https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70138
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've already spent some time on this last night. It fails even when foo is not
inlined:
double u[1782225];
__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) static void
foo (int *x)
{
double c = 0.0;
int a, b;
for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70143
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70152
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64977
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Summ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64954
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69988
--- Comment #10 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
I'm trying this now:
--- gcc-5-5.3.1/gcc-5.3.0/libgo/configure.ac2015-09-17 14:46:06.0
+0200
+++ gcc-5-5.3.1/gcc-5.3.0/libgo/configure.ac2016-03-09 05:23:29.407181247
+0100
@@ -5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 62096, which changed state.
Bug 62096 Summary: unexpected warning overflow in implicit constant conversion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62096
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62096
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62096
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed Mar 9 04:20:07 2016
New Revision: 234075
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234075&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/62096 - unexpected warning overflow in implicit constant conversion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69988
--- Comment #9 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #7)
> libgo.so should have been linked with -lc (probably an implicit -lc from
> some spec used when linking shared libraries).
Should be adding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61105
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2014-09-16 00:00:00 |2016-3-8
CC|
/configure --prefix=/home/absozero/trunk/root-gcc
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160308 (experimental) [trunk revision 234065] (GCC)
$ gcc-trunk -O3 abc.c
abc.c: In function 'zfgetline.isra.0':
abc.c:17:1: interna
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60760
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2014-12-14 00:00:00 |2016-3-8
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57335
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70151
Bug ID: 70151
Summary: forming out of bounds constexpr pointer accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70149
--- Comment #1 from Walter Spector ---
Typo: 5.8.4 -> 4.8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70150
Bug ID: 70150
Summary: --enable-default-pie causes hundreds of errors in test
suite
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70138
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70149
Bug ID: 70149
Summary: Character pointer initialization causes ICE. (F2008)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66318
--- Comment #6 from Keith Thompson ---
Thanks to this:
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20160308204011
I've now constructed a case where compiling a malicious source file can cause
xterm to freeze.
The source file uses a UTF-8 charac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70093
--- Comment #12 from sasho648 at gmail dot com ---
I would really love you guys if you actually could implement something like
this:
void fun(int a)
{
struct {int _[a];} fun();
}
In order to allow functions returning self-managed VLAs. W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
The underlying randomness of coalescing is inherently due to the instability of
SSA_NAME_VERSION. If we make SSA_NAME_VERSION stable, then the randomness of
coalescing goes away.
So I essentially toss awa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70010
--- Comment #5 from Cyril Bur ---
Hi Martin,
(After forgetting -O2 and wondering why everything changed: conclusion -O2 is
important for this)
I added -fno-inline (so: -O2 -Wall -Wextra -flto -fno-inline) to my cases and
while optimisations may
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70130
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
I looked at the test case under the debugger today. Both the SLP-vectorized
version of the loop, and the unvectorized version, appear to work correctly.
The code is straightforward and not input-dependent, s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9552
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70148
Bug ID: 70148
Summary: Feature request: allow overriding the SSP canary
location
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70010
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
I think I see the problem. The no-vsx function needs to be inlined into a
function that itself uses VSX, like in this test case. I don't know if this is
supposed to work. I vaguely recall inlining and targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70147
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
-fsanitize=vptr is enough.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70147
Bug ID: 70147
Summary: testcase from hana testsuite gets miscompiled with
-fsanitize=undefined
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70144
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135
--- Comment #11 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Thanks for the quick fix.
I can now build the entire boot.hana testsuite with -fsanitize=undefined.
One testcase gets miscompiled however:
markus@x4 printable % g++ -g -O2 -I/var/tmp/hana/include met
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69520
--- Comment #6 from Harald Anlauf ---
Hi Jerry,
do you think my suggested patch could be applied before the 6 release?
Thanks,
Harald
On 01/28/16 00:31, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69520
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70045
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70146
Bug ID: 70146
Summary: missed-optimization: i386 hidden references should use
PC32 relocations instead of GOTOFF
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68953
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70145
Bug ID: 70145
Summary: g++-5 and g++-6: invalid code generated for
-fno-elide-constructors and constexpr array
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
--- Comment #14 from Alexander Kondratskiy ---
Stackoverflow question/answer:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/35875829/template-parameters-not-deducible-in-partial-specialization-in-gcc6-for-a-case
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc/configure --prefix=/home/absozero/trunk/root-gcc
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160308 (experimental) [trunk revision 234060] (GCC)
$ g++-trunk abc.cc -c
$ g++-trunk abc.cc -c -O1
abc.cc: I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On March 8, 2016 8:39:34 PM GMT+01:00, law at redhat dot com
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058
>
>--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
>So if I take my code to renumbe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
Barry Revzin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
^
FAIL:
gcc (GCC) 6.0.0 20160308 (experimental)
gcc-6.0.0-0.15.fc24
gcc-6.0.0-0.15.fc25
PASS:
gcc-6.0.0-0.14.fc24
gcc-5.3.1-2.fc23.x86_64
Pedro Alves said it is a GCC Bug so I am filing it here.
https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2016-03/msg00120.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70098
--- Comment #7 from Anton Blanchard ---
Sorry, blame my limited understanding of gcc. It fails with both with and
without -mlra.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 8 20:05:21 2016
New Revision: 234064
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234064&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70135
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_loop_expr): Forget s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60799
--- Comment #1 from Casey Carter ---
This bug is present in both 5.3 and 6.0; it should probably be attached to the
friend meta-bug 65608 since it is a "friend" issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So if I take my code to renumber SSA_NAMES so they they're consistent
irrespective how SSA_NAMEs were recycled and apply that on top of r216304 and
r216305 the net result is I get the same code from those tw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
--- Comment #12 from Alexander Kondratskiy ---
Ok, I will ask stackoverflow.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70010
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70098
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
The title mischaracterizes the problem. There is a problem in IRA, which
causes a failure to show up either in LRA or in reload.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
--- Comment #11 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Alexander Kondratskiy from comment #10)
> My issue is that this code was accepted since gcc 4.8 completely fine.
> Unless there is a specific line in the standard that prevents this from
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29854
--- Comment #8 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke ---
revision 149282:
2009-07-06 J"orn Rennecke
Kaz Kojima
PR rtl-optimization/30807
* postreload.c (reload_combine): For every new use of REG_SUM,
record the us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Kondratskiy ---
My issue is that this code was accepted since gcc 4.8 completely fine. Unless
there is a specific line in the standard that prevents this from working, I
don't understand how appealing to potential f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
--- Comment #9 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
There is really no need to take another look.
When your testcase generates a warning under clang and also gets rejected by
MSVC, it is obvious that there is something wrong with it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28144
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29842
Bug 29842 depends on bug 28144, which changed state.
Bug 28144 Summary: floating point constant -> byte/char/short conversion is
wrong for java
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28144
What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27394
Bug 27394 depends on bug 28144, which changed state.
Bug 28144 Summary: floating point constant -> byte/char/short conversion is
wrong for java
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28144
What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70130
--- Comment #2 from Pat Haugen ---
The benchmark behaves the same on BE/LE, passes with -mcpu=power8, fails with
-mcpu=power7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70130
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
It's not clear to me from the report whether you have run this only on
big-endian systems, or whether little-endian has been tried for Power8 (with
-mcpu=power8). Can you please clarify?
I ask because the -m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Kondratskiy ---
I'm sorry Markus, but "clang issues a warning" is not a good enough reason to
mark this invalid. By the same token, the warning in clang could have been
introduced "because gcc issues an error". What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70093
--- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek ---
(The decl_function_context is probably redundant since I don't see how a
non-nested function could return VM type.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Kondratskiy ---
To add some color, maybe this is related to non-deduced contexts from
14.8.2.5p5 in the standard:
The non-deduced contexts are:
— The nested-name-specifier of a type that was specified using a qualif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70093
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Well, seems like the following fixes the ICEs! I'm still not quite sure if
this makes sense at all, but the C FE testsuite still passes. Needs a comment
and a bunch of tests.
--- a/gcc/c/c-typeck.c
+++ b/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70098
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Anton Blanchard from comment #0)
> I hit the following ICE when building eigen:
>
> # g++ -O3 -c test2.cpp
> test2.cpp: In function ‘void fn3(Matrix)’:
> test2.cpp:59:1: error: unable to gene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kondratskiy ---
Looking at the diffs in r229628 linked by Jakub, I find the changes to lines
8791 and 8793 in pt.c to be kinda fishy:
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/gcc/cp/pt.c?r1=229628&r2=229627&pathrev=229
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Kondratskiy ---
Sorry, I take the "fishy" comment back. I'm not familiar enough with the code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
I'm not sure this is a compiler bug at all.
Even clang warns:
foo.ii:10:32: warning: class template partial specialization contains a
template parameter that cannot be deduced; this partial specializa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70142
Bug ID: 70142
Summary: Class members not in scope in exception-specification
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
--- Comment #40 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Matthew Woehlke from comment #39)
> So? People have been asking for it for at least *13+ years* (this report was
> opened in August 2002). Compared to clang which has had this feature for
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141
Bug ID: 70141
Summary: [6.0 regression] template parameter not deducible in
partial specialization of template inside template
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70009
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to cesar from comment #6)
> Created attachment 37898 [details]
> test fix
>
> I've tested this patch on an arm target and it passes now. All this patch
> does is make the type macro signed.
>
> So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70009
--- Comment #6 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37898
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37898&action=edit
test fix
I've tested this patch on an arm target and it passes now. All this patch does
is make the t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
--- Comment #39 from Matthew Woehlke ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #38)
> (In reply to Matthew Woehlke from comment #37)
> > [[fallthrough]] was approved for C++17 [...] It's a shame that gcc is behind
> > the curve here.
>
> It w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I see -fsanitize=bounds replaces
bs[i++]
with
bs[UBSAN_BOUNDS (0B, SAVE_EXPR , 4), SAVE_EXPR ]
I believe the constexpr folding is properly removing the UBSAN_BOUNDS stuff,
but the problem is most likely in th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70123
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
This what you get when you implement functional programming for C++ at compile
time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53637
--- Comment #8 from TC ---
The standard specifies when copy elision is allowed
(http://eel.is/c++draft/class.copy#31). "return param ? a : b;" is not one of
them. "param ? a : b" is hardly "the name of a non-volatile automatic
object..."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70093
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
So that would mean creating a TARGET_EXPR in the C FE I suppose...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53637
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Braun ---
> The three cases (L, P, R) where GCC is "better" is actually non-conforming.
Could you elaborate on that?
For example case L is:
X nrvo_two_different_tern()
{
trace t("nrvo_two_different_tern");
const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70093
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Probably. Because this doesn't (to my surprise) ICE:
void
foo (int n)
{
struct S { int a[n]; };
struct S
fn (void)
{
struct S s;
s.a[0] = 1;
return s;
}
struct S x;
x = fn (); //
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70093
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70085
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
So in finish_static_assert without ubsan we have:
boost::detail::operators::operator==, boost::tuple >, boost::tuple >, boost::tuple::_,
boost::type_impl::_>, boost::range, boost::tuple > >, boost::tuple,
boo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70093
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Ugh, a combination of a nested function and a VLA-in-a-struct.
We're trying to allocate variable-sized temporary. Guess that's a wrong thing
to do, we should generate __builtin_alloca or __builtin_alloca_wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 37896
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37896&action=edit
somewhat reduced testcase
Creduce has a hard time reducing these Boost meta libs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
Bug ID: 70140
Summary: Inefficient expansion of __builtin_mempcpy
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69195
--- Comment #18 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Bernd Schmidt from comment #17)
> Is this reproducible on trunk? What are the exact flags required to pass to
> cc1? I'm not getting a difference in REG_EQUIV notes between -fdce and
> -fno-dce.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70138
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> Would be nice to have this reduced :/. Markus, are you by any chance
> reducing this one or shall I?
I'm on it... Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Would be nice to have this reduced :/. Markus, are you by any chance reducing
this one or shall I?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
-fsanitize=bounds is enough.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26461
--- Comment #11 from Giovanni Deretta ---
In the last few years it has been clear that threads are not enough and
coroutines have seen a resurgence in many languages. Go, which is directly
supported by GCC, make them a first class construct; boos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70094
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70127
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
