https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68917
--- Comment #5 from Chen Gang ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #1)
> does something like this help?
>
OK, it has effect, :-)
And pass gcc testsuite. The related result is below:
[root@localhost contrib]# ./compare_tests ../../buil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69050
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
The algorithms aren't unrelated. unit_addrs_compare sorts by low then high
then lineoff. unit_addrs_search returns any entry that includes the PC for
which we are searching, where it includes the PC if i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69056
Bug ID: 69056
Summary: GCC failed with variadic template and pointer to
member function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69055
Bug ID: 69055
Summary: Internal compiler error -fsanitize=float-cast-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58855
ncm at cantrip dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ncm at cantrip dot org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66489
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66580
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58040
--- Comment #5 from Matt Whitlock ---
FYI, this is still a problem in G++ 5.3.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69039
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #6)
> Created attachment 37132 [details]
> tentative patch
The tentative patch fixes the reduced test-case, but we run into another ICE
with the full test-case:
...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69051
--- Comment #4 from ⎓ ---
Whoops! I didn't expect that because I was relying on the -m68000 flag.
Then I'll have to try with that compiler.
Maybe there should be a warning for using an unsupported CPU architecture?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69054
Bug ID: 69054
Summary: g++ fails to diagnose ambiguous overload resolution
when implicit conversions are involved
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69051
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson ---
Sounds like you're using the wrong target. m68k-linux implies a 68020, 030,
040, or 060 CPU, and they don't have alignment constraints. Perhaps you should
be using an m68k-elf toolchain?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69038
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Petazzoni ---
Sure, here it is:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/home/test/buildroot/output/host/usr/bin/sparc64-buildroot-linux-gnu-g++.br_real
Target: sparc64-buildroot-linux-gnu
Configured with: ./configure --pref
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69051
--- Comment #2 from ⎓ ---
After the move.l line, address error exception is executed.
And that is expected as that line tries to access 32 bit word from an odd
address.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60465
--- Comment #31 from Andreas Schwab ---
@ltoffx on symbol+addend doesn't make any sense. This computes an offset into
the GOT, so any addend needs to be added _after_ loading the actual symbol
address from the GOT.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69053
Bug ID: 69053
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE in build_vector_from_val
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60465
--- Comment #30 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Aha, got it.
I've factored out GNU_HASH section setup crash into separate
very simple function:
void __attribute__ ((unused, noinline))
do_it_again (struct link_map *l, ElfW(Dyn) *dyn)
{
Elf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69043
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
--- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 37133
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37133&action=edit
test-case to reproduce
It should be compile with -O2 -m32 options to reproduce.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
Bug ID: 69052
Summary: [6 Regression] Performance regression after r229402.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69038
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69027
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69051
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
In which way does it fail?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69051
Bug ID: 69051
Summary: Misaligned read from the stack when using odd sized
character array
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68948
--- Comment #8 from Timo Reimann ---
Author of the original failing code here. I'm not too deep into the standard to
be able to make a judgement on whether this should be legal code or not. (FWIW
though, it compiles fine in Clang.) If the extra n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61617
--- Comment #4 from piotr5 at netscape dot net ---
thanks anyway. so what is the standards comitee's "direction" for making
arbitrary-width-tree iterators more comprehensible, if not an iteration over
multiple children for each level's node? does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69012
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69039
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37132
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37132&action=edit
tentative patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69039
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
We have reduction stmt _6 with loop phi prephitmp_11:
...
fn1 (unsigned int d)
{
_Bool b_lsm.5;
unsigned int b_lsm.4;
int i;
unsigned int pretmp_1;
unsigned int ivtmp_4;
unsigned int _6;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67425
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||y.gribov at samsung dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60465
--- Comment #29 from Andreas Schwab ---
'_rtld_local#+15032385536' is just a hint that is passed through to the linker
in the addend of the R_IA64_LDXMOV relocation for the insn. That tells the
linker the addend of the R_IA64_LTOFF22X relocation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69039
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
33 matches
Mail list logo
