https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64548
Bug ID: 64548
Summary: Lost visibility of package System after raise
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64286
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
On 12/16/14 09:10, izamyatin at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64286
>
> --- Comment #1 from Igor Zamyatin ---
> Perhaps something like below to restrict ree for such ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64481
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maltsevm at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61466
--- Comment #1 from simon at pushface dot org ---
Still present in gcc version 5.0.0 20141228
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64547
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64348
--- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Fri Jan 9 06:19:32 2015
New Revision: 219375
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219375&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-09 Kito Cheng
PR rtl-optimization/64348
* lr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64239
--- Comment #9 from Tim Shen ---
Author: timshen
Date: Fri Jan 9 05:52:18 2015
New Revision: 219374
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219374&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/64239
Backported form mainline
2015-01-09 Tim Shen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62277
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64547
Bug ID: 64547
Summary: A non-const constexpr function is rejected incorrectly
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64239
--- Comment #8 from Tim Shen ---
Author: timshen
Date: Fri Jan 9 03:58:59 2015
New Revision: 219373
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219373&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/64239
* include/bits/regex.h (match_results<>::swap): Us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64545
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Could be a dup of PR 63967.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64545
--- Comment #1 from mikulas at artax dot karlin.mff.cuni.cz ---
It is caused by profiledbootstrap, when I change it to boostrap, the build
succeeds.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64532
--- Comment #4 from baoshan ---
Can someone help to 'confirm' this bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61790
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61790
--- Comment #6 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Fri Jan 9 00:50:49 2015
New Revision: 219372
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219372&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR gcov-profile/61790
* gcov-tool.c (do_rewrite): Use strtol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56126
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Michael Bruck from comment #11)
> throwing is undefined behavior with -fno-exceptions.
No it isn't, it's ill-formed due to a syntax error. That's very different to
undefined behaviour.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64546
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill ---
Created attachment 34409
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34409&action=edit
Preprocessed newlib source which produces the ICE
This code compiles with 4.8.3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64546
Bug ID: 64546
Summary: m32c ICE at calls.c:3638 compiling newlib
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
--- Comment #6 from Joel Sherrill ---
(In reply to Sandra Loosemore from comment #5)
> I think complete failure to build GCC for nios2 target due to
> target-inspecific changes is a serious regression that needs to be addressed
> for GCC 5 releas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053
Bernhard Rosenkränzer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Bernhard.Rosenkranzer@linar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
--- Comment #5 from Sandra Loosemore ---
I think complete failure to build GCC for nios2 target due to target-inspecific
changes is a serious regression that needs to be addressed for GCC 5 release.
Can we up the priority?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64545
Bug ID: 64545
Summary: failed gcc build: internal compiler error: in
inline_small_functions, at ipa-inline.c:1693
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62250
--- Comment #11 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Author: hp
Date: Thu Jan 8 21:59:26 2015
New Revision: 219365
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219365&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/62250
* lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62250
--- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Author: hp
Date: Thu Jan 8 21:57:49 2015
New Revision: 219364
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219364&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/62250
* lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64388
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63989
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 8 21:30:56 2015
New Revision: 219362
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219362&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/63989
* params.def (PARAM_MAX_TRACKED_STRLENS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64388
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 8 21:29:44 2015
New Revision: 219361
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219361&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/55023
PR middle-end/64388
* dse.c (struct insn_info)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55023
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 8 21:29:44 2015
New Revision: 219361
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219361&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/55023
PR middle-end/64388
* dse.c (struct insn_info
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56126
--- Comment #12 from Olaf van der Spek ---
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:20 PM, bruck.michael at googlemail dot com
wrote:
> throwing is undefined behavior with -fno-exceptions.
Says who?
> Allocation failure is a
> simple error and should not kil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56126
--- Comment #11 from Michael Bruck ---
(In reply to Olaf van der Spek from comment #10)
> > I quoted it to illustrate that returning NULL is the intuitive option here,
> > while abort() is a completely new approach. Returning NULL is what I would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63733
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think the proper fix should be to look for type-bound operators *before*
non-type-bound operators in gfc_extend_expr (interface.c). In gfc_extend_assign
this is already done in the right order (i.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64544
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64544
--- Comment #1 from mikulas at artax dot karlin.mff.cuni.cz ---
Created attachment 34407
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34407&action=edit
The failed build log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64544
mikulas at artax dot karlin.mff.cuni.cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64544
Bug ID: 64544
Summary: ../../gcc-svn/gcc/cgraphunit.c:2183:1: internal
compiler error: in check_probability, at
basic-block.h:581
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64338
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64338
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 8 19:15:53 2015
New Revision: 219356
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219356&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/64338
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_int_movcc): Don'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63681
--- Comment #8 from Joel Sherrill ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Did it work with 4.9.1?
No. Based on "git checkout gcc-4_9_1-release"
Ditto for 4.9.0.
Hopefully the recommended patch can be applied to the 4.9 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63681
--- Comment #7 from Joel Sherrill ---
(In reply to Yaakov Selkowitz from comment #6)
> (In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #5)
> > The ICE on bfin-elf started for 4.9 with r204985, and stopped for 5.0 with
> > r210683. Backporting r21068
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59004
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59004
--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jan 8 18:04:03 2015
New Revision: 219353
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219353&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-08 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/59004
* g++.dg/ext/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59004
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini ---
At this point I think we can add the testcase to be safe and close the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64462
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64462
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jan 8 17:48:38 2015
New Revision: 219352
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219352&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-08 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/64462
* g++.dg/cpp0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64462
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
Thanks Ville. Let's add the testcase and close this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64543
--- Comment #1 from mikulas at artax dot karlin.mff.cuni.cz ---
Created attachment 34406
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34406&action=edit
failed build log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64539
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
At first glance, this seems appropriate:
...
diff --git a/gcc/regcprop.c b/gcc/regcprop.c
index 8c4f564..b42a4b7 100644
--- a/gcc/regcprop.c
+++ b/gcc/regcprop.c
@@ -801,6 +801,18 @@ copyprop_hardre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58761
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58616
Bug 58616 depends on bug 58761, which changed state.
Bug 58761 Summary: ICE with a lambda capturing this in a NSDMI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58761
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 58761, which changed state.
Bug 58761 Summary: ICE with a lambda capturing this in a NSDMI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58761
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39218
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64526
--- Comment #5 from Chengnian Sun ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #3)
> "has no parameters" does not mean "has a type that includes a prototype
> with no parameters". See DR#317.
>
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29838
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64542
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Note that armv6-m doesn't support ARM instructions at all, so the .arm
directive is meaningless.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64543
Bug ID: 64543
Summary: gcc fails to build due to undefined references to
functions in libiberty
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64542
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64542
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm-rtems
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64542
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill ---
Created attachment 34405
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34405&action=edit
Processed output from RTEMS cpu.c which produces the error
Looking at the error message, I am not sure if this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64542
Bug ID: 64542
Summary: ARM use of ARM instruction on Thumb-only target
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64536
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 34404
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34404&action=edit
gcc5-pr64536.patch
Given that tidy_fallthru_edge seems to be called only rarely, I think adding
too much code t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64027
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60132
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Jan 8 16:24:55 2015
New Revision: 219350
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219350&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/60132
* include/std/type_traits (has_trivial_default
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64526
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60753
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64412
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64541
Bug ID: 64541
Summary: .fre1 pass optimization failure
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64412
--- Comment #19 from iverbin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to iverbin from comment #18)
> It seems that the problem with offload is that -fPIC option is passed to the
> offload compiler, but not passed to the host compiler. If I add -fPIC to th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60753
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jan 8 15:48:36 2015
New Revision: 219347
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219347&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2015-01-08 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/60753
* decl.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64536
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
> When all the jump_table_data labels point to the same destination, it is
> reasonable to optimize that to direct jump, but I guess we need to take care
> about making sure that the code_label before the ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64536
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64410
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Improves runtime from 8.3s to 6.5s (~25%).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64410
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 34402
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34402&action=edit
patch to pattern-detect the load/store
This pattern matches real/imagpart uses and single-use complex stores a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59354
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> It is caused by r147829 (the new SLP pass).
It may just expose the latent bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59354
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59354
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Element swizzling produces |[4.8/4.9/5/Regression]
|inva
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64540
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64410
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> > There are a number of things that make it complicated.
> > 1) gcc doesn't like to vectorize when the number of iterat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64540
Bug ID: 64540
Summary: [4.9 regression] Casting to/from long double emits
ambiguous fild/fisttp instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58638
Scott Lipcon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slipcon at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64539
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In order to fix this, I'll probably first have to understand the PR57003 issue
and fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64154
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> I'll file a PR.
PR 64539: '[5 regression] cprop_hardreg does not respect clobbers in C_I_F_U'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64539
Bug ID: 64539
Summary: [5 regression] cprop_hardreg does not respect clobbers
in C_I_F_U
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64410
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 34400
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34400&action=edit
update-address-taken fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64537
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
b is used twice, once shifted left by 3 and once directly.
We could write this as
subsx3, x0, x1, sxth 3
beq .L5
add w0, w2, w1, sxth <= Now extended
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64410
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64522
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
Seems to be a side effect of PR39229 (r151258, 2009-08-31 = during 4.5
development) as the patch removed the following from parse.c:
- if ((gfc_option.warn_line_truncation || gfc_current_form ==
FORM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63733
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64154
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Terry Guo from comment #2)
> Hi Tom,
>
> I enabled this optimization to thumb1 target cortex-m0
Does that mean you just reverted the patch for PR63718?
> and found this IPA-RA
> opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63733
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> likely r189022 (pr49591).
I think this one is the culprit. Reverting the relevant part restores the
expected behavior. Patch:
Index: gcc/fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63733
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> likely r195729 (pr54195).
Reverting this commit on trunk yields:
test_ov.f90:7:32:
generic :: operator(+) => sum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63733
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64410
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64537
--- Comment #3 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
But isn't w1 is passed with 16bit value (short b) here. Am I missing something
here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 34399
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34399&action=edit
patch fixing comment #4
This fixes the issue in comment #4 (it also decreases the emergency EH object
size).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64537
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to kugan from comment #1)
> According to AAPCS64
> (http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.ihi0055c/
> IHI0055C_beta_aapcs64.pdf), the unused parm register bits have "unspecified
> value".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64537
kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63949
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64538
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64538
Bug ID: 64538
Summary: [4.9/5 Regression] Devirt ICE in
possible_polymorphic_call_targets
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Is the following required to work?
#include
#include
#include
struct large
{
char s[1024*1024*1024];
};
int main()
{
rlimit lim;
lim.rlim_cur = 1024*1024*1024;
lim.rlim_max = 1024*1024*1024;
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
