https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81834
--- Comment #2 from Geoffrey Allott ---
Hi Richard, I agree that this seems quite 'arcane' at first glance; I should
explain that I found it when an empty for loop failed to optimize out in rust -
the reduced test case failed to optimize in clang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81709
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Anatol from comment #2)
> Theoretically it is possible to do things like this manually. Track
> functions x86 extensions usage and save registers accordingly. But I would
> love to see a more automate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81873
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is not so much an -Wreturn-type issue but a symptom of the C++ front-end
not merging decls for globals. You filed a few other cases which are accepts
invalid which are the same here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81709
--- Comment #2 from Anatol ---
Theoretically it is possible to do things like this manually. Track functions
x86 extensions usage and save registers accordingly. But I would love to see a
more automated and less error-prone way to do it. Similar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81855
--- Comment #2 from Xingcan Lan ---
Checked diassembly code and found that __declspec(dllexport) never applied to
explicitly instantiated `Template`.
If I change the code from
`extern template struct __declspec(dllexport) Template;` to
`extern
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80938
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Aug 17 02:03:03 2017
New Revision: 251140
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251140&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] PR 80938, Don't emit frame info for regs that don't need saving
It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81317
--- Comment #24 from Randy MacLeod ---
This ICE still happens with gcc-7.2.
Here's the stacktrace:
(gdb) bt
#0 store_expr_with_bounds (exp=exp@entry=0x76275900,
target=target@entry=0x7625d660, call_param_p=call_param_p@entry=0,
nontemp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81873
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81873
Bug ID: 81873
Summary: spurious -Wreturn-type calling a locally declared
noreturn function
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81488
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Just for the record, the problem disappears with r250523, in which a change to
reassociation of multiplication in match.pd causes the SLSR opportunities to
disappear. So the SLSR problem has just gone latent,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81863
Arnd Bergmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|6.3.1 |
--- Comment #1 from Arnd Bergmann ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81869
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
It doesn't happen with the preprocessed source.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81872
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81872
Bug ID: 81872
Summary: Enable __float128 by default on PowerPC Linux systems
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81869
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #2)
> On 64-bit hosts, I got
>
> (gdb) p cfun->cfg->x_last_basic_block
> $1 = 432
> (gdb) call debug_tree (cfun->decl)
Please ignore this. I didn't use --enable-checking=yes,rtl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81869
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81870
--- Comment #2 from Petr ---
I see, so if I understand it correctly then:
1. `__builtin_assume_aligned()` should be used to promote the type to a higher
than natural alignment, for example 16 bytes for easier auto-vectorization.
2. `__attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81488
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
With a cross it doesn't reproduce for current trunk (r251128) either, but does
reproduce with r250217 as originally reported. So I can look at that. Going
to check what made the problem go away also...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81861
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|lto |target
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81870
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78666
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81871
Bug ID: 81871
Summary: bogus attribute alloc_align accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81869
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
On 64-bit host, I got
Number of expanded macros: 25177
Average number of tokens per macro expansion: 34
Line Table allocations during the compilation process
Number of ordinary maps used:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81870
Bug ID: 81870
Summary: -fsanitize=undefined doesn't pay attention to
__builtin_assume_aligned()
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78666
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
The following nonsensical declaration is also not diagnosed:
void __attribute__ ((alloc_align (1))) f (void*);
The attribute handler should check that the referenced argument has integer
type and that the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81869
Bug ID: 81869
Summary: [8 Regression] --enable-checking=yes,rtl failed to
bootstrap on 32-bit hosts
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81651
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81116
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81861
--- Comment #6 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Created attachment 41990
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41990&action=edit
Untested fix
The problem is that LTO doesn't propagate changed
ix86_stack_protector_guard_reg value:
6654
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, NightStrike wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 11:10 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I
> >> can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The error
>
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Eric Gallager wrote:
> I see Richi redid all his 7.2 release changes; does that imply that
> the server restore is now complete?
No, there's still a search process ongoing to identify corrupted or
missing files by comparison with the last backup.
My expectation is that all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81116
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Aug 16 17:21:22 2017
New Revision: 251125
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251125&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-16 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/81116
* frontend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
Misty De Meo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||misty at brew dot sh
--- Comment #3 from
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 11:10 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
>>
>> I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I
>> can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The error
>> message looks like this:
>
> Bugzilla and the res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81868
--- Comment #1 from Al Thomason ---
I was unable to attach the source files, too large. Please download directly
from:
https://github.com/AlternatorRegulator/alt-Source/archive/1.1.0.zip
-or-
https://github.com/AlternatorRegulator/alt-Source/a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81868
Bug ID: 81868
Summary: Internal completer error: Segmentation Fault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81303
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81859
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-08/msg01004.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81867
Bug ID: 81867
Summary: Internal completer error: Segmentation Fault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81814
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81866
Bug ID: 81866
Summary: ICE with a default template parameter which is a
template class nested in a template class
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46091
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Aug 16 15:25:34 2017
New Revision: 251124
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251124&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/46091
* config/i386/i386.md (*anddi_1_bt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67712
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
On 8/15/17, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 15 August 2017 at 04:10, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I
>>> can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The error
>>> message looks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81832
--- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed Aug 16 15:02:03 2017
New Revision: 251123
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251123&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81832
* tree-ssa-loop-ch.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81488
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Doesn't reproduce for powerpc64le on current trunk. I'll try a cross.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81864
Bug ID: 81864
Summary: building gcc 8 with --enable-gather-detailed-mem-stats
fails on x86-64, arm and aarch64 under gnu linux
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61373
rolf.woehrm...@t-online.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rolf.woehrm...@t-online.de
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81814
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
I wonder if I could just
--- a/gcc/fold-const.c
+++ b/gcc/fold-const.c
@@ -3401,14 +3401,14 @@ operand_equal_for_comparison_p (tree arg0, tree arg1,
tree other)
primarg1 = get_narrower (arg1, &unsignedp1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81818
--- Comment #9 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Andrew Roberts from comment #8)
> I've tried building gcc-8-20170806 and gcc-8-20170813 with
> --enable-gather-detailed-mem-stats
>
> This fails on x86-64, arm and aarch64 with the same error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354
--- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Aug 16 14:13:27 2017
New Revision: 251122
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251122&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-08-16 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Aug 16 14:11:26 2017
New Revision: 251121
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251121&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-08-16 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81818
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Roberts ---
I've tried building gcc-8-20170806 and gcc-8-20170813 with
--enable-gather-detailed-mem-stats
This fails on x86-64, arm and aarch64 with the same error.
The recently released 7.2.0 build ok on x86-64 at le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81859
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354
--- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Aug 16 14:09:15 2017
New Revision: 251120
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251120&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-08-16 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81861
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81861
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81861
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81827
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Testing a patch changing level 5 at -O1 from
> /usr/bin/time /space/rguenther/install/gcc-7.2/bin/gfortran -S t.f90 -O
1139.91user 1.99system 19:02.37elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
8035048maxresident)k
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81861
--- Comment #3 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> You didn't specify compile flags, but using:
>
> -O2 -fstack-protector-strong -fsanitize=address, I get:
Sorry, here they are:
$ /home/max/build/master/gcc/xg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81861
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> Maybe LTO doesn't handle address spaces correctly?
Er, asan, not LTO.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81863
Bug ID: 81863
Summary: [7 regression] -mword-relocations is unreliable
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81862
Bug ID: 81862
Summary: [C++11][constexpr] Constructor Parenthesized
Initialization of Member Array Crash
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81861
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
You didn't specify compile flags, but using:
-O2 -fstack-protector-strong -fsanitize=address, I get:
51: c7 82 00 80 ff 7f f1movl $0xf1f1f1f1,0x7fff8000(%rdx)
58: f1 f1 f1
5b: c7 82 04 82 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81859
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81856
--- Comment #10 from christian.tremel at itsv dot at ---
tried out the 6.4 source, same errors.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77953
--- Comment #2 from James Cowgill ---
This appears to be fixed with GCC 7. It is still broken on the GCC 6 branch
though (using 6.4).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81861
Bug ID: 81861
Summary: ASan pr64820.c testcase segfaults with LTO and
-fstack-protector-strong
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81096
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81860
Bug ID: 81860
Summary: Call to undefined inline function involving inheriting
constructors
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81859
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
Summary|valgrind error f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48863
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81845
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Aleksandr Slobodeniuk from comment #0)
> What's funny is that I didn't find any compiler, that could compile it.
That usually means it's not a bug then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81695
--- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Aug 16 11:26:41 2017
New Revision: 251119
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251119&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle/81695
* fold-const.c (fold_indirect_ref_1):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64609
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
It's because we get rid of that && 0 prior calling maybe_warn_bool_compare.
But we warn for
int
fn1 (int a, int b)
{
return ((a && b) <= 4);
}
warning: comparison of constant ‘4’ with boolean expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81845
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Aleksandr Slobodeniuk from comment #3)
> Fields of const-qualified structs and unions, that were initialized with
> const literals ARE *constant expressions*, isn't it?
No. See 6.6 p6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81845
--- Comment #4 from Aleksandr Slobodeniuk ---
> Fields of const-qualified structs and unions, that were initialized with
> const literals ARE *constant expressions*, isn't it?
Maybe that's the answer:
C11 standard.
6.6 Constant expressions.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81845
--- Comment #3 from Aleksandr Slobodeniuk ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> it has to be a constant literal.
Sorry, I didn't really specify the standard (and mess c with c++).
C11 standard.
6.8.4.2 The switch statement.
> 3 Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81845
--- Comment #2 from Aleksandr Slobodeniuk ---
Sorry, I didn't really specify the standard (and mess c with c++).
C11 standard.
6.8.4.2 The switch statement.
> 3 The expression of each case label shall be an integer constant expression
> and no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81856
--- Comment #9 from christian.tremel at itsv dot at ---
this is one more reason why i prefer the native ibm compilers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81818
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Roberts ---
I'll try the memory testing on both arm and aarch64.
I've also tried -fopt-info-all-optall, I was hoping this would provide some
info on what was happening, but it only seems to give any output under -O3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81487
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81818
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Roberts ---
Looks like this info got purged by the bugzilla failure, here it is again:
Ok, I've done some more digging.
Looking at the optimization options enabled by -O2 vs -O1, I built the test
program at -O1 and e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81856
--- Comment #8 from Andreas Schwab ---
Your g++ is broken.
configure: error: in `/usr/local/src/gnutoolchain/gcc-7.2.0/gcc-build-7.2/gcc':
configure: error: cannot compute sizeof (long long)
See `config.log' for more details.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81856
--- Comment #7 from christian.tremel at itsv dot at ---
Created attachment 41986
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41986&action=edit
build_gcc.log
to rule out potential xlc quirks, i took a run with an older version of gcc.
als
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81856
--- Comment #6 from christian.tremel at itsv dot at ---
well, it is.
root@aixbuildhost: /root # cat hello.cpp
#include
int main()
{
std::cout << "It's me,Maria !\n";
}
root@aixbuildhost: /root # vi hello.cpp
root@aixbuildhost: /root # xlC_r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81856
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab ---
Looks like xlC_r is not a C++ compiler.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81859
Bug ID: 81859
Summary: valgrind error from warn_about_normalization
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80593
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joerg.rich...@pdv-fs.de
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81858
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81858
Bug ID: 81858
Summary: Wrong strict-aliasing warning
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81857
Bug ID: 81857
Summary: istreambuf_iterator not work as input iterator
Product: gcc
Version: 6.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81856
--- Comment #4 from christian.tremel at itsv dot at ---
Created attachment 41985
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41985&action=edit
build.log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68210
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.3 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81852
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81017
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.3 |6.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81856
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
The full build log, not just an excerpt.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81856
--- Comment #2 from christian.tremel at itsv dot at ---
hmmm..not sure which logfile you are after. theres is nothing in config.log
that points to that bubble error.
root@aixbuildhost: /usr/local/src/gnutoolchain/gcc-7.2.0/gcc-build-7.2 # grep
-r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81827
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
4.9.4 seems "fine" (well, it doesn't allocate recursively but just
zero-initializes everything...)
1 - 100 of 232 matches
Mail list logo
