http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59320
--- Comment #14 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #13)
> Will -fsanitize=undefined catch these? If so, perhaps the message shown
> before reporting a bug should mention trying this first.
I guess -fsanitiz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps add new attribute ssememalign, with default 0, which would be (maximum
for all alternatives) required alignment for memory operands in the instruction
pre-AVX, or 0 for GET_MODE_ALIGNMENT. So, instru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59321
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59321
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-fuse-ld does not have |-fuse-ld has no effect on
|ef
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59321
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #31335|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58687
--- Comment #25 from Max TenEyck Woodbury ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #24)
> ...
>
> I don't believe the standard makes any such attempt to accommodate such a
> (marginal) need;
GAG! Without this, a number of problems
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59351
Bug ID: 59351
Summary: ICE on empty compound literal with -pedantic
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59320
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59320
David Kaufmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WORKSFORME |INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59321
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #31333|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59321
--- Comment #10 from maemarcus at gmail dot com ---
Right, I guess the reason of the difference is I'm configured with
--program-prefix=kernelgen-
--with-ld=$RPM_INSTALL_PREFIX/%{prefix}bin/kernelgen-ld
--with-as=$RPM_INSTALL_PREFIX/%{prefix}bin/ke
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59321
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
This is not what I see with GCC 4.9.0:
[hjl@gnu-tools-1 tools-4.9]$ ls release/usr/gcc-4.9.0/bin/
x86_64-linux-addr2line x86_64-linux-gcc x86_64-linux-ld.gold
x86_64-linux-ar x86_64-linux-gcc-4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58687
--- Comment #24 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013, mtewoodbury at gmail dot com wrote:
> > The question is not when it takes place, it's what the "current token" is
> > when it takes place, because "line number" is defi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56480
Zhihao Yuan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lichray at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59321
--- Comment #8 from maemarcus at gmail dot com ---
Dear H.J. Lu,
You patch works for me, thanks a lot! I noticed however, that with -fuse-ld ld
from the different location is used for me:
$ kernelgen-gcc -print-prog-name=ld
.../INSTALL/bin/kernel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58687
--- Comment #23 from Max TenEyck Woodbury ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #22)
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2013, mtewoodbury at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> > The elaborate description of the different forms of the '#line' (and other)
> >
=native
--enable-version-specific-runtime-libs
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20131129 (experimental) [trunk revision 205527] (GCC)
$ cat x.ii
struct A {
int LLVMTy;
} a;
class B;
class C {
B *Node;
int ResNo;
public:
A m_fn1() const;
void m_fn2() { m_fn1(); }
};
class D {
void
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59349
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59331
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59331
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Nov 29 21:29:48 2013
New Revision: 205544
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205544&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/59331
cp/
* decl.c (compute_array_index_type): Don't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42262
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42262
--- Comment #2 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Fri Nov 29 21:24:14 2013
New Revision: 205543
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205543&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/42262
c:
* c-typeck.c (process_init_element): Do not treat a
-tune=native --with-arch=native
--enable-version-specific-runtime-libs
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20131129 (experimental) [trunk revision 205527] (GCC)
$ cat x.ii
fn1 ()
{
<:
__assert_fail ()
$ g++ -fpreprocessed -fsyntax-only -c x.ii
x.ii:1:6: error: ISO C++ forb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59321
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
I got
[hj
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59348
Bug ID: 59348
Summary: ieee_1003.1-2001/messages_members.cc does not compile
with _GLIBCXX_USE_WCHAR_T defined
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59321
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59321
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 31333
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31333&action=edit
A patch
This patch teaches gcc.c to append .bfd/.gold to ld if
-fuse-ld=XXX is used for --print-prog-name=ld.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43734
--- Comment #13 from Rolf Eike Beer ---
Ok, it looks like this is no gcc problem. If I rebuild gcc with binutils 2.22
it works. If I compile gcc with binutils 2.23.[12] it fails. Having a gcc built
with binutils 2.23.2 and building the program wit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note that (according to my reading of the docs) e.g. movlps/movhps don't allow
unaligned memory, so blindly allow any combine is wrong, but while the MEM
operand in those cases is say V4SFmode, the loads or s
l/gcc_current --with-multilib-list=m64
--enable-checking=yes,df,fold,rtl,tree --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--enable-plugin --with-tune=native --with-arch=native
--enable-version-specific-runtime-libs
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20131129 (experimental) [trunk revision 205527] (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #14)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> > > Created attachment 31332 [details]
> > > gcc49-pr59163.patch
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59340
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Andreas, could you check that the bootstrap is fixed. At least, the test is
compiled by the cross-compiler.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59340
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Nov 29 20:08:38 2013
New Revision: 205541
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205541&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-29 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/59340
* lr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59333
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
I think we just shouldn't try to pass values by reference in
ubsan_encode_value...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #14 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> > Created attachment 31332 [details]
> > gcc49-pr59163.patch
> >
> > So like this?
>
> Yes, with adjusted comment in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59176
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Now that PR59208 was fixed, I tried the test case of this PR again (with
today's r205539).
Result: Still the same, an ICE with -O3 in verify_cgraph_node. (-O2 is fine.)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59313
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> Me to, on alpha-linux-gnu, exactly the same numbers:
alpha-linux-gnu is 128 bit long double, but not __float128 target:
auto-host.h:#define TARGET_DEFAULT_LONG_DOUB
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59313
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sparc*-sun-solaris2.* |sparc*-sun-solaris2.*,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59011
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> Created attachment 31332 [details]
> gcc49-pr59163.patch
>
> So like this?
Yes, with adjusted comment in ix86_legitimate_combined_insn.
IIRC, unaligned moves wo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58687
--- Comment #22 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013, mtewoodbury at gmail dot com wrote:
> The elaborate description of the different forms of the '#line' (and other)
> directives makes it clear that expansion is not to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #31331|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59199
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
>
> Likely a update_address_taken bug, eventual fix:
>
> @@ -1329,6 +1336,10 @@ non_rewritable_mem_ref_base (tree ref)
>if (DECL_P (ref))
> return NULL_TREE;
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59313
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #11 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> For stores I think the patch already allows that, that is the
> if (GET_CODE (*x) == SET && &SET_DEST (*x) == data)
> return 1;
> in there (the reason why I'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For stores I think the patch already allows that, that is the
if (GET_CODE (*x) == SET && &SET_DEST (*x) == data)
return 1;
in there (the reason why I've added it was that for the misaligned store insns
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Created attachment 31331 [details]
> gcc49-pr59163.patch
>
> So like this? Untested...
Yes, but I think that we can also allow simple vector loads and stores - th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59346
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59346
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Nov 29 16:19:36 2013
New Revision: 205532
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205532&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/54040
PR ada/59346
* s-osinte-hpux.ads (timespec): Ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54040
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Nov 29 16:19:36 2013
New Revision: 205532
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205532&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/54040
PR ada/59346
* s-osinte-hpux.ads (timespec): Ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55025
Paulo J. Matos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pa...@matos-sorge.com
--- Comment #2 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59346
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59340
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59346
Bug ID: 59346
Summary: [4.9 Regression] s-osinte.adb:107:35: expected type
"Interfaces.C.long"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59289
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59289
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Nov 29 15:19:34 2013
New Revision: 205529
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205529&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-29 Kyrylo Tkachov
PR target/59289
* conf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59342
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54316
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[C++11] move constructor|[C++11] move constructor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59208
--- Comment #13 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> Fixed.
The testcase is missing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59340
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59199
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59208
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 31331
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31331&action=edit
gcc49-pr59163.patch
So like this? Untested...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59208
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Nov 29 14:37:07 2013
New Revision: 205528
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205528&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-29 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/59208
* tree-ssa-ope
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59345
Bug ID: 59345
Summary: _gfortran_internal_pack on compiler generated temps
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59344
Bug ID: 59344
Summary: warning for needless pointer attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: fortra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59332
--- Comment #6 from Dmitry Gorbachev ---
It was discovered by accident. However, if it does work, why "no-lto" (which is
so much more useful) should not work?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59343
--- Comment #1 from gcc-bugzilla-f5d8 at theblacksun dot eu ---
Created attachment 31329
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31329&action=edit
assembler output from -Os
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59343
--- Comment #2 from gcc-bugzilla-f5d8 at theblacksun dot eu ---
Created attachment 31330
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31330&action=edit
assembler output from -O2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58864
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 31328
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31328&action=edit
gcc49-pr58864.patch
Alternate patch. Rather than doing do_pending_stack_adjust () everywhere just
in case emit_c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59343
Bug ID: 59343
Summary: miscompiled for loop in sh4 target (-Os)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59342
Bug ID: 59342
Summary: Function Template Specialisation causing compiler
error together with using clauses
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Maybe even better idea is to use ix86_legitimate_combined_insn and reject
combinations that would result in unaligned operands of all but vector move
instructions.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54316
Jaak Ristioja changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jaak at ristioja dot ee
--- Comment #4 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59309
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59332
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59332
--- Comment #4 from Dmitry Gorbachev ---
> Can you expand on those shortcomings/bugs?
There are LTO-related issues in GCC and LD, such as PR43038, PR56536 and
others. Not all problems will be fixed soon, and more bugs will be discovered
in the fu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58864
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59309
--- Comment #4 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Nov 29 13:00:35 2013
New Revision: 205525
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205525&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Properly handle function without arguments
PR c/59309
* cilk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
I think that we should disallow tie of TImode with 128bit vector modes due to
different alignment requirements. Integer register pairs can load unaligned
TImode without problems, while unaligned TImode will cras
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58089
Andrey Zholos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a...@q-fu.com
--- Comment #2 from Andrey
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59341
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063
--- Comment #22 from Yury Gribov ---
Joost, could you check and close bug if trunk works for you?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063
--- Comment #21 from ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ygribov
Date: Fri Nov 29 12:30:36 2013
New Revision: 205524
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205524&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2013-11-29 Jakub Jelinek
Yury Gribov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59341
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59338
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59338
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Nov 29 12:09:12 2013
New Revision: 205521
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205521&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-29 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/59338
* tree-cfg.c (v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59337
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58253
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58253
>
> --- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59341
Bug ID: 59341
Summary: spark_05 & No_Implicit_Aliasing undefined
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59336
--- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> I suppose it doesn't happen without LTO?
correct.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58253
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #2)
> Isn't it easier to avoid building a type with different alignment
> in the first place? Or do this adjustment in SRA where the bug
> happens? It seems that w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58253
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #2)
> Isn't it easier to avoid building a type with different alignment
> in the first place? Or do this adjustment in SRA where the bug
> happens? It seems that w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59340
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59208
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Argh. I'll try to add a update_stmt_fn.
Yep, would make life easier ;)
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58239
--- Comment #20 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I think this fix has been reverted somewhere in source as I've just got
> trunk from SVN and have had to patch by hand.
It's very easy to check, the patch is linked from comment #17...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58844
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58239
Luke A. Guest changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||laguest at archeia dot com
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59340
Bug ID: 59340
Summary: LRA enable-checking bootstrap failure since r205136
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
