https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65292
--- Comment #2 from Khem Raj ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Why do you think this is an issue?
there is another file in same library where this file object resides which uses
this function and reports undefined symbol errors w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65278
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
> The offending insn gets created in rs6000_output_mi_thunk, but without the
> patch there are no thunks, so this function doesn't even get called.
>
> Perhaps either Honza or David can comment on what needs t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65274
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maltsevm at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65292
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Why do you think this is an issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65292
Bug ID: 65292
Summary: Template function not emitted
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65291
--- Comment #1 from webmatematika at hotmail dot com ---
Here is compile error output:
(I added in c.cpp line 4 "public:" in class C)
voja@vojaws:~/coding$ gcc c.cpp -std=c++11
c.cpp: In constructor ‘C::C()’:
c.cpp:5:11: error: no matching
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65291
Bug ID: 65291
Summary: protected using constructor default arguments not
recognized
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #24 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #16)
> Why is the loop bound to i != 16 / sizeof *s?
The upper bound is intended to make the copied sequence fit into one vector
register, irrespective of the size of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65201
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maltsevm at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65290
Bug ID: 65290
Summary: [C++11] operator new(std::size_t, const
std::nothrow_t&) should call operator new(std::size_t)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65242
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Unable to reproduce with either test case and either stage1 or a fully
bootstrapped 5.0.0 20150302 on ppc64le.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65263
--- Comment #11 from Alan Modra ---
Martin, your patch passes bootstrap and regression testing on powerpc64-linux.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65287
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65278
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65138
--- Comment #10 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue Mar 3 00:59:56 2015
New Revision: 221132
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221132&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-02 Michael Meissner
PR 65138/target
* config/rs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65289
--- Comment #1 from Matt Hargett ---
Also reproducible with -O2 -fgraphite-identity .
I use both of these optimizations regularly to help get the most out of
prefetch on the embedded ARM targets I work on.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65287
--- Comment #1 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
Created attachment 34928
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34928&action=edit
c-reduce'd test case
A much shorter test:
const int __new_sys_siglist[] = {};
extern __typeof(__new_sys_sig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65289
Bug ID: 65289
Summary: [5.0 regression] ICE when compiling libjpegturbo with
-floop-nest-optimize
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58158
--- Comment #19 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Tue Mar 3 00:07:19 2015
New Revision: 221128
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221128&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-02 Steve Ellcey
PR target/58158
* config/mips/mips.md (m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65285
--- Comment #6 from Kostya Serebryany ---
> How does your GCC behave with the test case? The sanitizer code in GCC is
> imported from Clang, I believe, so it probably does not crash either?
I get this:
~/gcc-inst/bin/gcc -fsanitize=address -sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65285
--- Comment #5 from Peter Wu ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #4)
> I think I know what your problem is.
> In C, the globals by default have common linkage and asan does not
> instrument them at all and thus can not properly repo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65288
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65288
Bug ID: 65288
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE (in address_matters_p, at
symtab.c:1908) on powerpc64le-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65242
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Although the error is different, similarly to pr65278, unable to reproduce with
a stage1 compiler. Will try after bootstrapping.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63731
--- Comment #30 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
The problem mentioned in comment #20 has nothing to do with gccgo. To get
around that problem, use the -installsuffix option. See
http://golang.org/issue/9344 . Note that the docker issue mentioned in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65263
--- Comment #10 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #9)
> Paul, I fixed similar bug yesterday, so please check if it works now
I just built at current SVN trunk (r221126).
Filed PR 65287
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65287
Bug ID: 65287
Summary: Current trunk ICE in address_matters_p, at
symtab.c:1908
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65285
--- Comment #4 from Kostya Serebryany ---
(In reply to Peter Wu from comment #3)
> GCC 4.9.2 cannot include the headers, it blows up on lines such as:
> In file included from
> /usr/lib/clang/3.5.1/include/sanitizer/common_interface_defs.h:16:0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65277
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
get_untransformed_body should turn itself into noop in !in_lto_p compilation as
all function bodies have DECL_RESULT. (it probably deserves comment, but that
way we check if the body was read)
Formatting is of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58158
--- Comment #18 from Aaro Koskinen ---
(In reply to Steve Ellcey from comment #17)
> Updated patch posted to gcc-patches.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-03/msg00106.html
Thanks - always good to get rid of out-of-tree patches. By re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65285
--- Comment #3 from Peter Wu ---
GCC 4.9.2 cannot include the headers, it blows up on lines such as:
In file included from
/usr/lib/clang/3.5.1/include/sanitizer/common_interface_defs.h:16:0,
from
/usr/lib/clang/3.5.1/include/san
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65263
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
Paul, I fixed similar bug yesterday, so please check if it works now for you
and if not, please make new PR with a preprocessed source.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65286
Bug ID: 65286
Summary: When building on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu,
--disable-multilib must be used
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65138
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65138
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34923|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58158
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #17 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65138
--- Comment #8 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 34925
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34925&action=edit
Revised patch #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65285
--- Comment #1 from Kostya Serebryany ---
What happens if you properly include sanitizer/asan_interface.h?
This is what I see with fresh clang:
% cat d.cc
#include
int foo[10];
int main(void) {
__asan_describe_address(&foo);
}
% clang -fsan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65285
--- Comment #2 from Kostya Serebryany ---
and for gcc:
% ~/gcc-inst/bin/g++ -fsanitize=address -static-libasan d.cc && ./a.out
0x0134f900 is located 0 bytes inside of global variable 'foo' defined in
'd.cc:2:5' (0x134f900) of size 40
%
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65263
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppluzhnikov at google dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65285
Bug ID: 65285
Summary: __asan_describe_address crashes when used with global
variable
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65284
Bug ID: 65284
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE (segfault) on arm-linux-gnueabihf
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63731
--- Comment #29 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
Yohei noted in comment 20 that this is also broken with gc in 1.4 when using
static linking. That was a while ago -- is that no longer a problem?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65130
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65233
--- Comment #19 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Right. That's the last step for updating the CFG for a series of jump threads.
It's certainly the case that the redirections can leave unreachable blocks.
But the first thing that the cfg cleanup routine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65283
Bug ID: 65283
Summary: [SH] lds fpscr not put in delay slot
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Damn, while I was away, the one thing that came to mind was to ask you for the
preprocessed source so that the issue could be analyzed with a cross compiler.
If indeed this is fixed by 65150, then I'll coun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65278
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65278
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-03-02 3:56 PM, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
> Certainly possible. We ought to be able to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53118
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #5)
> -feliminate-dwarf2-dups has been disabled for C++ (see PR46102). However,
> as noted by Ian in the thread in #c1, there are better ways of removing
> duplicates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Certainly possible. We ought to be able to see the problem at the assembly
level with a cross compiler, which will help greatly with debugging :-)
I wonder if the ICF framework unified the gate function w
: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20150302 (experimental) [trunk revision 221099] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O1 small.c; a.out
$ gcc-4.9.2 -Os small.c; a.out
$
$ gcc-trunk -Os small.c
$ ./a.out
Aborted (core dumped)
$
---
int a[2];
static int *b = &a[0], *c = &a[1];
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65241
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65130
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Mar 2 20:31:21 2015
New Revision: 221124
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221124&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/65130
* ipa-inline.c (check_callers): Looks for recursion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-03-02 3:21 PM, John David Anglin wrote:
> r220868 was ok and r220883 bad.
My guess is that the problem was introduced in r220875.
Dave
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-03-02 2:36 PM, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
>
> Jeffrey A. Law changed:
>
> What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64988
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64988
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Mar 2 20:10:56 2015
New Revision: 221123
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221123&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/64988
* ipa-inline-transform.c (clone_inlined_nodes): Do n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65256
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
--- Comment #14 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
And even simpler testcase:
void *init(void);
struct window
{
int line_height;
int pixel_width;
int pixel_height;
int column_width;
int text_cols;
int internal_border_width;
int left_fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65276
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65276
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Mon Mar 2 18:43:56 2015
New Revision: 221121
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221121&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/65276
* ipa-devirt.c (add_type_duplicate): Remove odr_viol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65278
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez ---
On 03/02/2015 08:30 AM, doko at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65278
>
> --- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose ---
> yes, 32bit powerpc,
>
> /usr/lib/gcc/powerpc-linux-gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65270
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Thanks for looking into this! I think this was just the most obvoious of TYPE
flags. Some more we need to look into:
Is the alias class compare enough to handle TYPE_RESTRICT?
We probably want to match TYPE_A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On March 2, 2015 7:13:25 PM CET, "msebor at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
>
>--- Comment #22 from Martin Sebor ---
>(In reply to rguent...@suse.de f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65281
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #22 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #21)
> >g:
> >.quad.L.g,.TOC.@tocbase
> >.previous
> >.typeg, @function
> >.L.g:
> >addis 9,2,.LC1@toc@ha
> >addis 10,2,.LC0@toc@ha
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64885
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65281
Bug ID: 65281
Summary: Lots of macros using non-reserved names in gthr
headers
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64885
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Mar 2 18:02:18 2015
New Revision: 221120
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221120&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgcc/64885
* gthr-single.h: Use __unused__ attribute instead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60871
Susi Lehtola changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jussilehtola@fedoraproject.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65279
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9/5 Regr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65276
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Correct, TYPE_BINFO(type2) is NULL.
>
> Started with:
>
> commit 87a9c1b6624ae11321799e7c9aba4a7b47567d5d
> Author: hubicka
> Date: Mon Feb 9 20:34:18 2015 +
>
> * ipa-devirt.c (odr_types_eq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65279
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Mar 2 17:50:55 2015
New Revision: 221119
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221119&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65279
* include/std/scoped_allocator (__inner_type_i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65237
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63572
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
Reported by HJ:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65237
As of r221117, I still see
FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/sra-1.c -O2 -flto -fno-use-linker-plugin
-flto-partition=none line 32 a[0] == 4
FAIL: gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On March 2, 2015 5:58:28 PM CET, "msebor at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
>
>--- Comment #20 from Martin Sebor ---
>(In reply to rguent...@suse.de f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65276
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #3)
> I guess it is the case where one type come from -O0 unit and have no
> TYPE_BINFO, because it is not optimized. I think just removing the check may
> work these da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65138
--- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn ---
Allowing users to specify -mcpu=powerpc64le is all well and good, but if
TARGET_DEFAULT is set, it should not be gratuitously overridden in
rs6000_option_override. The logic is not correct and defaults shou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65276
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
I guess it is the case where one type come from -O0 unit and have no
TYPE_BINFO, because it is not optimized. I think just removing the check may
work these days - I changed the way leading candidate is chosen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65237
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu ---
(In repl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65237
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #20 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #19)
Please remove the extern from the first test and try again (it's a vestige of
the second test). Here's the assembly emitted by 4.8.3 for the first test
(with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 2 Mar 2015, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
>
> --- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2015, msebor at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64367
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64367
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Mar 2 16:50:24 2015
New Revision: 221118
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221118&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/64367
* include/std/stdexcept (__sso_string): Don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 2 Mar 2015, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
>
> --- Comment #17 from Martin Sebor ---
> Following up on my comment #14, and as requ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65278
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
Created attachment 34924
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34924&action=edit
preprocessed source
this is the unreduced source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65261
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
Markus, yes, if adding that attribute clears up the messages for you, then I
would agree with that solution. The code is working as designed, as use of
unaligned vector loads and stores on POWER8 is preferabl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65278
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose ---
yes, 32bit powerpc,
/usr/lib/gcc/powerpc-linux-gnu/5/cc1plus -fpreprocessed DistanceEstimation.ii
-msecure-plt -quiet -dumpbase DistanceEstimation.ii -auxbase DistanceEstimation
-g -O2 -version -fPIC -fstac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63175
--- Comment #17 from Martin Sebor ---
Following up on my comment #14, and as requested on gcc-patches, the test case
below is vectorized with GCC 4.8.2 for T being either 32 bits wide (e.g., int)
or 64-bits wide (e.g., long or long long) but not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65276
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65280
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65278
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65280
Bug ID: 65280
Summary: -fsanitize=bounds does not detect out-of-bounds access
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65138
--- Comment #6 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 34923
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34923&action=edit
Proposed patch to fix the problem
I'm going to run full tests on this patch, but this patch appears to fix t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65087
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
So the problem is caused by ICF which makes a symbol to have no direct calls
(and no references). As a result IPA CP triggers verification failure. I hope
the right solution is to append TODO_remove_function f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65277
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> 221040(In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #1)
> > It is caused by r214422
>
> No, I think this started with r221040.
Yes, it got shown with r221040. Nevertheless c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65279
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 166 matches
Mail list logo
