https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21182
--- Comment #24 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Do we happen to have easy access to the pressure at the various program points?
Dumping that with the points might prove fruitful in both the search for
potential over-aggressive optimizations and to guide
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61582
--- Comment #21 from Tim Shen ---
(In reply to Pádraig Brady from comment #20)
> Any status update on this. GCC7 is looming...
> Thanks.
Unfortunately I haven't get a chance to work on this. I plan to put up a
one-line tweak on the internal stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61582
Pádraig Brady changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||P at draigBrady dot com
--- Comment #20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79462
--- Comment #1 from dhowells at redhat dot com ---
Here's the configuration command for hosting on ppc64le:
CFLAGS='-O2 -g -Wall -Wformat-security -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -mcpu=power8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #44 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 10 23:34:49 2017
New Revision: 245350
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245350&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/79341
* configure.tgt (s390*-*-linux*): Don'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79462
Bug ID: 79462
Summary: sh: Stack smashing detected when building __ashrdi3 in
libgcc
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79404
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Target Mileston
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79451
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79461
Bug ID: 79461
Summary: [C++1z] ICE when capturing a variable in a lambda in a
constexpr constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79295
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79452
Eric Fiselier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eric at efcs dot ca
--- Comment #7 from
and
float f(float x[]) {
float p = 1.0;
for (int i = 0; i < 200; i++)
p += 1;
return p;
}
both compiled in gcc 7 (20170210 snapshot) with -Ofast .
In the former case (the 202 case) you get:
f:
movss xmm0, DWORD PTR .LC0[rip]
ret
.LC0:
.long 1128988672
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60403
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79295
--- Comment #4 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: acsawdey
Date: Fri Feb 10 21:07:36 2017
New Revision: 245345
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245345&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-02-10 Aaron Sawdey
PR target/79295
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79457
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 10 20:58:31 2017
New Revision: 245344
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245344&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79457
* g++.dg/cpp0x/pr79457.C: New test.
Added:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79459
Bug ID: 79459
Summary: Please add enable_if and diagnose_if attributes (from
clang)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79457
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77790
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |error-recovery
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78908
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Feb 10 20:43:33 2017
New Revision: 245343
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245343&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78908 - template ops and bitfields
* tree.c (build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21182
--- Comment #23 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #22)
> Vlad -- I was thinking more in the sense of whether or not IRA is presented
> with something reasonable (ie, can be colored) vs unreasonable (can not be
> c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79458
Bug ID: 79458
Summary: attributes on constructor between class name and
parameter list not accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78897
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Feb 10 20:08:39 2017
New Revision: 245342
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245342&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78897 - constexpr union
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78897
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79457
--- Comment #2 from Teemu Piippo ---
Created attachment 40716
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40716&action=edit
Minimal example that does not crash
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79457
--- Comment #1 from Teemu Piippo ---
If the "S" declaration is removed and the decltype(...) moved into the return
type of Foo::boo(), GCC does not crash and builds the example properly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79457
Bug ID: 79457
Summary: Segmentation fault in templated decltype evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78908
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|lto |ice-on-valid-code
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21182
--- Comment #22 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Vlad -- I was thinking more in the sense of whether or not IRA is presented
with something reasonable (ie, can be colored) vs unreasonable (can not be
colored).
The former is clearly possible with this sou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79347
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Testing a patch, will send for review soon if no failures.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70799
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77790
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79345
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78897
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Feb 10 18:50:30 2017
New Revision: 245341
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245341&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78897 - constexpr union
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79104
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56973
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Summ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79104
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79401
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71285
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71285
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Feb 10 18:24:36 2017
New Revision: 245340
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245340&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71285 - member of fold-expression
* semantics.c (f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71285
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79401
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Feb 10 18:01:27 2017
New Revision: 245339
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245339&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79401 - protected inherited constructor
* call.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79448
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78897
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #43 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, so, if I build with -O0, I always get the expected errors.
If I build with -O2 -mcpu=z9-109, I also get them, but with -O2 -mcpu=z10 or
-O2 -mcpu=zEC12 I don't.
Does _Decimal32 on s390{,x} behave similar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79401
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612
--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Feb 10 16:58:14 2017
New Revision: 245337
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245337&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
testsuite, rs6000: Don't xfail 32-bit (PR66612)
-m32 works fine, o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #42 from Dominik Vogt ---
With glibc-2.18 and the various patches, the following tets fail:
-m31:
* deep-stack-uaf-1.C
-m64:
* null-deref-1.c
* deep-stack-uaf-1.C
* overflow-vec-1.c
* overflow-vec-2.c
* float-cast-overflow-10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79350
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #41 from Dominik Vogt ---
> The first loop loops until add is -1.00E+12, at which point for the
> first time tem is -9.223373E+18 and thus different from -9.223372E+18, and
> -9.223373E+18 should not be representable in signed lon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79301
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 40713
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40713&action=edit
gcc7-pr79301.patch
If that is what we want, I think this untested patch should implement it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79184
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79435
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79184
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Feb 10 16:33:45 2017
New Revision: 245335
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245335&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79184
* cvt.c (ocp_convert): Add a sentinel agai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79435
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Feb 10 16:32:19 2017
New Revision: 245334
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245334&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79435
* pt.c (type_dependent_expression_p): Chec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79131
--- Comment #15 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #14)
> I think you should open a new bug report. This one has been closed (and the
> ICE has been fixed), so this is a new issue.
I've opened #79456
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79456
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||s390x-ibm-linux
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79456
Bug ID: 79456
Summary: [7 regression] Extra instruction emitted after LRA
patch
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79301
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> > That said, I think e.g. for maybe_unused or nodiscard attributes we don't
> > complain with -pedantic about those
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79455
Bug ID: 79455
Summary: c-c++-common/tsan/race_on_mutex.c fails on powerpcle
starting with r244854 (where it was activated)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21182
--- Comment #21 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #20)
>
> Anyway, just some thoughts. We're still not at a point where we really know
> if IRA is being presented with something that isn't actually colorable or i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79131
--- Comment #14 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Andreas Krebbel from comment #12)
> Starting with that patch we see worse code being generated for:
>
> int __attribute__((noinline,noclone))
> all_eq_double (double __attribute__((vector_s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #40 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #38)
> (And if it does generate messages, does it take the if or the else bodies?
> For me it's the if-bodies.)
/home/jakub/gcc/obj/gcc/xgcc -B/home/jakub/gcc/obj/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79131
--- Comment #13 from Dominik Vogt ---
Same without vectors:
long foo (long a, long b)
{
return a > b;
}
=>
cgr %r2,%r3
lghi%r1,1
locghinh%r1,0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79131
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #39 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For overflow-vec-*.c moved this to PR79454.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79454
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 40712
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40712&action=edit
gcc7-pr79454.patch
Untested fix. The problem was if the vector type had non-BLKmode, but not
vector mode, like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79454
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79454
Bug ID: 79454
Summary: [7 Regression] c-c++-common/ubsan/overflow-vec-*.c
FAILs on some 64-bit BE targets
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79356
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|segher at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #38 from Dominik Vogt ---
(And if it does generate messages, does it take the if or the else bodies? For
me it's the if-bodies.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #37 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The overflow-vec-1.c and vec-2.c on -m64 fail also on ppc64{,le}.
Minimum failing testcase is:
#define SCHAR_MAX __SCHAR_MAX__
#define SCHAR_MIN (-__SCHAR_MAX__ - 1)
typedef signed char VC __attribute__((vec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #36 from Dominik Vogt ---
Created attachment 40711
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40711&action=edit
Reduced test for float-cast-overflow-10.c
Test for the float-cast-overflow-10.c failure.
This snippet should d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79453
Bug ID: 79453
Summary: Translator unfriendly string in avr_pgm_check_var_decl
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79345
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79426
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41727
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #35 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've filed https://reviews.llvm.org/D29824 and https://reviews.llvm.org/D29825
upstream.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79452
--- Comment #6 from gnzlbg ---
> I wasn't replying to the part about function aliases, I was replying to the
> part about having the built-in work even when used in a non-constexpr
> function. It sounds like what you're suggesting would depend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79446
--- Comment #2 from Rich Townsend ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> > Also, I don't experience the segfault on other Linux distros
> > (e.g., Gentoo/3.16.5) or Mac OS.
>
> Confirmed on x86_64-apple-darwin16, even using an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #34 from Dominik Vogt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #33)
> (In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #32)
> > On a machine with
> > * glibc-2.23
>
> :(; I was hoping you could test #c24 patch against glibc 2.18
I'll even
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79452
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
What about __builtin_constant_expression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71737
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79452
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to gnzlbg from comment #2)
> if constexpr() { // Error: expression missing in if condition
Oh, I didn't realise you meant without an expression. Yeah that doesn't work.
> > That sounds like a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71737
--- Comment #10 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Feb 10 13:14:05 2017
New Revision: 245327
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245327&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2017-02-10 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/71737
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #32)
> On a machine with
> * glibc-2.23
:(; I was hoping you could test #c24 patch against glibc 2.18
> * kernel 4.4.0 + patch for the CVE
> * CVE environment vari
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79396
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79452
--- Comment #3 from gnzlbg ---
I guess I should have written, "How does this feature make ODR violations more
common than the inline keyword?". Which new perils does it introduce?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79435
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79452
--- Comment #2 from gnzlbg ---
> It's already in C++17 and supported by GCC.
The following program is ill-formed in C++17:
int main() {
if constexpr() { // Error: expression missing in if condition
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
> That s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79452
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79452
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to gnzlbg from comment #0)
> Implementation as a builtin is preferred, because it is possible that "if
> constexpr() { }" syntax will be proposed for standardization.
It's already in C++17 and su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79452
Bug ID: 79452
Summary: Provide builtin to detect compile-time execution
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79184
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
I suppose we'll have to use something like
--- a/gcc/cp/cvt.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/cvt.c
@@ -798,7 +798,15 @@ ocp_convert (tree type, tree expr, int convtype, int
flags,
to the underlying type first. */
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
--- Comment #28 from Markus Eisenmann ---
Hi!
@Jonathan:
Do you have any plans to backport/migrate these changes to the GCC 5 and/or 6
branch, to be provided/included on a next release?
An "official" fix would be much better (C++-development on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79388
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/combine.c.jj2017-01-30 09:31:48.0 +0100
+++ gcc/combine.c 2017-02-10 12:16:18.507855160 +0100
@@ -14288,6 +14288,11 @@ distribute_notes (rtx notes, rtx_insn *f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79356
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|s390x-*-*, powerpc*-*-*,|s390x-*-*, powerpc*-*-*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79388
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Another testcase from the other PR (-O):
unsigned int
foo (unsigned char x, unsigned long long y)
{
do
{
x &= !y;
x %= 24;
}
while (x < y);
return x + y;
}
int
main (void)
{
unsig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79388
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
*** Bug 79450 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79450
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #32 from Dominik Vogt ---
On a machine with
* glibc-2.23
* kernel 4.4.0 + patch for the CVE
* CVE environment variable set to allow running the Asan tests
* patch from comment 24 applied
=>
In addition to the FAILs you've listed
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
