https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85173
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85173
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> I wonder if we shouldn't do:
> --- gcc/explow.c 2018-01-03 21:21:39.012907765 +0100
> +++ gcc/explow.c 2018-04-04 08:58:04.716738887 +0200
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85187
Bug ID: 85187
Summary: [GCOV] [GCOV] and a int arrary before the for(;0;)
statement and goto statement in its body is wrongly
marked as not executed when there is a int array in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85188
Bug ID: 85188
Summary: [GCOV] a int arrary and a goto statement around the
for(;0;) statement will lead to incoccrect code
coverage in Gcov
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85187
Yibiao Yang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85188
--- Comment #1 from Yibiao Yang ---
*** Bug 85187 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85173
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> > I wonder if we shouldn't do:
> > --- gcc/explow.c2018-01-03 21:21:39.012907765 +0100
> > +++ gcc/explow.c2018-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85188
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85168
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 4 07:52:20 2018
New Revision: 259068
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259068&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-04-04 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/85168
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85175
--- Comment #5 from Arnd Bergmann ---
Improving the optimizer will definitely help this one, but not the other
instances I found. Here's a list of the remaining warnings that got introduced
in the linux kernel by r257857 for reference:
https://e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82501
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Small note: on powerpc sanitization does not work for last global variable:
volatile int v;
__attribute__((noipa)) void
foo (char *p, char *q)
{
*p = 123;
// v = p > q;
}
char __attribute__((used)) large
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85189
Bug ID: 85189
Summary: [8 regression] g++.dg/inherit/override-attribs.C FAILs
on 32-bit x86
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85189
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85166
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #2)
> Does this fix the problem?
>
> Index: minimal.c
> ===
> --- minimal.c (Revision 259055)
> +++ mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85190
Bug ID: 85190
Summary: gcc.dg/vect/pr81196.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85190
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85168
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Summary|[7/8 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85191
Bug ID: 85191
Summary: [8 regression] gcc.dg/vect/slp-perm-9.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85191
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85192
Bug ID: 85192
Summary: Memory leak on every read() from string
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85176
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85180
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85173
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> (In reply to ktkachov from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> > > I wonder if we shouldn't do:
> > > --- gcc/explow.c 201
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85185
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||riscv
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85173
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #6)
> I see what you mean. However, probe_stack and probe_stack_address are not
> optabs, they are just pattern names that have a gen_* function. So we can't
> call maybe_le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85176
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85190
--- Comment #1 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for reporting, I will have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85186
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85189
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85166
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85189
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85166
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Apr 4 09:26:13 2018
New Revision: 259072
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259072&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-04-04 Thomas Koenig
PR libfortran/85166
* runti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85166
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85176
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Hmmm, reduced with missing return value:
$ cat ice.ii
namespace a {
class b &operator<<(b &, char *) {}
extern b c;
} // namespace a
main() { a::c << ""; }
$ g++ -O1 -flto -g1 ice.ii
ice.ii: In function ‘a::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82501
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85174
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85180
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81647
sudi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82989
sudi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82501
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> As discussed on IRC, with current libasan __asan_register_globals, we have 2
> options:
> 1) add an object that we link early with -fsanitize=address that contains
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85192
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85192
--- Comment #2 from Vasilis.Vlachoudis at cern dot ch ---
I am using 7.2.0 from ubuntu. I've just checked on the latest Fedora with 7.2.1
and it gives the same result as in your case, so probably it is fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85176
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
A valid test-case started to find in r251220:
$ cat ice.ii
namespace a {
template class c;
template void e(c &);
void operator<<(c &f, const char *) { e(f); }
extern c cout;
} // namespace a
int main() { a:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85185
--- Comment #4 from Zev Weiss ---
I'm afraid I'm not quite GCC-savvy enough to know exactly what PROMOTE_SUBREG
refers to or which targets it covers (a quick grep of the source tree didn't
appear turn up any clues).
As for the RTL (hopefully I'v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85191
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85185
--- Comment #5 from Zev Weiss ---
Created attachment 43837
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43837&action=edit
codegen & RTL dump for aarch64 & avr
(Attached generated code & -fdump-rtl-expand output for aarch64 and avr, both
sable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-259070-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-pr85177-amd64
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.1 20180404 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85176
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83481
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83217
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||antanubis at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85174
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Apr 4 10:40:57 2018
New Revision: 259074
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259074&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Disable anchors and msdata for ASAN test-case (PR sanirizer/85174).
2018-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85194
Bug ID: 85194
Summary: ICE with structured binding in broken for-loop
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: error-recovery, ice-on-invalid-code
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85192
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85193
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85172
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85181
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71174
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code,
_64-pc-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
--target=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --with-ld=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-259070-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-pr85177-amd64
Thread model: posix
gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79627
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85191
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
> possibly the vect_perm_short case? how do you configure targets? Shouldn't
> have affected ia64 though... maybe my TCL fu was too weak and I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85195
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85195
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85191
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85191
>
> --- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85191
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85190
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
The regression on x86 should eventually be fixed now, not sure if powerpc/spu
are regressions?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85191
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 4 12:16:21 2018
New Revision: 259075
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259075&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-04-04 Richard Biener
PR testsuite/85191
* lib/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85196
Bug ID: 85196
Summary: [6/7 regression] ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2311:
unrecognizable insn
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85196
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85195
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43842
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43842&action=edit
gcc8-pr85195.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85193
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85193
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84402
--- Comment #20 from Martin Liška ---
For the libsanitizer/*/*_interceptors I make a quick patch:
https://github.com/marxin/gcc/commit/5ce658230db567474997fa411f23ac78366487ce
which basically splits asan_interceptors.cc and
sanitizer_common_inter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84402
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84402
>
> --- Comment #20 from Martin Liška ---
> For the libsanitizer/*/*_interceptors I mak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85197
Bug ID: 85197
Summary: [GCOV] The main function is wrongly marked as executed
twice in gcov
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84402
--- Comment #22 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #21)
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84402
> >
> > --- Comment #20 from Martin Liška --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85198
Bug ID: 85198
Summary: long long int vector mistaken as long int vector
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85190
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
> The gcc.dg/vect/pr81196.c testcase started to FAIL between 20180326
> (r258856) and 20180327 (r258886)
> on a couple of targets:
>
> +FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85197
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85199
Bug ID: 85199
Summary: [GCOV] A cond-expr with a iterative variable in a for
loop is marked as "-" in gcov
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66145
--- Comment #32 from Richard Biener ---
Now the reverse fails - a program compiled with a GCC defaulting to the old ABI
(like GCC 4.8) now fails to run with a dual-ABI libstdc++:
#include
#include
using namespace std;
int main ()
{
std::ifst
ttps://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 8.0.1 20180404 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2018 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66145
--- Comment #33 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #32)
> Now the reverse fails - a program compiled with a GCC defaulting to the old
> ABI
> (like GCC 4.8) now fails to run with a dual-ABI libstdc++:
>
> #include
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85194
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85168
--- Comment #7 from Ivo Raisr ---
Fix backported to 7.3.0 correctly compiles the original (huge) source module.
Thank you, Richard.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85176
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85176
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 4 14:11:39 2018
New Revision: 259080
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259080&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-04-04 Richard Biener
PR lto/85176
* dwarf2out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85200
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--
it a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 8.0.1 20180404 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2018 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free soft
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85189
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 4 14:14:08 2018
New Revision: 259082
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259082&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/85189
* g++.dg/inherit/override-attribs.C: Us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84762
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||3.1.1
--- Comment #11 from Franz Sirl ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85189
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85190
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
[...]
> Hmm, what options did you use?
Nothing special in the Solaris/x86 (i386-pc-solaris2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85190
--- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 43845
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43845&action=edit
i386-pc-solaris2.11 pr81196.c.161t.vect
32-bit Solaris/x86 dump for reference
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85201
Bug ID: 85201
Summary: [GCOV] A statement with two && operators and a comma
operator in the for loop body is wrongly marked in
gcov
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82976
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
I think I have finally found the culprit. Took me a couple of hours...
The type in question is introduced in gimple-match-head.c, in
763 return (gimple_resimplify2 (seq, rcode,
764
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85175
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
I wonder if adding an attribute to constrain the range of a variable on
declaration would be a solution. That way the first warning on your list, for
example, could be avoided by annotating id along the lines
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85202
Bug ID: 85202
Summary: [GCOV] A continue statement in the body of the if(0)
statement by following a if(1) statement will lead to
incorrect code coverage in gcov
Product: gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85203
Bug ID: 85203
Summary: cmse_nonsecure_caller intrinsic returns incorrect
results
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82976
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #10)
> I think I have finally found the culprit. Took me a couple of hours...
>
> The type in question is introduced in gimple-match-head.c, in
... or not there, ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85204
Bug ID: 85204
Summary: [nvptx] infinite loop generated
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
As
1 - 100 of 217 matches
Mail list logo
