/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/8.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.0 20170905
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82105
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Dudu from comment #7)
> By the way: if you use long instead of int - you get no padding between x
> and y, so the size of the struct is smaller!!!
>
> typedef struct {
> unsigned long x:16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82105
--- Comment #7 from Dudu ---
By the way: if you use long instead of int - you get no padding between x and
y, so the size of the struct is smaller!!!
typedef struct {
unsigned long x:16;
unsigned long y:17;
unsigned short
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82114
Bug ID: 82114
Summary: gcc.dg/gimplefe-14.c for bare metal and argc is 0
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64910
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Sep 6 05:20:25 2017
New Revision: 251751
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251751&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/64910
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (reassociat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82113
Bug ID: 82113
Summary: RVO isn't applied to base class constructor call in
C++17
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82112
Bug ID: 82112
Summary: internal compiler error: in fold_convert_loc, at
fold-const.c:2262
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71660
--- Comment #12 from Thiago Macieira ---
Another problem is that we've now had a couple of years with this issue, so
it's probably worse to make a change again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81907
dongkyun.s at samsung dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resoluti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82111
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 42134
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42134&action=edit
Dump from dbr pass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82111
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 42133
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42133&action=edit
Dump from barriers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82111
Bug ID: 82111
Summary: kcoreaddons-5.37.0: desktopfileparser.cpp miscompiled
in dbr pass
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82110
Bug ID: 82110
Summary: Concept for default constructing works with new T, not
with new T[1]
Product: gcc
Version: c++-concepts
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
--- Comment #20 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Sep 5 21:52:01 2017
New Revision: 251745
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251745&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-09-05 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
--- Comment #19 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Sep 5 21:50:38 2017
New Revision: 251744
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251744&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-09-05 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503
--- Comment #18 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Sep 5 21:49:01 2017
New Revision: 251743
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251743&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-09-05 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #8 from Peter Cordes ---
BTW, all of my proposals are really ABI changes, even if struct layout stays
the same.
All code has to agree on which objects are lock-free or not, and whether they
need to check alignment before using an SSE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82048
--- Comment #5 from Aaro Koskinen ---
> Is there any workaround other than downgrading to glibc 2.24 on SPARC?
If you always re-install the 64-bit glibc build after 32-bit one, that should
restore the correct version of long-double.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81768
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Sep 5 21:32:35 2017
New Revision: 251742
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251742&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/81768
* omp-low.c (lower_omp_for): Recompute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71660
--- Comment #11 from Peter Cordes ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #10)
> Actually, PR 65146 points out that the problem is not efficiency but
> correctness. An under-aligned type could cross a cacheline boundary and thus
> fail to b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81768
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Sep 5 21:31:39 2017
New Revision: 251741
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251741&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/81768
* omp-expand.c (expand_omp_simd): Forc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82095
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
Summary|ICE in tree_nop_c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82053
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81833
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Sep 5 19:41:55 2017
New Revision: 251723
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251723&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-09-05 Bill Schmidt
PR target/81833
* con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82109
Bug ID: 82109
Summary: False positive when using pthread_cleanup_push() and
pthread_cancel()
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78015
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #0)
> > fails with std::terminate (), while works with -DWORKAROUND.
>
> It's the other way around, right? Was the test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78015
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #0)
> fails with std::terminate (), while works with -DWORKAROUND.
It's the other way around, right? Was the testcase meant to use #ifndef?
I can take a look at wra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82106
--- Comment #4 from Palmer Dabbelt ---
Ya, sorry, I misread the assembly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78015
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
No, but I'm not familiar enough with the C++ EH libsupc++ stuff to write it
myself. Jason, do you think you could try that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82064
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #4)
> (In reply to janus from comment #3)
> > It appears that the regression has been introduced by r241450, which was the
> > fix for PR 69834. Reverting it, i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82107
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82106
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Waterman ---
I believe Alex is correct, in that this is an implementation artifact that
can be fixed without breaking the ABI.
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 9:26 AM asb at lowrisc dot org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82063
--- Comment #5 from Jim Wilson ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> Jim, since you've spent some time on this already and understand the
> problems, please feel to propose a patch. If you don't get to it I'll see
> if I can find the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82108
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82080
James Almer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42105|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82105
--- Comment #6 from Dudu ---
Thanks for the replies, but I do not look to workaround this issue.
I simply wonder why gcc behaves as it does on this case.
This behavior breaks my understanding of padding.
This behavior seems wrong.
This behavior l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81787
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Accepting invalid C++ changes the language. It's not a diagnostic option, it's
closer to -std in meaning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71660
--- Comment #10 from Thiago Macieira ---
Actually, PR 65146 points out that the problem is not efficiency but
correctness. An under-aligned type could cross a cacheline boundary and thus
fail to be atomic in the first place.
Therefore, it is cor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81624
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Sep 5 16:39:24 2017
New Revision: 251718
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251718&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Avoid stack realignment if possible
ix86_finalize_stack_fram
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59501
--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Sep 5 16:39:24 2017
New Revision: 251718
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251718&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Avoid stack realignment if possible
ix86_finalize_stack_fram
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81769
--- Comment #1 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Sep 5 16:39:24 2017
New Revision: 251718
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251718&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Avoid stack realignment if possible
ix86_finalize_stack_fram
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82108
Bug ID: 82108
Summary: [7.2 Regression] Wrong vectorized code generated for
x86_64
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81787
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #2)
> > My personal opinion is that we should instead have -Wpermissive, which
> > defaults to -Werror=permi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82073
--- Comment #2 from Vsevolod Livinskiy ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #1)
> Could you post the output of g++ -v so we have version and target info
> please?
Revision is 251589
>$ g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
COLLECT_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82106
--- Comment #2 from Alex Bradbury ---
Same problem with `-mstrict-align`, which as you say makes this worse.
I'm actually not sure if this is an ABI-visible issue. The vararg save area and
it's location is basically required by the ABI due to th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82106
--- Comment #1 from Palmer Dabbelt ---
Ugh. I'd really like to call this a bug and fix it, but since it'll
technically break the ABI it'll require some more thought.
Does "-mstrict-align" change the behavior? That would be a good argument to
f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82107
--- Comment #1 from loquens at yandex dot ru ---
Additional research found, that error produced by
-O1 and -finline-small-functions -fipa-icf -foptimize-sibling-calls.
All three flags must be present to get an error.
If you exclude -foptimize-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82107
Bug ID: 82107
Summary: O2 optimisation on amd64 leads to error
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82073
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82072
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82072
--- Comment #16 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Sep 5 15:55:04 2017
New Revision: 251717
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251717&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/82072
* convert.c (convert_to_integer_1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82072
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82075
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82080
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Created attachment 42128
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42128&action=edit
error messages printed when trying to compile
I can't reproduce this bug on i386-apple-darwin9.8.0; with -m32 I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71660
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Whether Clang warns or not depends on the -std mode active, as that decides the
definition of a POD it uses. GCC always uses the C++11 rule, which I quoted in
comment 9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82105
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82043
--- Comment #7 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Sorry, I'm not sure what is causing that error.
Why don't you just compile GCC trunk?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
We need to first decide what we want out of i386 atomic.
Please send a post to
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/ia32-abi
ble-gdb
--disable-libssp --with-newlib --with-arch=rv32ima --with-abi=ilp32
--prefix=/home/asb/work/2017_09_05_gcc_build/combined/build/built
Thread model: single
gcc version 8.0.0 20170905 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-v' '-c' '-march=rv32ifd' '-mabi=i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71660
--- Comment #8 from Thiago Macieira ---
(In reply to Peter Cordes from comment #7)
> 8B alignment is required for 8B objects to be efficiently lock-free (using
> SSE load / store for .load() and .store(), see
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
bogcujd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80865
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #6 from Peter Cordes ---
My test-case on godbolt: https://godbolt.org/g/MmLycw. gcc8 snapshot still
only has 4B alignment
Fun fact: clang4.0 -m32 inlines lock cmpxchg8b for 8-byte atomic load/store.
This is ironic, because it *does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68159
--- Comment #15 from Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11)
> *** Bug 68383 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Bug 68383 was fixed by r245978
So, this one is also fixed right ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
--- Comment #16 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Sep 5 13:33:44 2017
New Revision: 251714
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251714&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2017-09-05 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/81942
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71660
--- Comment #7 from Peter Cordes ---
C++11 std::atomic<> is correct, and the change was necessary.
8B alignment is required for 8B objects to be efficiently lock-free (using SSE
load / store for .load() and .store(), see
https://stackoverflow.co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81768
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42126
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42126&action=edit
gcc8-pr81768-2.patch
And an untested fix for the other reported bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
Peter Cordes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot ca
--- Comment #4 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80865
--- Comment #3 from Christian Cornelssen ---
Created attachment 42124
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42124&action=edit
Darwin/PPC patches mentioned in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2017-01/msg02971.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80865
Christian Cornelssen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pkg at 1tein dot de
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82084
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Sep 5 12:58:00 2017
New Revision: 251711
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251711&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-09-05 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/82084
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82105
--- Comment #4 from Dudu ---
Sorry, Andreas
I don't understand your comment - can you please explain?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82105
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
Bit fields are not allocated across unit boundaries.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82078
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81768
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42123
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42123&action=edit
gcc8-pr81768.patch
Untested fix for the simd expansion bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82105
--- Comment #2 from Dudu ---
I don't think this is how bitfields works.
In the following structs there are no padding between x an y
typedef struct {
unsigned int x:1;
unsigned int y:1;
unsigned short z;
} XXX;
nor in th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81768
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82105
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This adds -Wnon-pod-varargs, enabled by -Wconditionally-supported, allowing
e.g.
-Wconditionally-supported -Werror=non-pod-varargs
diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c.opt b/gcc/c-family/c.opt
index 3435fe90cca..b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82105
Bug ID: 82105
Summary: unexpected padding in a struct
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82043
--- Comment #6 from martin ---
Created attachment 42122
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42122&action=edit
recompiled-gcc7.2-with-patch
../../../gcc-7.2.0/libgo/go/runtime/mheap.go:867:7: error: type mismatch
between switch v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82043
--- Comment #5 from martin ---
I recompiled gcc 7.2.0 with your applied patch:
I did:
cd gcc-7.2.0/
patch gcc/go/gofrontend/types.cc < ../f9bad13.diff
cd ..
cd gcc-7.2.0-go/
../gcc-7.2.0/configure CC=/opt/gcc-7.1/bin/gcc CXX=/opt/gcc-7.1/bin/g+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79542
Pierre-Marie de Rodat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79542
--- Comment #11 from pmderodat at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: pmderodat
Date: Tue Sep 5 11:04:41 2017
New Revision: 251709
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251709&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR79542][Ada] Fix ICE in dwarf2out.c with nested func.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67559
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bisqwit at iki dot fi
--- Comment #15 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82004
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 5 Sep 2017, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82004
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81787
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81787
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #2)
> My personal opinion is that we should instead have -Wpermissive, which
> defaults to -Werror=permissive and works like any other -W* option should
> (and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82104
Bug ID: 82104
Summary: __stack_chk_fail should not use lazy binding on ELF
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82004
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81787
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62235
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
