https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81638
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81639
Bug ID: 81639
Summary: ICE in rtl_verify_bb_insns, at cfgrtl.c:2669 with a
naked function
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81632
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81638
--- Comment #4 from David Edelsohn ---
The test around the setting of incl is the same as the test around the use of
incl at the place of the false positive uninitialized error
for (i = 0; i < vec->count; ++i)
incl = ...
if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81638
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Just for reference we have:
for (i = 0; i < vec->count; ++i)
{
incl = (struct xcoff_incl *) vec->vec.base + i;
if (incl->begin <= lnnoptr && lnnoptr <= incl->end)
break;
}
if (begincl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81609
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81638
--- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 41877
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41877&action=edit
pre-processed xcoff.c compiled on AIX 7.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81638
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81638
Bug ID: 81638
Summary: AIX bootstrap failure due to Recover GOTO predictor
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39985
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
In C, in C11 mode, type qualifiers are completely ignored on function
return types, including not affecting type compatibility, after my commit:
r236231 | jsm28 | 2016-05-13 21:35:39 +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #19 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Mon Jul 31 21:44:34 2017
New Revision: 250752
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250752&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-07-31 Steve Ellcey
PR tree-optimization/80925
* gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79696
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80130
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> I take back the ARRAY_TYPE thing, apparently it is different for C vs. C++,
> in C one always sees there POINTER_TYPE, while in C++ always ARRAY_TYPE.
> Anyway, y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
--- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt ---
I went spelunking and found that the ARRAY_TYPE change was added here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=237077. Looks like a
C++ implementation detail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81626
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Schwinge ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #4)
> (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #3)
> > Yeah, I suppose you just need to remove a "--disable-multilib" from your
> > nvptx offloading GCC build configu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81637
Bug ID: 81637
Summary: [8 regression] compilation of 416.games from spec2006
fails starting with r250670
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #61 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #60)
> At revision r250610 I still see
>
> WARNING: Could not generate
> /opt/gcc/build_w/gcc/testsuite/gcc/ms-sysv/ms-sysv-generated.h
Thank you for the repo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81636
Bug ID: 81636
Summary: Confusing warning message containing "#‘obj_type_ref’
not supported by expression#"
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81632
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81635
Bug ID: 81635
Summary: nvptx SLP test cases regressions
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: target
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79959
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29970
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41875|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79696
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I take back the ARRAY_TYPE thing, apparently it is different for C vs. C++, in
C one always sees there POINTER_TYPE, while in C++ always ARRAY_TYPE.
Anyway, your patch seems to be wrong, POINTER_TYPE_P's argu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79667
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79688
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
I should clarify that Richard reviewed the VEC_LD / VEC_ST code chunks. The
other pieces predate me. The stylistic issues were copied from another place
at the time and I missed those, sorry about that...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81633
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'm afraid the tree-vect-slp.c change is completely wrong, the original change
in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg01090.html if the oprnd == NULL
has child_index++; looks reasonable to me. It c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
This code was reviewed and approved by Richard back when it was first written.
It's been some time since this was written, so I don't recall the origin of the
array type, but it was definitely necessary. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81033
--- Comment #25 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I have posted the results on darwin for r250610 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2017-07/msg02582.html. I see 646
failures compared to 318 with r249104.
I am planning to open new Pos for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81633
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In *.ifcvt dump we have
_69 = identity[j_31][0];
_71 = _69 * _69;
tmp[j_31][0] = _71;
_77 = identity[j_31][1];
_78 = _69 * _77;
tmp[j_31][1] = _78;
_84 = identity[j_31][2];
_85 = _69 * _84;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81615
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81633
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In -fdump-tree-vect-details, the difference with this commit is:
--- pr81633.c.149t.vect.239539 2017-07-31 12:00:11.0 -0400
+++ pr81633.c.149t.vect.239542 2017-07-31 12:00:33.0 -0400
@@ -1721,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81633
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490
--- Comment #15 from Uroš Bizjak ---
I'm testing the following patch:
--cut here--
Index: i386.c
===
--- i386.c (revision 250745)
+++ i386.c (working copy)
@@ -19421,8 +19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81626
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #3)
> Yeah, I suppose you just need to remove a "--disable-multilib" from your
> nvptx offloading GCC build configuration, so that the "mgomp" multilib gets
> built in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The aligned computation also looks like invalid IL, BIT_AND_EXPR should not
have pointer arguments I believe (though please double check with Richard), so
it should be first cast to corresponding integral typ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81634
Bug ID: 81634
Summary: Some types are incorrectly detected as not standard
layout
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81618
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81626
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|openacc |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Created attachment 41874
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41874&action=edit
Patch under test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81615
--- Comment #2 from Ben Barrowes ---
Then how does one get a preprocessed/savetemp file from an existing *.f90 file?
In the case of C, preprocessed and temp files have different extensions and are
thus easily identified after compiling. For gfor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81633
Bug ID: 81633
Summary: Incorrect floating point result with tree vectoriser
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
Do you see the same behavior with "vec_ld (1, 2);" ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81591
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Before that is available, perhaps backtrace from the gomp_fatal call in the
_LIBGOMP_CHECKING_ enabled build might be also useful.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81591
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think we need a reproducer for this. Can you provide something?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51515
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81599
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81599
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Jul 31 13:44:16 2017
New Revision: 250743
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250743&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/81599
* include/bits/stl_stack.h: Fix typo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81615
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81632
Bug ID: 81632
Summary: spurious -Wterminate warning about throw in destructor
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81599
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81400
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25967
--- Comment #21 from Uroš Bizjak ---
The above patch is needed to pass arguments to a naked function.
Please note that arguments can be reliably passed only in registers, so regparm
convention is necessary for x86_32.
gcc.target/i386/naked-3.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81599
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25967
--- Comment #20 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Jul 31 13:11:59 2017
New Revision: 250742
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250742&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/25967
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_alloca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81624
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|hjl at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at redhat dot com
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81307
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looking at gdb I see though that the block_address_function_relative variable
is computed from the object format, so I'm afraid it has to be relative.
Another option is to pretend there isn't just one functio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81307
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81626
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ugh, that is going to be a maintainance nightmare for the testsuite.
Why and how are you configuring your accel compiler without the OpenMP support?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81588
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #41860|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81477
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81477
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Jul 31 11:18:31 2017
New Revision: 250738
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250738&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 81477] Set versionable regardless of optimization level
2017-07-31
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81626
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 41871
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41871&action=edit
Tentative patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81631
Bug ID: 81631
Summary: -Wcast-qual false positive for pointer to array
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81400
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44292
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2010-05-30 05:38:00 |2017-7-31
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81630
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25967
--- Comment #19 from Daniel Santos ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #18)
> Implemented for gcc 8.
Awesome! There are actually a number of times over the years that I've wished
this were implemented, thanks! :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81629
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81614
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
As a historical note, X86_TUNE_PARTIAL_REG_STALL was moved to historical relics
at the time both current designs (Penium 4 and Athlon) were using
PARTIAL_REG_DEPENDENCY. I believed that main reason for this des
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25967
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81630
Bug ID: 81630
Summary: powl returns values with insufficient accuracy
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25967
--- Comment #17 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Jul 31 10:22:41 2017
New Revision: 250736
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250736&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/25967
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_functi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81607
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81614
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81592
--- Comment #2 from Arnd Bergmann ---
I have scanned the linux kernel sources for related bogus warnings and found
six others like this one that do not show up using gcc-7.1.1 without UBSAN but
do show up with UBSAN added in:
security/keys/proc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81629
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81629
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81617
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|8.0 |7.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81607
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 31 Jul 2017, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81607
>
> --- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
> I'm actually testing this
>
> --- a/gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81607
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
I'm actually testing this
--- a/gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c
@@ -2314,9 +2314,9 @@ cp_fold (tree x)
/* A COND_EXPR might have incompatible types in branches if one or both
arm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81607
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 31 Jul 2017, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81607
>
> --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
> Actually I think richi's fix is the right
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81604
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81307
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81623
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81581
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81581
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Mon Jul 31 09:34:36 2017
New Revision: 250735
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250735&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-07-31 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/81581
* m4/ifunt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81629
--- Comment #1 from Frédéric Besson ---
Created attachment 41869
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41869&action=edit
preprcessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81629
Bug ID: 81629
Summary: redefined memcpy leads to segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81607
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Actually I think richi's fix is the right one. Let me test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81604
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jul 31 09:29:58 2017
New Revision: 250733
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250733&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/81604
* ubsan.c (ubsan_type_descriptor): For
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43745
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81628
Bug ID: 81628
Summary: Backport r250637 and r250638 to the powerpcspe* target
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
