https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80706
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71509
Nicholas Piggin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||npiggin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80683
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao ---
For debug purpose, compiled this code in C++98 mode
(non-static data member initializers is a GNU extension in C++98 and would
be warned). The result is still buggy. Defaulted B::B() is marked noexcept.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80706
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80707
Bug ID: 80707
Summary: [8 Regression] r247844 causes error: extra outgoing
edge
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80364
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Marek, I believe this issue has been fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79067
--- Comment #3 from Andi Kleen ---
sandra,
does this patch fix it?
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/cold_partition_label.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-prof/cold_partition_label.c
index 6214e3629f2..924a270e1bd 100644
--- a/gcc/testsu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80683
--- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao ---
I don't think it's PR66139.
In PR66139, the exception is caught, but some destructors aren't called.
In this PR, the exception is not caught at all.
For this PR, the problem is:
1) GCC created "constexpr B::B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79027
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80090
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80090
--- Comment #3 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Thu May 11 00:15:04 2017
New Revision: 247874
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247874&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/80090
* config/pa/pa.c (pa_assemble_intege
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80090
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Thu May 11 00:13:00 2017
New Revision: 247873
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247873&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/80090
* config/pa/pa.c (pa_assemble_intege
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80090
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Wed May 10 23:54:58 2017
New Revision: 247872
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247872&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/80090
* config/pa/pa.c (pa_assemble_intege
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79027
--- Comment #11 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Wed May 10 23:09:54 2017
New Revision: 247871
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247871&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79027
* config/pa/pa.c (pa_cannot_change_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79027
--- Comment #10 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Wed May 10 23:08:32 2017
New Revision: 247870
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247870&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79027
* config/pa/pa.c (pa_cannot_change_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79027
--- Comment #9 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Wed May 10 22:54:07 2017
New Revision: 247869
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247869&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79027
* config/pa/pa.c (pa_cannot_change_m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80706
--- Comment #1 from Elliot Saba ---
I should also note that this is fixed if I provide `-mfpmath=sse` in addition
to any other optimization flags.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64238
--- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I'm sorry, I still can't recreate it. I'm now at SVN revision 247848.
Note that I just committed a number of changes to the Go frontend, and I was
using those changes when I tested before. I don't see w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80364
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80066
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80706
Bug ID: 80706
Summary: peephole2 uses uninitialized stack variables on i686
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80643
--- Comment #7 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The Fortran tests (from 80644) that I traced to this revision still fail on
powerpc64le:
spawn /home/seurer/gcc/build/gcc-test/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/../../gfortran
-B/home/seurer/gcc/build/gcc-te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80626
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80626
--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed May 10 17:36:50 2017
New Revision: 247850
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247850&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Ada/x32: PR ada/80626: Correct Memory_Size
X32 uses 64 as word siz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80626
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed May 10 17:35:02 2017
New Revision: 247849
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247849&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Ada/x32: PR ada/80626: Correct Memory_Size
X32 uses 64 as word siz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80705
--- Comment #1 from Pat Haugen ---
I should have noted that the dumps I was looking at were slp1 and lim4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80536
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #13)
> This is true, but it happens very rarely. It can happen e.g. when the
> fold() call in save_expr() folds away the first operand of a COMPOUND_EXPR,
> and the s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51513
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80536
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> > > To expand on that, I think we want to drop that call from the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80705
Bug ID: 80705
Summary: Incorrect code generated for profile counter updates
due to SLP+LIM
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80556
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79549
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed May 10 15:56:09 2017
New Revision: 247842
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247842&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79549 - C++17 ICE with non-type auto template parameter pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80602
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Might want to backport the 8.0 patch to gcc-7, but only
after the dust from the regressions this caused has settled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80687
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80696
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80696
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed May 10 15:45:52 2017
New Revision: 247839
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247839&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/80687
PR fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80687
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed May 10 15:45:52 2017
New Revision: 247839
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247839&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/80687
PR fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80694
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
--- Comment #13 from Ondřej Majerech ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #12)
> (In reply to Jaak Ristioja from comment #9)
> > [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/43892501/3919155
>
> I don't think this is the same bug.
> This bug seems happe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79311
--- Comment #10 from DIL ---
Thanks for fixing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
--- Comment #12 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Jaak Ristioja from comment #9)
> [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/43892501/3919155
I don't think this is the same bug.
This bug seems happening because GCC created "constexpr B::B(void)", but
actu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80694
--- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
These tests have flip-flopped between working and not several times recently.
I will got back through the logs and run some test to see if I can find where
things started to go bad.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
--- Comment #11 from Xi Ruoyao ---
This happens for all TARGET_EXPRs with the third operand (cleanup expression),
as an INIT_EXPR's rhs.
The cleanup sequence are pushed in gimplify_target_expr, which doesn't
handle TARGET_EXPRs as the INIT_EXPRs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80640
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov ---
I've submitted a patch [1] for the missing compiler barrier, but however please
note that the original ompi code and the example in comment #3 are wrong: in a
pattern like
while (*foo)
__atomic_thr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80703
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78939
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80703
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80703
Bug ID: 80703
Summary: Including breaks structured bindings
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80701
--- Comment #4 from Gustavo Hime ---
Regarding this as a duplicate: on the one hand, it seems to be the same issue.
Whether the (any) warning is on by default or not is something that will always
be disputable, but the main issue is getting the c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80694
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #2)
> I think probably these tests failed before the fix, stopped failing with the
> fix, and started failing again when the fix was reverted. So the revision
> number i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80694
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
I think probably these tests failed before the fix, stopped failing with the
fix, and started failing again when the fix was reverted. So the revision
number is a red herring -- we need to figure out when the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80695
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
--- Comment #10 from Ondřej Majerech ---
That SO answer appears to be plain out wrong. Running your snippet on GCC 6.3.1
and 8.0.0 20170507, the program calls terminate for me, even with the cout <<
"Welcome" line included.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77644
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Err, abs(A) < sqrt (B) isn't handled yet, no? Though I'm not sure if it's wise
to emit A * A < B for that given A * A is going to drop of quite some bits in
precision and likeliness to overflow / underflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77644
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77644
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: prathamesh3492
Date: Wed May 10 13:26:09 2017
New Revision: 247835
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247835&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Prathamesh Kulkarni
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80701
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
This PR seems related to pr46476. While I am opposed to put any effort from the
gfortran side, if the flags mentioned in pr46476 are implemented in the
middle-end, they could benefit gfortran. Any obje
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80474
--- Comment #5 from Jan Smets ---
We get 'good' code on 7.1/trunk since
2016-04-29 Patrick Palka
tree-ssa-threadedge.c (simplify_control_stmt_condition): Split out into ...
simplify_control_stmt_condition_1): ... here. Rec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
Jaak Ristioja changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jaak at ristioja dot ee
--- Comment #9 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80701
--- Comment #2 from Gustavo Hime ---
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The compiler does generate a warning about the implicit interface if
> -Wimplicit-interface is turned on explicitly. I would suggest this should
> be on by defau
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80536
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #11)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> > To expand on that, I think we want to drop that call from there and instead
> > be able to simplify somehow a SA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46476
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||majerech.o at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80683
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80536
--- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> To expand on that, I think we want to drop that call from there and instead
> be able to simplify somehow a SAVE_EXPR if after c_fully_fold or cp_fold it
> becom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79067
--- Comment #2 from Andi Kleen ---
There's a separate fix for the random failures (or w/a increase
/proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_mlock_kb), see PR 77684
Not running the test on systems without FDO seems best. I don't think it does
anything useful
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79830
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
BTW, I don't see problem in iv_elimination for the second loop, the .L7 one.
It eliminates three IVs into one IV. Well, the bloated loop header could be
further simplified, but it's another issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80701
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77684
--- Comment #5 from Andi Kleen ---
Created attachment 41337
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41337&action=edit
limit perf buffer size
This patch allows parallelism upto 16 with the default setting.
Currently testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80702
Bug ID: 80702
Summary: FRE fails to eliminate to leader dominating after
unreachable edge removal
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #60 from Maxim Kuvyrkov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #59)
> And another thing was the bug
> mentioned here, introduced for arm32 in 5.2 and for aarch64 only during
> development of GCC 7. So there was no release for aa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80671
--- Comment #2 from wilco at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: wilco
Date: Wed May 10 11:01:26 2017
New Revision: 247831
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247831&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Move an use-after-free access before the delete.
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
--- Comment #59 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It does mention it:
"GCC has been updated to the latest revision of the procedure call standard
(AAPCS64) to provide support for paramater passing when data types have been
over-aligned."
There were two iss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77728
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79830
--- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> It is induction variable optimization (-fivopts) that re-writes the main
> induction variable. We have
>
> Original cost 17 (complexity 2)
>
> Final
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80626
--- Comment #5 from Steven Noonan ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> Please try
>
> diff --git a/gcc/ada/system-linux-x86.ads b/gcc/ada/system-linux-x86.ads
> index 22a212e..533d94e 100644
> --- a/gcc/ada/system-linux-x86.ads
> +++ b/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69921
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79894
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79756
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 10 10:01:23 2017
New Revision: 247829
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247829&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79756
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79666
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 10 10:01:23 2017
New Revision: 247829
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247829&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79732
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 10 10:01:23 2017
New Revision: 247829
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247829&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79894
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 10 10:01:23 2017
New Revision: 247829
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247829&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-05-10 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79666
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79732
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80701
Bug ID: 80701
Summary: gfortran ignores dead code after return statement
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46476
--- Comment #9 from Jon Grant ---
Happy to pay 200 USD bounty on a committed implementation for
-Wunreachable-code examples. Even just instructions just after "return" or
"break" etc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46476
Jon Grant changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jg at jguk dot org
--- Comment #8 from Jon G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80698
Jon Grant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71012
--- Comment #4 from Arseny Solokha ---
int mw;
int
j3 (int cn)
{
const int l7 = 0;
int wz;
for (wz = l7; wz < l7 + 3; ++wz)
while (mw != 0)
{
cn ^= -(wz == l7);
++mw;
}
return cn;
}
actually leads to IC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80698
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||46476
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80700
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80145
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80145
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed May 10 08:34:02 2017
New Revision: 247828
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247828&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2017-05-10 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/80145
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80666
--- Comment #2 from Jos de Kloe ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> Why do you think this a bug in gfortran?
>
> The code compiles if you remove 'implicit none'. With it you have to define
> 'keylen' before using it, as in y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80700
--- Comment #1 from Arseny Solokha ---
==15430== Invalid read of size 1
==15430==at 0xB9161C: constrain_operands(int, unsigned long) (recog.c:2583)
==15430==by 0xB92204: extract_constrain_insn(rtx_insn*) (recog.c:2212)
==15430==by 0xA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80700
Bug ID: 80700
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE: Bus error (on SPE target)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80222
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80334
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80122
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
