https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78995
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78812
--- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Jan 5 07:38:48 2017
New Revision: 244093
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244093&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimizatin/78812
* rtl.h (contains_mem_rtx_p): Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79000
Bug ID: 79000
Summary: ICE: in gen_member_die, at dwarf2out.c:23995
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: lto
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78999
Bug ID: 78999
Summary: problem with gcc on cygwin??? cygwin 2.6.1 with gcc
5.4.0
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78914
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #46
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78998
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78998
Bug ID: 78998
Summary: missing -Wnonnull for an unconditional call to strlen
with a null argument
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78996
Tim Shen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78996
--- Comment #2 from Tim Shen ---
Author: timshen
Date: Thu Jan 5 03:18:17 2017
New Revision: 244092
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244092&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-01-05 Tim Shen
PR libstdc++/78996
* include/std/vari
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78987
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64767
--- Comment #11 from Eric Gallager ---
Thank you for adding this!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78948
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78988
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78997
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20170104 (experimental) [trunk revision 244072] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 small.c
$ gcc-6.2 -O3 small.c
$
$ gcc-trunk -O3 small.c
small.c: In function ‘foo’:
small.c:7:6: error: the first argument of a VEC_COND_EXPR must be of a boolean
vector type of the same number of elements
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78996
--- Comment #1 from W E Brown ---
Created attachment 40465
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40465&action=edit
Preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78996
Bug ID: 78996
Summary: uses macro as name
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78995
Bug ID: 78995
Summary: A strange copy error caused by O3 optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78823
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Thu Jan 5 00:43:53 2017
New Revision: 244084
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244084&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-01-04 Michael Meissner
PR target/71977
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70568
--- Comment #8 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Thu Jan 5 00:43:53 2017
New Revision: 244084
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244084&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-01-04 Michael Meissner
PR target/71977
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71977
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Thu Jan 5 00:43:53 2017
New Revision: 244084
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244084&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-01-04 Michael Meissner
PR target/71977
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32415
bruno at clisp dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bruno at clisp dot org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78993
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
# i_5 = PHI
# j_27 = PHI
# prephitmp_7 = PHI <0(3), prephitmp_17(4)>
_14 = i_5 > 9;
_18 = prephitmp_7 | _14;
if (_18 != 0)
goto ; [44.99%]
else
goto ; [55.01%]
Most likely conditiona
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78993
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.1.0, 5.3.0, 6.2.0, 7.0
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78993
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78812
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So I see a case in postreload-gcse.c where we might mis-handle when the
destination is a ZERO_EXTRACT or STRICT_LOW_PART. Neither happen often which
is probably why we've never noticed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78994
--- Comment #3 from PeteVine ---
Hey, that works for me too! (62565 vs 70758 in favour of -Ofast). Usefully
strange :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78812
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I'm mostly concerned about other places where we assume that a memory reference
is supposed to show up at the toplevel of a source/dest.
For example, it looks like we don't properly handle the case where w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78812
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #10)
> Since that's not a MEM_P, the expression isn't removed from antic/transp
> which makes it subject to hoisting across the abnormal edge.
>
> This could be easi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||77513
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Isn't there a dup somewhere? I Know this was filed before.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78812
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at redhat dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60685
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78994
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-Ofast makes aarch64 C++|-Ofast makes aarch64 C++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78994
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://github.com/supercur |
|io/dsp-bench-cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78994
Bug ID: 78994
Summary: -Ofast makes aarch64 C++ benchmark slower
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78991
Tobias changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78991
--- Comment #2 from Tobias ---
Thanks. The evidence you collected shows quite clear, that it probably is a
problem with clang.
So I now posted it here: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31537
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64767
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64767
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jan 4 21:47:04 2017
New Revision: 244076
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244076&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64767
* c.opt (Wpointer-compare): New option.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78910
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78991
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
How positive you are that this is a libstdc++ bug rather than a clang bug? It
works correctly with GCC 5.4.0's front-end and GCC 7.0's libstdc++ and
front-end.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78993
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 40462
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40462&action=edit
Gimple dump from when warning is emitted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78949
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78693
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 Regression] Bogus |[6 Regression] Bogus
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78993
Bug ID: 78993
Summary: False positive from -Wmaybe-uninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78949
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 4 21:34:27 2017
New Revision: 244075
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244075&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78949
* typeck.c (cp_build_unary_op): Call mark_rva
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78693
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 4 21:30:35 2017
New Revision: 244074
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244074&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78693
* parser.c (cp_parser_simple_declaration): On
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78992
Bug ID: 78992
Summary: Incorrect sigaction definition on 32-bit sparc
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sani
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78116
--- Comment #10 from Pat Haugen ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Any progress on this?
Besides waiting for pr77536 to be fixed, I'm not sure what specifically can be
done on this issue to fix the problem. I personally have not d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78991
Bug ID: 78991
Summary: std::sort and std::unique can not use std::function
with clang++ -std=c++14
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78957
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78957
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 4 20:25:13 2017
New Revision: 244072
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244072&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR driver/78957
* c.opt (fsso-struct=): Add RejectNegative
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71182
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 Regression] parser.c |[6 Regression] parser.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71182
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 4 20:05:14 2017
New Revision: 244070
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244070&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71182
* parser.c (cp_lexer_previous_token): Use vec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78953
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78900
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner ---
Fixed in trunk in subversion id 244044. I will hold the bug open until it is
checked into the GCC 6 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78056
--- Comment #20 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Wed Jan 4 20:03:00 2017
New Revision: 244068
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244068&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2017-01-04 Kelvin Nilsen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
...or to use a rich location to send two locations for the warning, giving:
return (asan_poison_variables &&
^~
# 6 "gimplify.cpp" 3 4
__null
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Looking at the PRs you filed about the locations (PR78987 and PR78988), perhaps
the best approach here is for the location of the warning to be either this:
return (asan_poison_variables &&
~~~
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67955
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Jan 4 19:22:44 2017
New Revision: 244067
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244067&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimizatin/67955
* tree-ssa-alias.c (same_addr_si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44677
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6)
> I haven't thought through the implementation challenges but defining the
> extended -Wunused-but-set-variabl rule that's being suggested here seems
> straightforwa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78984
--- Comment #8 from Andreas Schwab ---
The binutils testsuite depends on it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44677
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78990
Bug ID: 78990
Summary: ICE when assigning polymorphic array function result
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78984
--- Comment #7 from bruno at clisp dot org ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #6)
> Note that if you use --with-ld, -B no longer works.
Thanks Andreas.
In fact, I've never used the -B option (except during gcc bootstrap).
Some 20 years a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77284
Marek Polacek 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=77545
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77545
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jan 4 17:47:04 2017
New Revision: 244062
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244062&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/77545
PR c++/77284
* constexpr.c (potent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77284
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jan 4 17:47:04 2017
New Revision: 244062
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244062&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/77545
PR c++/77284
* constexpr.c (potent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77545
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989
Bug ID: 78989
Summary: Missing -Waddress warning
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78977
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks. The preprocessed file is what we need. I see two snprintf calls being
optimized in the SEQAN_TEST_test_random_beta_write function:
On line 52569 substituting 3 for snprintf return value (output c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78899
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #40403|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78984
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Schwab ---
Note that if you use --with-ld, -B no longer works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57583
--- Comment #10 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #9)
> Sounds good. I can give it a try in the following days or weeks and see if I
> can get a C code with such large switch statements compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78984
--- Comment #5 from bruno at clisp dot org ---
Thanks Jakub. The ld --version and "-m elf_i386 -L /usr/lib/" trick solves it!
(I was already using the "as --32" trick.)
Another way is to define a simpler ld32 script
== ld32 ==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78987
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
C++ related issue: PR78988.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78988
Bug ID: 78988
Summary: Wrong location of a binary expression for -Waddress
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78987
Bug ID: 78987
Summary: Wrong location of a binary expression for -Waddress
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78986
Bug ID: 78986
Summary: template inner classes are not affected by visibility
specifiers
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78968
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Trunk no longer defines __cxa_thread_atexit if it's found in libc. We might
want to backport this to the gcc-5-branch and gcc-6-branch.
I will try to test this in a FreeBSD 11 VM some time soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78968
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jan 4 15:41:19 2017
New Revision: 244057
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244057&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR78968 add configure check for __cxa_thread_atexit in libc
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78932
--- Comment #2 from xqr4n54r1 at hotmail dot com ---
Created attachment 40457
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40457&action=edit
memcpy instead of get_unaligned_be
* I wrote memcpy instead of get_unaligned_be{16|32} and I saw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66735
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Wed Jan 4 15:23:40 2017
New Revision: 244056
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244056&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
cp/
PR c++/66735
* cp-tree.h (DECLTYPE_FOR_REF_C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66735
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 66735, which changed state.
Bug 66735 Summary: [C++14] lambda init-capture fails for const references
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66735
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57507
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78970
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 40456
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40456&action=edit
Untested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78970
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 40455
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40455&action=edit
Untested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78970
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, basic problem is in _cpp_save_file_entries, where we calculate md5sum of
all inputs files. Providing '-' will cause to have input file as fd == 0 and
ff = fdopen (f->fd, "rb");
md5_str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78985
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78985
Bug ID: 78985
Summary: [7 Regression] profiledbootstrap failure by
-Wuninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build, diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78977
--- Comment #10 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
Created attachment 40454
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40454&action=edit
intermediate for O3 -fno-printf-return-value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78977
--- Comment #9 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
Created attachment 40453
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40453&action=edit
intermediate for O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78968
--- Comment #14 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
sorry, please ignore the attachments, bugzilla dropped me in a different issue
than planned.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78968
--- Comment #13 from Hannes Hauswedell ---
Created attachment 40452
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40452&action=edit
intermediate for O3 -fno-printf-return-value
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
