https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80136
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80115
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80145
Bug ID: 80145
Summary: [c++1y] ICE after failed return type deduction
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: error-recovery, ice-on-invalid-code
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78496
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
More comments. As has been noted, this looks like a case where we need
iteration to fully optimize. However, there are things we can do to improve
VRP's jump threading which should have a direct positive i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80144
Bug ID: 80144
Summary: Concept introduced with "template" is
not diagnosed
Product: gcc
Version: c++-concepts
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80136
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Note that force_gimple_operand would do the gimplify_and_add for expr under
some circumstances:
if (TREE_CODE (expr) != MODIFY_EXPR
&& TREE_TYPE (expr) == void_type_node)
{
gimplify_and_add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79548
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Mar 21 23:56:52 2017
New Revision: 246337
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246337&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79548 - missing -Wunused-variable on a typedef'd variable in a func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79548
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80128
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Thanks for the analysis. Could you see if https://golang.org/cl/38433 fixes
the problem?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38573
--- Comment #10 from Roland Illig ---
(In reply to Frederic Marchal from comment #8)
> Adding "is" at the end of the first part works with all the other strings
> that can be inserted at the %s placeholder.
>
> I can make it work with the French
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79548
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Mar 21 23:39:12 2017
New Revision: 246336
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246336&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79548 - missing -Wunused-variable on a typedef'd variable in a func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79085
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80143
Bug ID: 80143
Summary: ICE on placement new in gimplify_init_ctor_eval, at
gimplify.c:4436
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38573
--- Comment #9 from Roland Illig ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #7)
> /* Otherwise, fail. */
> if (symstd)
> *symstd = _(symstd_msg);
> return false;
>
> Where the mark is on the symstd_msg after it is set to one of the a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80025
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79548
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79548
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Mar 21 22:33:39 2017
New Revision: 246335
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246335&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79548 - missing -Wunused-variable on a typedef'd variable in a func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80136
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
I am really doubtful that is the right fix, by the way, but I want to get some
evidence about what's going on...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80136
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Placing a call to gimplify_and_add prior to the call to force_gimple_operand
seems to do what we want. The compile completes and the side effects code is
all generated as expected. Christophe, James, Andrew,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80114
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
May I close this as worksforme?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80136
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Looking at aarch64_gimplify_va_arg_expr, it allocates several temporary
variables, and creates a number of modify_exprs that use them, nested inside
this enormous compound_expr. But it does no gimplification
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80115
--- Comment #9 from Frank Ch. Eigler ---
Thanks, Jakub; git systemtap now includes your %w[] patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80142
Bug ID: 80142
Summary: [7 Regression] Warning: No location in expression ...
with -O / -ffrontend-optimize
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80136
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Back up in expand_ifn_va_arg_1, when we reach
expr = targetm.gimplify_va_arg_expr (ap, type, &pre, &post);
the statement being processed is:
(gdb) ps stmt
# .MEM_3410 = VDEF <.MEM_2810>
VA_ARG (&arg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80136
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80141
Bug ID: 80141
Summary: ICE with pragma omp declare
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, openmp
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78543
--- Comment #16 from Breno Leitao ---
If it helps, the problem is reproducible on some other packages as well. Here
is another example:
https://nopaste.linux-dev.org/?1122124
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80140
Bug ID: 80140
Summary: missing -Wignored-attributes on function arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79753
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #9)
> Based on Martin L's comment, this is probably a 6 regression as well. So
> I've added a 6 regression marker, but removed the 7 regression marker. If
> that's n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78631
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #13)
> (In reply to Alexander Ivchenko from comment #12)
> > Fixed with r243942
>
> It should be backported to GCC6.
I would be happy to backport that, however the pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78158
--- Comment #19 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dmitry Vyukov from comment #8)
> We need to modify tsan runtime to ignore (zero) __ATOMIC_HLE_ACQUIRE/RELEASE
> bits, right? It's only an optimization and we can pretend that elision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80128
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
Looks like Type::needs_specific_type_functions and Type::type_functions should
not hardcode alignment checks, but ask the target about the specific alignment
requirement.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80117
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Schwab ---
What is the definition of System.Word_Size anyway?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63243
Bug 63243 depends on bug 63238, which changed state.
Bug 63238 Summary: DWARF does not represent _Alignas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63238
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63238
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63238
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Tue Mar 21 18:28:06 2017
New Revision: 246331
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246331&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR63238] include alignment debug information in DIE checksum
Add DW_A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118
--- Comment #11 from Yuri Gribov ---
(In reply to Tavian Barnes from comment #10)
> > I think it is - __cancel_arg is assigned inside a while loop
>
> Specifically a do { } while(0); loop, which obviously has only one iteration.
Actually I was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80117
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|a-cfinve.ads:245:04:|Standard'Word_Size is wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79908
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Mar 21 18:14:42 2017
New Revision: 246330
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246330&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-03-21 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/79908
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79908
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80136
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK. I'm going to revert the original patch until I can reproduce this and
start looking at it. There's clearly something different about the aarch64
port and varargs that doesn't like this approach. None of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80139
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80138
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
It isn't spurious. Of little use and unwanted, yes. It is telling you that the
compiler assumed that your code was correct, that can hardly be wrong...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80138
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
So the reason why it disappears with: "(w >= y) && (w < y+h)" is that GCC has
only one bit to say if we should not warn again on an expression and using ()
causes that bit to be set :). GCC needs more bits
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80139
Bug ID: 80139
Summary: Use of non-gcc build compiler causes unsupported
option error
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80091
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80136
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80138
Bug ID: 80138
Summary: spurious warning: assuming signed overflow does not
occur when ...
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80136
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80091
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Tue Mar 21 17:40:40 2017
New Revision: 246329
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246329&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/80091
* lambda.c (maybe_generic_this_capture): Ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80131
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
And even with unsigned c, a shift by (30 - 0xU) is perfectly valid
in C; that shift count evaluates to 31U. Whereas a shift by 0xU
is not valid C.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80080
--- Comment #7 from Dominik Vogt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> I think it depends on what
> (success, old_reg) = compare-and-swap(mem, old_reg, new_reg)
> sets if success is true. Is there a guarantee that old_reg will be ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80131
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yeah, good point. Of course c is unsigned in the example, but we should
handle signed as well (and that info is lost in RTL anyway).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80136
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80136
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80136
--- Comment #1 from Christophe Lyon ---
I'm using a cross-compiler, configured with:
--target=aarch64-none-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80137
Bug ID: 80137
Summary: std::generate_canonical calls its generator a
non-constant number of times
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80136
Bug ID: 80136
Summary: ICE in gimplify_modify_expr, at gimplify.c:5627
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80131
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 21 Mar 2017, segher at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> If we have d = a << (b - c); and a << b does not truncate in the
> original mode, write it as d := (a << b) >> c; instead (and t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79993
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80117
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7 regression] |a-cfinve.ads:245:04:
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80080
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think it depends on what
(success, old_reg) = compare-and-swap(mem, old_reg, new_reg)
sets if success is true. Is there a guarantee that old_reg will be assigned
whatever has been passed as the second argu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80080
--- Comment #5 from Dominik Vogt ---
What case do you mean? The
+ if (oldval != old_reg)
+emit_move_insn (old_reg, oldval);
at the end should make sure that the oldval-rtx is either not changed by the
call, or its value is copied into old
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79951
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79951
--- Comment #4 from Pat Haugen ---
Author: pthaugen
Date: Tue Mar 21 16:36:39 2017
New Revision: 246328
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246328&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79951
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md (copysign3_fcpsg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79951
--- Comment #3 from Pat Haugen ---
Author: pthaugen
Date: Tue Mar 21 16:32:46 2017
New Revision: 246327
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246327&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79951
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md (copysign3_fcpsg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80001
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77563
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80001
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Mar 21 16:26:09 2017
New Revision: 246326
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246326&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
omp-offload.c: translation fixes (PR translation/80001)
gcc/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80109
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80109
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Mar 21 16:21:14 2017
New Revision: 246325
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246325&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/80109
* gimple-ssa-warn-alloca.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69338
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78635
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80131
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80135
Bug ID: 80135
Summary: [6/7 Regression] ICE in
output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.c:4968
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80014
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Target Mileston
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79990
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
The problem here is that chkp creates bounds for register variable:
vsdump.c.025t.chkp:
Building bounds for address of decl u
Made bounds: __bound_tmp.0_4 = __
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78881
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The test cases I have been working on uses:
read( unit=s, fmt='(dt)', iostat=istat, iomsg=imsg, pad='yes' ) foo
versus:
read( unit=s, fmt=*, iostat=istat, iomsg=imsg, pad='yes' ) foo
With fmt=*, th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78857
stli at linux dot vnet.ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|VERIFIED
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55985
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 55985, which changed state.
Bug 55985 Summary: Misleading message about which variable 'may be used
uninitialized in this function'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55985
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80133
--- Comment #1 from Kirill Yukhin ---
I am not familiar with Power, may be this can help:
[kyukhin@localhost build2]$ lscpu
Architecture: ppc64
Byte Order:Big Endian
CPU(s):8
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-7
Thread(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80122
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 21 Mar 2017, rpirrera at aitek dot it wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80122
>
> --- Comment #6 from rpirrera at aitek dot it ---
> How this work now?
It works by no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80122
--- Comment #6 from rpirrera at aitek dot it ---
How this work now?
We can expect a back port to versions 5.4 and 6.3 of this patch? Or this will
exist only in the future version 7.x?
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80125
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78881
--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 41014
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41014&action=edit
Preliminay Patch
Here is a preliminary patch. I have spent a lot of time looking at the DTIO
problem case as we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69498
--- Comment #4 from koenigni at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: koenigni
Date: Tue Mar 21 14:49:21 2017
New Revision: 246322
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246322&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-03-18 Nicolas Koenig
PR fortran/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80125
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Mar 21 14:49:51 2017
New Revision: 246323
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246323&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/80125
* combine.c (can_combine_p): Revert the 20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79806
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80081
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78158
--- Comment #18 from Dmitry Vyukov ---
Landed http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=298378 with
0x7fff mask.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79753
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7 Regression][CHKP] ICE in |[6 Regression][CHKP] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80081
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Mar 21 14:41:11 2017
New Revision: 246321
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246321&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Document gcov-dump and fix installation of gcov-tool (PR gcov-profile/8008
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80131
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80134
Bug ID: 80134
Summary: powerpc: loop on p[i] and *p++ should give the same
code
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80133
Bug ID: 80133
Summary: [bootstrap] ICE during build on PPC64-linux.
Product: gcc
Version: tree-ssa
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80115
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Then do:
--- /usr/include/sys/sdt.h 2017-01-25 23:20:05.0 +0100
+++ /usr/include/sys/sdt.h 2017-03-21 15:26:14.448999404 +0100
@@ -173,6 +173,8 @@ __extension__ extern unsigned long long
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80080
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80115
--- Comment #7 from Frank Ch. Eigler ---
The systemtap operand encoding machinery separately gives us the byte-size of
the operand, so even if gcc told us %si, we'd only look at %sil only anyway.
But if gcc cannot let that level of ambiguity be,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug 65530 depends on bug 68270, which changed state.
Bug 68270 Summary: [MPX] Common pattern for variable sized data clashes with
MPX bound checks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68270
What|Removed
1 - 100 of 181 matches
Mail list logo
