https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70956
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Sat May 7 06:47:07 2016
New Revision: 235994
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235994&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Handle NULL def in build_cross_bb_scalars_def
2016-05-07 Tom d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70991
--- Comment #1 from bennet brauer ---
Created attachment 38433
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38433&action=edit
two similar test cases in one cpp file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70991
Bug ID: 70991
Summary: Uninitialized class allowed if it came from
self-assignment, or a member function
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70990
Bug ID: 70990
Summary: [SH] Unreachable basic blocks
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70989
Bug ID: 70989
Summary: [SH] Further improve utilization of zero-displacement
conditional branches
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26904
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70795
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70988
Bug ID: 70988
Summary: missing buffer overflow warning on chained strcat
calls
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70987
Bug ID: 70987
Summary: missing -Wuninitialized calling built-in string
functions with an uninitialized argument
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70957
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
The test also passed on P7 at the time I committed the patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70956
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.0 |6.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70956
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20160506 (experimental) [trunk revision 235952] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 -c small.c
$
$ gcc-trunk -O3 -c small.c
small.c: In function ‘fn2’:
small.c:12:1: internal compiler error: in combine_blocks, at
tree-if-conv.c:2219
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70983
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70983
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70957
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
I applied the same patch to gcc-6-branch, and the test works correctly on a
Power7 machine. Thus we appear to be exposing a recent problem introduced on
trunk. I'll try to bisect this.
--disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20160506 (experimental) [trunk revision 235952] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 -c small.c
$
$ gcc-trunk -O3 -c small.c
small.c: In function ‘fn2’:
small.c:15:1: error: invalid operand in unary operation
fn2 ()
^~~
# VUSE <.MEM_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70984
Bug ID: 70984
Summary: Templated derived class erroneously allows taking
address of private base class member functions
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70943
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70949
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
*** Bug 70950 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70950
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Duplicate of pr70949.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 70949 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70957
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
The other odd thing is that we fail only on the signed and unsigned long long
cases, and all of the other variants work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70957
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Configuration for the two compilers used:
$GCC_SRC/configure --enable-__cxa_atexit
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++,go --with-cpu=power7
--disable-libsanitizer --with-gmp=/home/wschmidt/gcc-libs/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70961
--- Comment #5 from Wilco ---
As for a simple example, Proc_4 in Dhrystone is a good one. With -O2 and
-fno-rename-registers I get the following on Thumb-2:
00c8 :
c8: b430push{r4, r5}
ca: f240 0300 movwr3,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70957
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70979
--- Comment #2 from Felix Morgner ---
That is why I explicitly referred to C++14. I strongly believe, that the right
thing to do would be to disable it (handle it as an error) since it is just
that when compiling in C++14 mode. Maybe the error me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70961
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> In which case it should not rename that chain rather than just ignore the
> preference (and a preference of NO_REGS should probably also block renaming).
That's not what the hook was initially designed for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70941
--- Comment #13 from Bill Seurer ---
That fixed the issues on power, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70979
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70977
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
#0 tree_code_size (code=code@entry=CONSTRUCTOR) at ../../gcc/gcc/tree.c:848
#1 0x00fc562d in make_node_stat (code=code@entry=CONSTRUCTOR) at
../../gcc/gcc/tree.c:1005
#2 0x00fc88e4 in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70977
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70941
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 6 15:23:56 2016
New Revision: 235978
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235978&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/70941
* gcc.dg/torture/pr70941.c (abort): R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52933
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58219
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70941
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
unsigned char perhaps? Let me fix up the testcase.
It has other non-portable assumptions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63596
--- Comment #4 from Jiong Wang ---
A patch set which clean up variable argument support on AArch64 has been sent
for review
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg00508.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70941
Bill Seurer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at linux dot
vnet.ibm.com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70977
--- Comment #4 from Aleksander Gajewski
---
Created attachment 38430
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38430&action=edit
Preprocessed file compiled by gcc-6.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70977
--- Comment #3 from Aleksander Gajewski
---
Created attachment 38429
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38429&action=edit
Preprocessed file
Preprocessed file causing gcc-6.1 crash.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70983
Bug ID: 70983
Summary: False ambiguity on member function rvalue overload
using auto
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70975
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70201
Andrés Agustín Tiraboschi
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #38139|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70982
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70982
Bug ID: 70982
Summary: experimental/filesystem/iterators/directory_iterator.c
c etc. FAIL with --enable-vtable-verify
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70360
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth ---
> I'm seeing the abi_check failure with
--enable-vtable-verify on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu and i386-pc-solaris2.12:
7 incompatible symbols
0
_Z24__VLT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70360
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70981
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70981
Bug ID: 70981
Summary: [7 regression] gcc.target/i386/avx512f-vprord-1.c
FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70980
Bug ID: 70980
Summary: ICE pre_and_rev_post_order_compute, at cfganal.c:1056
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70980
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70970
--- Comment #4 from Rodrigo ---
Well, without auto-vectorization the code should work (x86 allows non-SSE
misaligned reads and writes). But I think understand your rationale.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70948
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri May 6 12:53:26 2016
New Revision: 235963
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235963&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-06 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/70948
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70948
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70937
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
So it looks like we gimplify type sizes multiple times (in what order?!) and
from
..__result = MAX_EXPR <*n, 0>;
typedef character(kind=1) struct
character(kind=1)[1:2][1:..__result][1:2][1:..__resul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70977
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70979
Bug ID: 70979
Summary: [C++14] g++ falsely accepts constexpr function
returning a lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70978
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.4, 6.1.0, 7.0
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70978
Bug ID: 70978
Summary: [5 Regression] internal compiler error: in
assign_by_spills, at lra-assigns.c:1428 on arm
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70976
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70935
--- Comment #5 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Fri May 6 12:07:25 2016
New Revision: 235962
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235962&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2016-05-06 Yuri Rumyantsev
PR debug/70935
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70977
Aleksander Gajewski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aleksandergajewski at gmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70937
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 6 May 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2016, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70937
> >
> > --- Comment #10 from Dominique
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70977
Bug ID: 70977
Summary: Error during compilation of facebook/wangle (flag
c++0x works, flag c++14 fails).
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70976
Bug ID: 70976
Summary: Useless vectorization leads to degradation of
performance
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70975
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70975
Bug ID: 70975
Summary: experimental/filesystem/operations/copy.cc FAILs on
Solaris 12
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70961
--- Comment #3 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #2)
> Pass #2 ignores it since the preference simply couldn't be honored.
In which case it should not rename that chain rather than just ignore the
preference (and a preferen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70964
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Another testcase that started ICEing with r235842.
int a, b;
int
fn1 (int p1)
{
return p1 < 0 ? p1 : a;
}
void
fn2 ()
{
lbl_100:
b = 1;
for (; b != 21; b = fn1 (b))
;
goto lbl_100;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70937
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 6 May 2016, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70937
>
> --- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> With the second patch in comment 9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70937
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
With the second patch in comment 9 applied on top of my working tree (heavily
patched), I get
[Book15] f90/bug% gfc
/opt/gcc/_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/allocatable_function_4.f90
-fdump-tree-or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70342
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70875
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70875
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri May 6 10:54:12 2016
New Revision: 235959
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235959&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/70875
* ubsan.c (get_ubsan_type_info_for_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70342
--- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri May 6 10:50:03 2016
New Revision: 235958
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235958&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/70342
* fold-const.c (tree_single_nonzero
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70974
Bug ID: 70974
Summary: armv8-a+crc does not define __ARM_ACLE
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70948
--- Comment #4 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> The following should fix it, I am going to test it on x86_64:
>
> Index: gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c
> =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58219
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Fri May 6 10:20:13 2016
New Revision: 235954
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235954&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/58219
* config/sh/predicates.md (long_displa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70960
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri May 6 10:18:59 2016
New Revision: 235953
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235953&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-06 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/70960
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70960
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70948
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
The following should fix it, I am going to test it on x86_64:
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c
===
--- gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c (revision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70948
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I don't have an arm execution environment so maybe you can help me
reducing/analyzing this a bit.
The two places the optimization happens on are during PRE in foo1:
Visiting control stmt ending BB 34: if (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70973
--- Comment #1 from dhowells at redhat dot com ---
There may be space that can be used in the memorder parameter:
"The memory order parameter is a signed int, but only the lower 16 bits are
reserved for the memory order. The remainder of the sig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70973
Bug ID: 70973
Summary: x86: Can the __atomic_*() operations be made to list
the LOCK prefixes?
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52933
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Fri May 6 09:52:35 2016
New Revision: 235952
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235952&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/52933
* config/sh/sh.md (*cmp_div0s_7, *cmp_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70875
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri May 6 09:47:25 2016
New Revision: 235951
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235951&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/70875
* ubsan.c (get_ubsan_type_info_for_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089
--- Comment #45 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Fri May 6 09:41:57 2016
New Revision: 235950
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235950&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/54089
* config/sh/sh.md (*rotcr): Add anoth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69443
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||y.gribov at samsung dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70937
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70904
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70969
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70969
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri May 6 09:12:09 2016
New Revision: 235948
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235948&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/70969
* system-darwin-ppc64.ads: Add pragma No_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70969
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri May 6 09:11:38 2016
New Revision: 235946
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235946&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/70969
* system-darwin-ppc64.ads: Add pragma No_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70969
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri May 6 09:11:56 2016
New Revision: 235947
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235947&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/70969
* system-darwin-ppc64.ads: Add pragma No_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70969
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70969
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70964
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
1736 latch_edge = single_succ_edge (get_bb_copy (loop->latch));
the fake edges make loop structure "invalid"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70965
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70964
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64 |aarch64, x86_64-*-*
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70970
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70972
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.2
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
