https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80511
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=247123
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80513
Bug ID: 80513
Summary: demangler walks past trailing nul in mangled name in a
bunch of cases
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80512
Bug ID: 80512
Summary: missing -Wformat-overfow on a numbered directive with
width specified by "*m$"
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80509
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:05:03PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > gc-dump.pod > doc/gcov-dump.1.T$$ && \
> > mv -f doc/gcov-dump.1.T$$ doc/gcov-dump.1) || \
> > (rm -f doc/gcov-dump.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80509
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #31 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #30)
> Created attachment 41259 [details]
> gcc7-pr77728.patch
The above attached version successfully bootstrapped with
--enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-checking=re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80511
Bug ID: 80511
Summary: [8 Regression] gcc.dg/Wstrict-overflow-18.c
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80507
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80121
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon Apr 24 20:44:14 2017
New Revision: 247115
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247115&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-22 Janus Weil
PR fortran/80121
* gf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #72 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Do you have assembly diff before/after that revision (or with current trunk
with the #c71 patch applied vs. not applied)? On which TU it makes a
difference, with what gfortran options they are compiled?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #71 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 41260
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41260&action=edit
Proposed patch (reverting all updates to reg-stack.c after r244920
If no other solution can be found, we can a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80510
Bug ID: 80510
Summary: Optimize Power7/power8 Altivec load/stores
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80016
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Mon Apr 24 19:12:52 2017
New Revision: 247108
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247108&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix location of sizeof/alignof (PR c++/80016)
PR c++/80016 reports an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80494
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80508
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80509
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-unknown-freebsd12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80509
Bug ID: 80509
Summary: ICE in cc1 during selftests
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80349
--- Comment #8 from Dmitry Babokin ---
I also see crashes reporting problems with ^ operator.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #30 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 41259
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41259&action=edit
gcc7-pr77728.patch
This is how I'd have written the aarch32 patch. It has smaller amount of
changes and calls
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Also, the aarch64_function_arg_alignment and arm_needs_doubleword_align
function comments need updating.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #28 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The
+ else
+ warn_align = MAX (warn_align, DECL_ALIGN (field));
last line here is misindented, should be below se.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80499
--- Comment #3 from Qirun Zhang ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Do you have a C fragment producing this RTL?
Hi Richard,
The original RTL file is at testsuite/gcc.dg/rtl/x86_64/final.c.
The original C file seems to be testsu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80507
--- Comment #2 from Arnaud Desitter ---
Could you explain why the code not valid C++ please?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #27 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #26)
> Created attachment 41257 [details]
> AArch32 wip patch.
>
> I think there's one line > 80 chars here but this is what I'm testing
> currently.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80491
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Segher, any idea what can be done about the second (combiner) issue?
> Is it possible to special case MODE_CC class hard registers that are just
> clobbered
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80508
Bug ID: 80508
Summary: ice in wide_int_to_tree, at tree.c:1489 with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41255|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80491
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80479
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80491
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 41256
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41256&action=edit
gcc8-pr80491.patch
The conditional jump is part of the overflow checking optabs, the expectation
was that we ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80378
--- Comment #8 from Andi Kleen ---
__builtin_constant_p does not cover variable range information, which is what
we're looking for here to prevent security bugs.
Also in my experience these explicit expressions tend to be somewhat fragile
and is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80492
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Happens in fre3 pass.
The pass starts with:
do_syscalls ()
{
register int reg __asm__ (*4);
register int reg __asm__ (*4);
int s;
[33.33%]:
reg = 0;
__asm__ __volatile__("/* Some Code %0 */" :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80492
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80293
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80378
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov ---
This sounds like a separate problem that is solvable via __builtin_constant_p?
For example:
void link_error(void) __attribute__((error("size check failed")));
if (__builtin_constant_p(size) &&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80293
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Apr 24 15:13:39 2017
New Revision: 247104
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247104&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 80293] Dont totally-scalarize char arrays
2017-04-24 Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80507
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'm not sure if the PR 59123 change was meant to apply to static data members.
The example in PR 59123 is valid C++, but your code is not.
In any case, the change in semantics is almost certainly due to th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80492
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #5)
> (In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #4)
>
> > The 2 last inline asms are missing the set of ESI.
>
> You should mark that "Some Code" asm clobbers %esi.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80378
--- Comment #6 from Andi Kleen ---
In the kernel there is also an upper limit on allocations.
Perhaps just a generic assert builtin that:
- uses value range information
- uses constant propagation
- is a nop when the compiler doesn't have either
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79931
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0.1
Known to fail|7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80378
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80497
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
Status|NE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80492
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #4)
> The 2 last inline asms are missing the set of ESI.
You should mark that "Some Code" asm clobbers %esi.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79931
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Apr 24 14:48:43 2017
New Revision: 247102
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247102&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Subject: Backport r247097
2017-04-24 Martin Liska
Backport fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80507
Bug ID: 80507
Summary: [C++17] static variable definition not emitted with
-std=c++1z when defined as constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
; s++)
{
syscall_7 (0);
syscall_7 (1);
}
}
$ gcc -S -O2 -dp -v ...
Configured with: ../../gcc.gnu.org/gcc-7-branch/configure
--prefix=/local/gnu/install/gcc-7-host --enable-languages=c,c++
--enable-checking=release --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80482
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If you want the fix in 7.1, please post is soon (best later today).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80482
--- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yeah, I was going to try something like that. There are some other places this
probably need to be done too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80506
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Apr 24 13:43:19 2017
New Revision: 247099
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247099&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80506 fix constant used in condition
PR libstdc++/8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79078
--- Comment #11 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> (In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #9)
> > PR 61754 seems to be related.
>
> I think for the examples here it makes no difference if you use
> __attri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79931
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79931
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Apr 24 13:16:34 2017
New Revision: 247097
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247097&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix (PR middle-end/79931)
2017-04-24 Jan Hubicka
PR middle-en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79078
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #9)
> PR 61754 seems to be related.
I think for the examples here it makes no difference if you use
__attribute__((deprecated(""))) or [[deprecated("")]]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #25 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Created attachment 41255
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41255&action=edit
AArch32 wip patch.
- There are some line > 80 characters, cosmetic issues in this patch .
- However t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
std::min/max was used in the backend previously too, so it is your decision and
doesn't need to be changed to resolve this regression.
Do you have arm32 patch too, or would it be helpful if I write one simil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41237|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80378
--- Comment #4 from Andi Kleen ---
I tested it now and the inline trick doesn't work. Here's a test case
extern void *do_alloc(int a, int b);
static inline __attribute__((alloc_size(1))) void check_alloc_size(int size)
{
}
static inline void *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #11 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Janus,
I'll take a look tonight. I believe, without the source in front of me, that
s/gfc_add_expr_to_block (&post, gfc_call_free
(tmp));/gfc_add_expr_to_block (&se->post, gfc_cal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79078
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80498
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
Huh, no debugging symbols so hard to guess where lead all the jumps. I would
try to add breakpoint to '__asan_init'.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67531
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #7)
> What progress do you expect? IBM long double does not support non-default
> rounding. This will be fixed when PPC64LE long double defaults to IEEE 128
> bit flo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79375
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67531
--- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn ---
What progress do you expect? IBM long double does not support non-default
rounding. This will be fixed when PPC64LE long double defaults to IEEE 128 bit
floating point.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67531
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80506
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80506
Bug ID: 80506
Summary: Wrong magic number in std::gamma_distribution
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80505
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 41253
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41253&action=edit
dump file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80505
Bug ID: 80505
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/iinline-attr.c scan-ipa-dump inline
"hooray[^\\n]*inline copy in test"
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80498
--- Comment #9 from jonne ---
Ok, I've done that now. Thanks again.
$ gdb ./a.out
GNU gdb (GDB) 7.12.1
... snip ...
Reading symbols from ./a.out...Reading symbols from
/private/tmp/a.out.dSYM/Contents/Resources/DWARF/a.out...done.
done.
(gdb) r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80494
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80494
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 24 11:57:53 2017
New Revision: 247095
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247095&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-24 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/80494
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69412
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78587
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80498
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, we're not searching for main function, but _GLOBAL__sub_I_00099_1_m.cpp
(which is a static constructor) and I'm interested in instructions in the
function. Please use gdb once more time, go to frame (#14)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80501
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> No, >= GET_MODE_BITSIZE (mode) + 1 could be written as > GET_MODE_BITSIZE
> (mode)
Ah, indeed, sorry for mixup.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80491
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started with my r230856. I'll have a look.
C testcase:
struct S { unsigned long long low, hi; };
struct S
add (struct S *a, struct S *b)
{
struct S s;
s.low = a->low + b->low;
s.hi = a->hi + b->hi + (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80493
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Apr 24 11:40:02 2017
New Revision: 247093
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247093&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80493 fix invalid exception specification
PR libstd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80504
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Apr 24 11:40:07 2017
New Revision: 247094
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247094&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80504 qualify calls to avoid ADL
PR libstdc++/80504
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80501
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #7)
> Comment on attachment 41252 [details]
> gcc8-pr80501.patch
>
> > && exact_log2 (UINTVAL (XEXP (inner, 1)))
> >- >= GET_MODE_BITSI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78849
Jozef Lawrynowicz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jozef.l at somniumtech dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80501
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Comment on attachment 41252
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41252
gcc8-pr80501.patch
> && exact_log2 (UINTVAL (XEXP (inner, 1)))
>- >= GET_MODE_BITSIZ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80501
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80504
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80504
Bug ID: 80504
Summary: missing qualification causes ADL to be used in
std::ref / std::cref
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-val
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80493
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
PR 66256 is the accepts-invalid front-end bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66256
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Last reconfirmed|201
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66256
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70142
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72845
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80493
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80501
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, combine_simplify_rtx turns:
(set (reg:CCNO 17 flags)
(compare:CCNO (subreg:QI (and:SI (lshiftrt:SI (reg:SI 97)
(const_int 24 [0x18]))
(const_int 128 [0x80])) 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80498
--- Comment #7 from jonne ---
I compiled with -S and looked at m.s.
I'm not sure, but my main function could be this (I found this code in m.s, by
searching for 'main', lines 4058 - 4095):
lC6:
.ascii "foo test 123\0"
.space 51
.text
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80501
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80498
--- Comment #6 from jonne ---
I installed gdb with homebrew. I think it was compiled with debugging symbols,
because of:
$ otool -Iv /usr/local/opt/gdb/bin/gdb | head -5
/usr/local/opt/gdb/bin/gdb:
Indirect symbols for (__TEXT,__stubs) 452 entri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80498
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
My constructor for main looks as follows:
_GLOBAL__sub_I_00099_1_main:
.LFB7137:
.cfi_startproc
pushq %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
.cfi_offset 6, -16
movq%rsp, %rb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80490
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80490
--- Comment #3 from Jean-Michaël Celerier ---
Okay, I reported on their bug tracker. I guess this issue can be closed ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78090
Venkataramanan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|VERIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Venkataram
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80501
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Adjusted testcase for the testsuite:
signed char v = 0;
static signed char
foo (int x, int y)
{
return x << y;
}
__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) int
bar (void)
{
return foo (v >= 0, __CHAR_BIT__ - 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80498
--- Comment #4 from jonne ---
I managed to code-sign gdb by following
https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/BuildingOnDarwin.
Not that I expect it to matter much related to this ticket, but I also noticed
the stacktrace looks a little different when I
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
