https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 07:31:21AM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
>
> --- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Steve Kargl f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #8)
> Note, I configured gcc with
>
> ../gcc7/configure \
> --prefix=$HOME/work/7 --with-isl=/usr/local \
> --enable-languages=c,fortran,c++ --enable-libsani
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77373
--- Comment #4 from David Edelsohn ---
unit size
align 256 symtab 0 alias set -1 canonical type 700fc0c0
fields
used nonlocal decl_3 BLK file
/gsa/yktgsa/home/e/d/edelsohn/src/src/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78659
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78441
Eric Fiselier changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71537
Eric Fiselier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78551
--- Comment #9 from Vlad Petric ---
Created attachment 40235
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40235&action=edit
Compliant code that segfaults the compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78659
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78659
Bug ID: 78659
Summary: Spurious "requires DTIO" reported against namelist
statement
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78519
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78608
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |patch
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78551
--- Comment #8 from Vlad Petric ---
(In reply to Vlad Petric from comment #7)
> Ok, so the example that I started this bug with is not standard compliant
> because it initialized different elements in a union with the constexpr
> constructor.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78638
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78631
--- Comment #7 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
> -z bndplt is needed to call external functions with bounds. But
> it isn't needed for internal function calls.
That doesn't explain why we need a hack you propose. Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78638
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I have a patch for the rlwimi ones. The new ones are an actual regression
as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 10:49:12PM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
>
> --- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl from com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #6)
> I updated my source tree to r243203, which includes your change.
> My source tree cuurently has no other changes. I still see an ICE.
Sorry, I can not reprodu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78616
--- Comment #10 from David Malcolm ---
Build breakage should have been fixed as of r243207 (sorry again).
Should we poision strndup in system.h?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78616
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Dec 2 22:39:43 2016
New Revision: 243207
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243207&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
selftest.c: remove calls to strndup (PR bootstrap/78616)
gcc/ChangeLog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77761
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Thanks for reporting this, Zdenek.
After some time staring at the generated code I believe the problem is in
hard register splitting optimization. LRA uses wrongly smaller mode for
splitting than nec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78639
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Fri Dec 2 22:12:08 2016
New Revision: 243206
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243206&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-02 Michael Meissner
PR target/78639
* co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #31 from Marcel Böhme ---
Hi Mark,
Your patch looks good to me. One more thing: It seems that our patches evaluate
these two mangled strings differently. Is it because of Nathan's patch? Can
these strings be demangled properly at all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78649
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] ICE on |[5/6 Regression] ICE on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
--- Comment #9 from Larry Baker ---
To answer Waldemar's question, that is exactly how I worked around the problem
for gcc 4.7 and 4.8 in 2012 (see Bug 53833). That enabled me to have a
functioning gcc for ColdFire. I used it to fix broken stac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70322
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78649
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 2 21:23:22 2016
New Revision: 243204
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243204&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78649
* pt.c (tsubst_init): Don't call build_value_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Unsure. I thought libstdc++ used some of the libatomic facilities under the
hood so we'd just replace one build failure with another.
It might also mess up the older 68k systems (assuming I'm wrong about t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
--- Comment #7 from Waldemar Brodkorb ---
Can't we disable compilation of linux-atomic.c for gcc7 then?
So that at least it is possible to build a toolchain for coldfire?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77517
--- Comment #6 from Harald Anlauf ---
Extending the check in comment #5 to
if (from->ts.type == BT_CLASS && to->ts.type != BT_CLASS ||
to->ts.type == BT_CLASS && from->ts.type != BT_CLASS)
{
gfc_error ("The FROM and TO argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77517
--- Comment #5 from Harald Anlauf ---
Besides the lack of diagnosing the conflicting definitions,
I think there is a missing check in gfc_check_move_alloc().
The test case
program p
class(*), allocatable :: a, b
call move_alloc (a, b)
con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78658
Bug ID: 78658
Summary: powerpc64le: ICE with -mcpu=power9 -Og
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78642
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Is your compiler configured with --enable-checking=rtl ?
Yes, but I don't think Rainer's is.
> Perhaps it can be only reproduced natively, or relies on particular
> auto-host.h content (I don't have cross
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78646
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78657
Bug ID: 78657
Summary: Using macro with _Pragma gives error: '#pragma' is not
allowed here
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69311
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69311
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Created attachment 40234
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40234&action=edit
auto-reduced testcase
Fails with -O3 -march=z196. Endless loop in VRP with GCC 5. Works fine with GCC
6 branc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70322
--- Comment #8 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Dec 2 18:48:35 2016
New Revision: 243202
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243202&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70322
* config/i386/i386.md (*andndi3_do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78618
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Dec 2 18:38:24 2016
New Revision: 243201
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243201&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-12-02 Janus Weil
Steven G. Kargl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78631
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #5)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> > The problem is that the internal MPX wrapper calls in libmpxwrappers.so:
> Why doesn't call go through bndplt? Users might use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78631
--- Comment #5 from Ilya Enkovich ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> The problem is that the internal MPX wrapper calls in libmpxwrappers.so:
Why doesn't call go through bndplt? Users might use similar code in their
libraries and expect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #30 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #29)
> On 12/02/2016 12:58 PM, trippels at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > Please also note that Nathan's lambda demangling patch needs adjustments,
> > because w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #29 from Nathan Sidwell ---
On 12/02/2016 12:58 PM, trippels at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Please also note that Nathan's lambda demangling patch needs adjustments,
> because with level 1 of recursion it prints everything twice.
sorry
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #28 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #26)
> Created attachment 40233 [details]
> d_print_comp with 1 level of recursion protection
>
> This is the variant that allows 1 level of recursion (with an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78642
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78645
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #27 from Nathan Sidwell ---
I think the symbols containing 'Ul' should demangle -- they're lambdas and I'd
expect my patch to fix those. Some of the others certainly look suspicious.
Did they come out of the compiler, or are they th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78646
--- Comment #5 from Stefan M Freudenberger ---
This is the revised patch:
- add_expr = fold_build2 (POINTER_PLUS_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (c->base_expr),
+ add_expr = fold_build2 (POINTER_PLUS_EXPR, c->cand_type,
c->base_expr,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #40230|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
This is a bad interaction between PREFERRED_STACK_BOUNDARY and PUSH_ROUNDING,
but there's a deeper code generation issue that needs to be looked at as well.
So background. A push insn on the m68k is actu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70530
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
DR 2468 now says we should do something like this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #25 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #24)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #22)
> > Created attachment 40230 [details]
> > d_printing mark/walk/unmark protection
> >
> > (In reply to Natha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77267
Alexander Ivchenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug 65530 depends on bug 77267, which changed state.
Bug 77267 Summary: MPX does not work in a presence of "-Wl,-as-needed" option
(Ubuntu default)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77267
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78631
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 40232
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40232&action=edit
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78644
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Verified reverting the tree-ssa-ccp.c hunk of r242920 makes the ICE go away
(then instead of _18 = _7 + _17; there is _18 = x2_3 + _17;
(no idea why _7 hasn't actually been replaced with 0 but just with x2_3,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78631
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #24 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #22)
> Created attachment 40230 [details]
> d_printing mark/walk/unmark protection
>
> (In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #21)
> > Why doesn't a mark/walk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78652
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.2.1
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78255
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
IIRC the (proprietary) linker didn't generate argument shuffling stubs for
indirect calls. So we ran into problems if any pass changed a direct into an
indirect call. The only pass that did this back in t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78644
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, before ccp4 we have:
_7 = x3_1 + x2_3;
_8 = {_7, _7, _7, _7};
x4.1_9 = x4;
_15 = {_7, _7, _7, _7};
_16 = BIT_FIELD_REF <_15, 128, 0>;
_17 = BIT_FIELD_REF ;
_18 = _16 + _17;
_19 = {_7, _7,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78638
--- Comment #3 from Bill Seurer ---
Also on power6...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78638
--- Comment #2 from Bill Seurer ---
I see it on both BE and LE, power7 and power8.
Also a whole bunch more of your new tests started complaining:
New failures:
FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc-negeq0-1.c scan-assembler-not cntlz
FAIL: gcc.target/po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78644
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78646
--- Comment #4 from Stefan M Freudenberger ---
I guess there wouldn't be an issue if it were a reference type. However, there
is an issue with the incorrect alignment for the object type.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70799
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #5)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #0)
> > These should all be converted to DImode vector shifts for SSE2/AVX2 32bit
> > target (and similar for rotates):
>
> The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70322
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 2 16:28:41 2016
New Revision: 243195
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243195&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70322
* config/i386/i386.c (dimode_scalar_to_vec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72785
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78653
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78599
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #7)
> I cannot reproduce this using the testcase from comment #1 even whe I add
> -fsanitize=undefined to the command line. Is this on x86_64?
You need to use a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78255
--- Comment #10 from wilco at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #8)
> Hmm, why is this even being considered on ARM?
>
> arm.h:#define NO_FUNCTION_CSE 1
>
> doc/tm.texi
> @defmac NO_FUNCTION_CSE
> Define this macro t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78656
Bug ID: 78656
Summary: Fix-it suggestion for std::alocator doesn't include
std::allocator
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78599
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #23 from Mark Wielaard ---
Created attachment 40231
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40231&action=edit
Check output with d_printing.patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #22 from Mark Wielaard ---
Created attachment 40230
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40230&action=edit
d_printing mark/walk/unmark protection
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #21)
> Why doesn't a mark/walk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78505
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #2 from ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78614
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 2 15:42:04 2016
New Revision: 243194
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243194&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/78614
* rtl.c (copy_rtx): Don't clear used flag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78058
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78058
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78595
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oops, the second condition *should* fail in that last example, but here it
shouldn't:
#include
#include
#include
struct Key { int key; };
struct X {
operator std::pair() const { return { { x }, 0 };
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78655
Bug ID: 78655
Summary: gcc doesn't exploit the fact that the result of
pointer addition can not be nullptr
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78595
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Pure evil:
#include
#include
struct Key { int key; };
struct X {
operator std::pair() const { return { { x }, 0 }; }
int x;
};
template
struct Alloc
{
Alloc() = default;
template
Alloc(co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78654
--- Comment #2 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 40229
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40229&action=edit
preprocessed source from linux/drivers/media/dvb-frontends/mb86a16.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78654
--- Comment #1 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 40228
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40228&action=edit
preprocessed source from linux/crypto/serpent_generic.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78654
Bug ID: 78654
Summary: ubsan can lead to excessive stack usage
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
URL: https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2350
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78653
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78653
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78653
--- Comment #1 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 40227
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40227&action=edit
preprocessed source from linux/drivers/media/dvb-frontends/zl10353.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78653
Bug ID: 78653
Summary: badly optimized kernel code with
-fsanitize=object-size -fsanitize=null
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
URL: https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78595
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> This prints "conv" twice, because we create a temporary to get the key here:
>
> pair<_Base_ptr, _Base_ptr> __res
> = _M_get_insert_unique_pos(_K
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78595
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|7.0 |unknown
--- Comment #5 from Ville Vo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67054
--- Comment #2 from Martin Hierholzer ---
I stumbled across this bug, too (and asked about it on stackoverflow, since I
wasn't sure if it's valid C++11, see
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/40932844/constructor-inheritance-and-direct-member-ini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78561
--- Comment #3 from James Greenhalgh ---
Author: jgreenhalgh
Date: Fri Dec 2 14:31:10 2016
New Revision: 243183
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243183&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[Patch 2/2 PR78561] Recalculate constant pool size before emittin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78561
--- Comment #2 from James Greenhalgh ---
Author: jgreenhalgh
Date: Fri Dec 2 14:29:35 2016
New Revision: 243182
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243182&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[Patch 1/2 PR78561] Rename get_pool_size to get_pool_size_upper_b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78646
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
A reference type is treated as a pointer type all the way through the middle
end of gcc. Why is there an issue with that for your target?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78648
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78648
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78635
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78649
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
1 - 100 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
