated
patch. On Solaris/SPARC, there are only two failures left:
FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr51567-1 cp_lto_pr51567-1_0.o-cp_lto_pr51
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83533
--- Comment #1 from Rostislav Povelikin
---
If I change aliasing of u with typedef instead of using - works fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83534
Bug ID: 83534
Summary: C++17: typeinfo for noexcept function lacks noexcept
information
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83488
--- Comment #18 from igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com ---
Added a patch for m512vnni, which is done similarly to 512vbmi2. It looks like
most of avx512* bits have to be included in OPTION_MASK_ISA_AVX512F_UNSET. I
leave it to a separate revision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83535
Bug ID: 83535
Summary: Doesn’t respect Size for an object
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83488
--- Comment #19 from igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com ---
Created attachment 42947
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42947&action=edit
512VNNI patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83488
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to igor.v.tsimbalist from comment #19)
> Created attachment 42947 [details]
> 512VNNI patch
What is the reason for moving it over? At least right now you don't have any |
OPTION_MASK_ISA_AVX512VL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66205
--- Comment #16 from simon at pushface dot org ---
I think this was actually INVALID.
I’m glad to report that Arno’s notes in Comment #14 do in fact solve the
problem (after supplying dummies for the parts of the standard library that
aren’t act
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #32 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Here are the additional types of failures found on Solaris/x86:
* Invalid sh_info:
FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr42987 cp_lto_pr42987_0.o-cp_lto_pr42987_1.o link, -flto
-flto-partition=none -g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83488
--- Comment #21 from igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com ---
Maybe I did more than expected :). Actually 512VNNI has VL bit according to
recently published extension. Please see
https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/managed/c5/15/architec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83436
--- Comment #17 from Thomas Koenig ---
The fix will be in gcc 7.3 which is planned for release during the third week
of January according to https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-12/msg00102.html .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83488
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, that changes the situation, I guess your patch is fine then (but please ask
still Uros or Kirill for approval on gcc-patches). But make sure that the
i386-builtins.def | OPTION_MASK_ISA_AVX512VL additio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80747
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80747
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #7 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83512
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81914
--- Comment #12 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
One more test case. Code compiled with TEST defined is branchless, without it
has branch.
[code]
#include
#define TEST
void test(uint64_t* a)
{
uint64_t n = *a / 8;
if (0 == n)
n = 1;
#ifdef T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83536
Bug ID: 83536
Summary: One 'false' too much in r255699 for mingw target (in
config/i386/i386.c)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39170
Florin Iucha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||florin.iucha at amd dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83513
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
> (btw it appears that either the comment or the sense of the last tiebreaker
> is inverted)
I have to take that back, I was confused by the unusual tmp vs. tmp2 order:
sel_rank_for_schedule (const v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83488
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to igor.v.tsimbalist from comment #21)
> Maybe I did more than expected :). Actually 512VNNI has VL bit according to
> recently published extension. Please see
>
> https://software.intel.com/sites
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82092
--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I can confirm that the patch above indeed does work. Interestingly, I don't see
the bootstrap on all combinations of Apple Hardware and MAC OS X versions.
Apparently, the problem (for me) only shows up on an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82872
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Dec 21 16:22:04 2017
New Revision: 255944
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255944&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82872
* convert.c (convert_to_integer_1) : Do n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83488
--- Comment #24 from igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #23)
> (In reply to igor.v.tsimbalist from comment #21)
> > Maybe I did more than expected :). Actually 512VNNI has VL bit according to
> > recentl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82872
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 82872, which changed state.
Bug 82872 Summary: [6/7 regression] ICE in ignore_overflows on __PTRDIFF_MAX__
index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82872
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #33 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On December 21, 2017 4:20:35 PM GMT+01:00, "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
>--- Comment #32 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #34 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On December 21, 2017 3:30:45 PM GMT+01:00, "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
>--- Comment #31 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82027
--- Comment #11 from Domani Hannes ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #10)
> OK, so I did not realize that duplicate_thunk_for_node does not set
> clone_of but former_clone of, which is of course what it must do. I
> have checked and th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82092
--- Comment #8 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Another thing I observed: one difference between the laptop where the bootstrap
worked and the one where it didn't work (besides the different chipsets i5 vs.
i7) is that on the one where the bootstrap doesn'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83406
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83448
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83448
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Untested fix:
--- gimple-ssa-sprintf.c.jj82017-12-19 22:05:44.0 +0100
+++ gimple-ssa-sprintf.c2017-12-21 18:04:30.960153926 +0100
@@ -2466,7 +2466,8 @@ maybe_warn (substring_loc &dirloc, l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83535
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
