https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63765
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #16)
> The alternative patch works on AIX. I thought that it was going to be
> installed.
I don't remember it being ever posted to gcc-patches, patch review doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64612
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64612
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 28 07:45:56 2015
New Revision: 220198
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220198&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/64612
* lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63577
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is a regression, so perhaps, depends on how risky the patch would be.
Most likely it would need to be tested with always-collect params on a few
larger testcases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64368
--- Comment #29 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #28)
> Let's close this then, and I'll deal with the PRs for the remaining failures.
Down to just...
FAIL: 22_locale/conversions/string/2.cc execu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Jiong Wang from comment #8)
> looks like this fix is too conservative. it will disable const fold for
> bit-field completely. for bitfld-6/little-endian, previously, we can
> generated
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64436
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63577
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
[ I missed your last comment, sorry. ]
Both the log_links and the reg_stat point to insns in the insn stream,
(all of those are either live or never again referred to), so that
might be fine, but you re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64458
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Hi Ramana,
As said in PR64616, this happens with the default cpu selected when configuring
with --with-arch=armv7-a.
Best regards.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64616
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
*** Bug 64458 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64458
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64797
--- Comment #3 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
Still present at r220189 on x86_64-apple-darwin14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64796
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
These cases should all be covered by the patch posted [1], shouldn't it?
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg02380.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64815
Terry Guo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64368
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64797
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59828
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|amodra at gmail dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64785
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58597
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53987
--- Comment #11 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #9)
> Another related issue is this example function:
>
> unsigned char h (unsigned char a, int b)
> {
> return (unsigned char)(a + b);
> }
>
> It seems that the fwprop1 p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64827
Bug ID: 64827
Summary: LTO doesn't propogate/optimise initialised global
variable value passed by reference
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64826
--- Comment #1 from Ben Longbons ---
Created attachment 34597
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34597&action=edit
test set 2, regressions on namespace merging (I don't understand this)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64826
--- Comment #2 from Ben Longbons ---
Created attachment 34598
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34598&action=edit
test set 3, regressions on namespace splitting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64826
Bug ID: 64826
Summary: Better diagnostics for when ADL/overloading doesn't
apply as desired
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
--- Comment #8 from Jiong Wang ---
looks like this fix is too conservative. it will disable const fold for
bit-field completely. for bitfld-6/little-endian, previously, we can generated
main:
mov w0, 0
ret
while after this p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64822
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #18 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63765
--- Comment #17 from David Edelsohn ---
What other comments are needed to install the alternative patch? It works for
Solaris and AIX, where the problems started.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64505
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64505
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34384|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58597
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jan 27 21:40:45 2015
New Revision: 220192
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220192&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/58597
* lambda.c (maybe_add_lambda_conv_op): Check cfun rat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64368
--- Comment #27 from Andreas Tobler ---
FreeBSD/amd64 is back to normal too, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-01/msg03141.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64825
Bug ID: 64825
Summary: -Wcast-qual does not warn about struct members which
are arrays
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62044
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62044
--- Comment #16 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Tue Jan 27 20:54:49 2015
New Revision: 220191
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220191&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-27 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/62044
* resolve.c (resolve_al
> --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> fixed - probably not worth backporting since noone has noticed it's missing
For what it's worth, at least one of your users (me) has noticed this.
I'll restructure code as necessary to use the constructor instead, i.e.
std::atomic foo(0);
Regards,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64779
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64813
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Forgot to say that the ICEs disappear if GCC is configured with
--enable-checking=release.
Also I see the ICE with r219054 and --param early-inlining-insns=12
[Book15] f90/bug% /opt/gcc/gcc4.10c/bin/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63504
--- Comment #14 from ccoutant at google dot com ---
> But then there is (question mainly on Cary) the .debug_types checksumming:
>
> case dw_val_class_const_double:
> CHECKSUM_ULEB128 (DW_FORM_block);
> CHECKSUM_ULEB128 (sizeof (at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63861
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
Comment 3 fixed two issues with gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/coarray.f95.
Still to do:
* gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/goacc/coarray_2.f90 contains a FIXME for a
"reduction(+:a)" variable.
For an allocatabl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64810
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to ramana.radhakrish...@arm.com from comment #4)
> On 27/01/15 12:27, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64810
> >
> > Jakub Jelinek changed:
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63861
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Jan 27 19:57:55 2015
New Revision: 220189
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220189&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-27 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/63861
gcc/fortran/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64813
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |tree-optimization
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64771
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Jan 27 19:52:45 2015
New Revision: 220188
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220188&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Really add the following files, missed in r220184
2015-01-27 Tobias Bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60871
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5 Regression] internal |[4.9 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64230
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Jan 27 19:49:55 2015
New Revision: 220187
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220187&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-27 Janus Weil
Backport from mainline
PR fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64810
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
I tried to configure the jit with just:
--enable-host-shared --enable-languages=jit,c++ --disable-bootstrap
--enable-checking=release
but I ran into this error compiling libgcc:
/usr/include/gnu/stubs.h:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64139
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Jan 27 19:39:37 2015
New Revision: 220185
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220185&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/60871
PR ipa/64139
* tree.c (lookup_binfo_at_offset):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60871
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Jan 27 19:39:37 2015
New Revision: 220185
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220185&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/60871
PR ipa/64139
* tree.c (lookup_binfo_at_offset):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64824
Bug ID: 64824
Summary: ICE in gimple verification
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63504
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64771
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64771
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Jan 27 19:20:04 2015
New Revision: 220184
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220184&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-27 Tobias Burnus
PR fortran/64771
gcc/fortran/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63889
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63889
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jan 27 19:16:51 2015
New Revision: 220183
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220183&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/63889
* pt.c (finish_template_variable): Move from semantic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64810
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64771
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Jan 27 18:44:35 2015
New Revision: 220182
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220182&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-27 Rainer Orth
PR fortran/64771
* interface.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64230
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Jan 27 18:36:52 2015
New Revision: 220181
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220181&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-27 Janus Weil
PR fortran/64230
* gfortran.dg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64813
--- Comment #5 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> > Revision r219696 is OK, r219776 gives the ICE, likely r219737.
>
> Unlikely, the only f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64816
--- Comment #1 from thakis at chromium dot org ---
(Here's a patch with a libc++-side workaround: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7201
But it'd be good to fix this in the compiler too, of course.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64771
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus ---
*** Bug 64355 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64355
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: alserkli at inbox dot ru
Compilation of (GDB) 7.9.50.20150127-cvs with (GCC) 5.0.0 20150127 fails due to
false warning (gdb is compiled with -Werror). It was not a problem in GCC
4.7.2.
// a.c: simplified from the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64801
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64780
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60871
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka ---
*** Bug 64538 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64538
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59134
Bug 59134 depends on bug 57748, which changed state.
Bug 57748 Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE when expanding assignment to unaligned
zero-sized array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64282
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60871
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64139
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #66 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Tue Jan 27 17:07:24 2015
New Revision: 220179
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220179&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
fix for PR middle-end/57748
Modified:
bra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60871
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
Patch posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg02426.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64814
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64282
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Jan 27 16:59:31 2015
New Revision: 220177
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220177&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/64282
* gimple-fold.c (gimple_get_virt_method_for_vtable):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63863
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64814
--- Comment #6 from Anquietas ---
(In reply to Anquietas from comment #5)
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4296.pdf
The working copy for C++14, page 902 has the same specification as the other
PDF.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64809
Yuri Rumyantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ysrumyan at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64814
--- Comment #5 from Anquietas ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> However, I don't see any requirement in the standard that says we're
> supposed to do so. All that is required is n assignments, there is no
> guarantee that the in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64779
--- Comment #10 from Richard Henderson ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
That will probably break small structure return.
See
case FFI_TYPE_STRUCT:
#ifndef X86
/* ??? This should be a different ABI rather than an ifdef. */
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64814
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The current behaviour is decades old, coming from the copy_n in the SGI STL,
and like the standard https://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/copy_n.html says nothing
about postconditions for the input iterator.
Note ht
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64779
--- Comment #9 from Richard Henderson ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> I guess the question is why the freebsd specific code (freebsd.S etc.) has
> been removed, if it is really not needed anymore, or if it got due to a
> mistake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63889
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64814
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Actually it's nothing to do with operating on a copy of the iterator, it's due
to this in the implementation of copy_n:
if (--__n > 0)
++__first;
So as you observe we don't increment the input
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64814
--- Comment #2 from Anquietas ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> The problem is that increments to the input iterator happen inside
> the copy_n call, to a copy of the iterator not to readIter itself.
The copy_n implementation I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64796
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> That is wrong for x32. X32 is ILP32 and should support bswap64.
And wrong for MIPS N32 and even AARCH64 ILP32. We need to special case those
three targets.
Even wr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64814
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think the behaviour you're seeing is correct (and Clang gives the same
result). The problem is that increments to the input iterator happen inside the
copy_n call, to a copy of the iterator not to readIte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64810
--- Comment #4 from ramana.radhakrishnan at arm dot com ---
On 27/01/15 12:27, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64810
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
> What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64780
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
We seem to have two choices here:
(A) default to --enable-host-shared when jit is an enabled language
(B) have the toplevel configure reject jit as language if --enable-host-shared
is not supplied.
FWIW app
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64421
Andrew Senkevich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64368
--- Comment #26 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #25)
> Great, thanks for confirming it. As you say, let's leave this open for now
> in case HP or Rainer still sees some of these failures.
JFTR, for cris-elf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64810
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Both the compiler and libgccjit were configured with:
> --with-tune=cortex-a8 --with-arch=armv7-a --with-float=hard
> --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 --with-abi=aapcs-linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64822
--- Comment #2 from Jiong Wang ---
And I verified, the problem is here at least since 4.8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64822
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64822
Bug ID: 64822
Summary: tree-ssa-sccvn miscompile union containing bitfield
for big-endian targets
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64368
--- Comment #25 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Great, thanks for confirming it. As you say, let's leave this open for now in
case HP or Rainer still sees some of these failures.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535
--- Comment #26 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535
>
> --- Comment #25 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comme
1 - 100 of 177 matches
Mail list logo
