https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79390
--- Comment #17 from vincenzo Innocente ---
[innocent@vinavx3 innocent]$ mkdir scimark2TMP
[innocent@vinavx3 innocent]$ cd scimark2TMP
[innocent@vinavx3 scimark2TMP]$ wget
http://math.nist.gov/scimark2/scimark2_1c.zip .
.
gcc version 7.0.1 20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80345
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80345
--- Comment #2 from Денис Крыськов ---
Created attachment 41148
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41148&action=edit
the preprocessed file
Ah, sorry, I attached uncompressed file, which was rejected due to big size.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79733
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79390
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Has somebody the benchmark around to retry with current trunk, with
-f{,no-}split-paths and compare that to some older trunk and gcc6?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66940
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Fixed in trunk 246751.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66940
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71074
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80304
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62058
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.9.1 |7.0.1
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67486
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|5.2.0 |7.0.1
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80100
--- Comment #1 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still in trunk 246751.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79733
--- Comment #10 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Apr 7 05:15:54 2017
New Revision: 246752
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246752&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2017-04-06 Uros Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45053
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80351
Bug ID: 80351
Summary: Inconsistent warning for constexpr auto constant when
using initializer list (-Wunused-variable)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45053
--- Comment #21 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Fri Apr 7 02:19:19 2017
New Revision: 246751
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246751&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] Out-of-line register save functions can't be used from crtend.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45053
--- Comment #20 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Fri Apr 7 02:18:34 2017
New Revision: 246750
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246750&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] Out-of-line register save functions can't be used from crtend.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45053
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|wd at denx dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45053
--- Comment #18 from Wolfgang Denk ---
Dear Sender,
Thank you for your mail, but I will probably not be able to reply
any time soon as I'm currently out of office.
I will try to reply to your message as quickly as possible after I'm
back in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45053
--- Comment #17 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Fri Apr 7 01:30:43 2017
New Revision: 246749
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246749&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] Out-of-line register save functions can't be used from crtend.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80348
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Babokin ---
*** Bug 80347 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80347
Dmitry Babokin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80350
Bug ID: 80350
Summary: UBSAN changes code semantics when
-fno-sanitize-recover=undefined is used
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69992
--- Comment #9 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
OK, that makes sense, 64-bit target is an essential piece of this as part of
the problem is that the loop index variable i is not chosen as an induction
variable because it is not DImode. If you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80349
Bug ID: 80349
Summary: UBSAN: compile time crash with "type mismatch in
binary expression" message
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80348
Bug ID: 80348
Summary: UBSAN: compiler time crash in
ubsan_instrument_division
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80347
Bug ID: 80347
Summary: UBSAN: compiler time crash in
ubsan_instrument_division
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79224
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Target Mileston
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80298
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79733
--- Comment #9 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Apr 6 21:06:08 2017
New Revision: 246744
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246744&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2017-04-06 Uros Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80298
--- Comment #8 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Apr 6 21:06:08 2017
New Revision: 246744
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246744&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2017-04-06 Uros Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80234
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80234
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 6 20:46:29 2017
New Revision: 246743
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246743&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/80234
* dwarf2out.c (gen_member_die): Handle C++1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80346
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning for attachment 41147 looks valid. It points to the
g_malloc0_n(__n, __s) call in the else statement in the following block. If
I'm reading it right, there, __s is non-zero, and __n is equal to SI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69992
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
Sorry, I've overlooked the mention of -m64 in comment #1. I used 'configure
--target=powerpc-linux-gnu' and didn't pass -m64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69992
--- Comment #7 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I just pulled that sms branch from
https://github.com/ispras/gcc-sms.git
and built it on ppc64le. sms-4 does not do any better than with trunk, we still
have the problem of incorrectly labelin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68569
koenigni at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||koenigni at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80286
--- Comment #9 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Apr 6 19:22:02 2017
New Revision: 246741
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246741&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/80286
* config/i386/sse.md (*vec_extract
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80346
--- Comment #2 from Dr. David Alan Gilbert ---
Created attachment 41147
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41147&action=edit
a different signed/size case
Here's another case (law said to attach it to the same bug), this is givi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80346
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79733
--- Comment #8 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Apr 6 18:49:43 2017
New Revision: 246739
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246739&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79733
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80298
--- Comment #7 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Apr 6 18:34:18 2017
New Revision: 246737
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246737&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/80298
* gcc.target/i386/pr80298-1.c: New
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80346
Bug ID: 80346
Summary: pessimistic stringop-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69992
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80324
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80082
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Thu Apr 6 16:26:39 2017
New Revision: 246734
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246734&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-06 Thomas Preud'homme
gcc/
PR target/80082
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80345
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69992
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
I guess the next step would be to step through why iv_number_of_iterations
thinks this loop could never terminate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69992
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Hm, does your simplification remove the possibility of overflow that could
occur with intermediate results?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80345
Bug ID: 80345
Summary: ICE in rewrite_use_nonlinear_expr with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69992
--- Comment #3 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So, it comes down to the fact that this condition cannot ever be true, so the
loop is not in fact infinite:
infinite if: (expr_list:REG_DEP_TRUE (ne:SI (and:DI (minus:DI (plus:DI
(ashift:DI (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80313
--- Comment #3 from Venkataramanan ---
Thanks for pointing out. It looks like we need to adjust our branch cost.
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index 14ac189..8212c56 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80334
--- Comment #6 from Jason Rhinelander ---
Confirming that this solves the original (unsimplified) issue for me with
current trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80344
Bug ID: 80344
Summary: -Wuninitialized triggering on a ctor on ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80082
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Thu Apr 6 14:53:22 2017
New Revision: 246733
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246733&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] Compile atomic_loaddi_11 for Cortex-R5
2017-04-06 Thomas P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80343
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79224
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka ---
I know - it is the problem I mentioned earlier. ray_sphere has a conditional
on parameter SP that decides whether it does extra work. In some cases
ray_sphere is called with SP NULL. Now we compute the speed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80313
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80341
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
--- Comment #7 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80334
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80322
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41143|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80334
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Apr 6 13:56:35 2017
New Revision: 246731
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246731&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-06 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/80334
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80166
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Apr 6 13:42:24 2017
New Revision: 246730
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246730&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Cherry-pick upstream r299036 from libsanitizer (PR sanitizer/80166).
2017
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80343
Bug ID: 80343
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE in extract_constrain_insn, at
recog.c:2213 (error: insn does not satisfy its
constraints)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79390
--- Comment #15 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Apr 6 13:11:21 2017
New Revision: 246729
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246729&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix gcc.target/i386/pr79390.c for Solaris as
PR tree-optimization/793
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78255
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80341
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Ah, it is as we pass it signed char as 2nd arg...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80341
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80340
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80341
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
With -O I get
x.c: In function ‘foo’:
x.c:7:7: warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion [-Woverflow]
s = (unsigned short) c / -55;
^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80262
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0.1
--- Comment #10 from Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80262
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Apr 6 12:31:05 2017
New Revision: 246728
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246728&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-06 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/80262
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80341
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Likely started with
commit 4d307e1ff39d0c2f90123ef789d611e2323be76d
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Feb 10 11:54:14 2010 +
2010-02-10 Richard Guenther
PR c/43007
* tree.c (g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80341
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Better testcase:
const signed char c = -84;
signed char s;
void
foo ()
{
s = (unsigned short) c / -55;
}
int
main ()
{
foo ();
if (s != 90)
__builtin_abort ();
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80322
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 41143
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41143&action=edit
gcc7-pr80322.patch
So far I have this, writing testcases now. For the reductions more work will
be needed, so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79733
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@sven-woop.de
--- Comment #7 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80339
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80339
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
This is most likely a dup of PR 79733.
Can you please check if the patch in the referred PR also fixes this PR?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79733
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
*** Bug 79808 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79808
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79733
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80339
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
trippels@gcc75 ~ % cat test3.ii
int a = __builtin_ia32_kortestzhi(0, 0);
trippels@gcc75 ~ % g++ -mavx512f -c test3.ii
test3.ii: In function ‘void __static_initialization_and_destruction_0(int,
int)’:
t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80281
--- Comment #18 from Dominik Vogt ---
Fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80339
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80342
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80342
Bug ID: 80342
Summary: useless outermost conversions not fully elided by
genmatch generated code
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: misse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80339
--- Comment #2 from Sven Woop ---
Ok I isolated the issue, please see attached reproducer. The bug is quite
delicate. Removing some unused variables in the code, and further minor
adjustments easily let the bug disappear.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80339
--- Comment #1 from Sven Woop ---
Created attachment 41141
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41141&action=edit
reproducer
just do make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80281
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Apr 6 11:25:35 2017
New Revision: 246726
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246726&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-06 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/80281
* gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80341
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80304
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ysrumyan at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80340
Sumit changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|WAITING
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80304
--- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> r239317 works, r239326 fails, and also appears to be the only
> patch in the vicinity that does anything about loops.
>
> Could this be the cause?
>
> Author: edlinger
> Date: Fri Aug 12 19:30:39 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80341
Bug ID: 80341
Summary: gcc miscompiles division of signed char
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80304
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80326
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80340
--- Comment #5 from Sumit ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> > Configuring GCC with --disable-libstdcxx-verbose will remove the use of
> > write in that file
Is this flag --disable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80340
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80314
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Sumit from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> > Your configure options include: --enable-__cxa_atexit
> >
> > Why are you using that if your system doesn't support i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80314
--- Comment #7 from Sumit ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> Your configure options include: --enable-__cxa_atexit
>
> Why are you using that if your system doesn't support it?
We are upgrading from 4.3.3 to 4.8.1.
We had this
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
