https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #28 from Marc Glisse ---
I am also failing to see how this can happen without a bug in make or macos.
The failing command is the recipe for ${pch1b_output}. That rule has
${allstamped} as a dependency, which includes stamp-bits-sup, w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82612
Bug ID: 82612
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds on a non-zero offset from the
address of a non-array object
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Summ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82585
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Probably one form is folded to &a[4] and p->a + 4 is not folded to &p->a[4].
That's right. (a + 4) is MEM_REF (char[3], ADDR_EXPR (char[3], VAR_DECL (a)))
and (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81890
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra ---
Patch now bootstrapped and regression tested powerpc64le-linux.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #27 from Chris Johns ---
(In reply to Jack Howarth from comment #25)
> (In reply to Chris Johns from comment #24)
> Doesn't cross-compiles set GLIBCXX_HOSTED_FALSE such that install-data-local
> is set to install-freestanding-headers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #26 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, cross-compiles are not automatically freestanding, and .NOTPARALLEL ignores
any prerequisites, so it makes no difference whether you say
.NOTPARALLEL: install-freestanding-headers
or
.NOTPARALLEL: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #25 from Jack Howarth ---
(In reply to Chris Johns from comment #24)
> I would welcome a patch attached to this ticket.
>
> My efforts with .NOTPARALLEL cannot get RTEMS's cross-compiled tools to
> build. I have seen a build work ho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82607
--- Comment #1 from i at jsteward dot moe ---
Seems like a simple Hello world directly compiled with gccgo will work as
normal.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55189
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67629
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60440
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra ---
Created attachment 42397
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42397&action=edit
proposed patch
I hadn't debugged past grepping for "debugobj" when I created the bugzilla.
Now that I've looked f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80955
Mukesh Kapoor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mukesh.kapoor at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #24 from Chris Johns ---
I would welcome a patch attached to this ticket.
My efforts with .NOTPARALLEL cannot get RTEMS's cross-compiled tools to build.
I have seen a build work however most fail with a range of headers that can
var
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82611
Bug ID: 82611
Summary: Incorrect warning for redundant capture in lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82610
Bug ID: 82610
Summary: Bootstrap fails on macOS 10.13 because of abort
redefinition
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82567
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Oct 18 21:29:37 2017
New Revision: 253872
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253872&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-18 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/82567
* frontend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Oct 18 21:15:24 2017
New Revision: 253871
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253871&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
ira: volatile asm's are not moveable (PR82602)
A volatile asm stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Oct 18 21:13:16 2017
New Revision: 253870
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253870&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
ira: volatile asm's are not moveable (PR82602)
A volatile asm stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Oct 18 21:08:18 2017
New Revision: 253869
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253869&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
ira: volatile asm's are not moveable (PR82602)
A volatile asm stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82606
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||82173
Summary|ICE in gfc_extra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79795
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Oct 18 20:32:34 2017
New Revision: 253868
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253868&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-18 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/79795
* resolve.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82609
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
--- Comment #12 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Oct 18 20:19:05 2017
New Revision: 253867
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253867&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/82580
* config/i386/i386-modes.def (CCG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82307
--- Comment #6 from Mukesh Kapoor ---
Submitted fix: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg00524.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82478
--- Comment #5 from Corey Tabaka ---
>From what I can tell the standard is not very explicit about the access rules
in the argument list of a partial specialization specifically. However, there
are examples in the spec that demonstrate friend acc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82605
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82606
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to G. Steinmetz from comment #0)
Mein lieber Steinmetz,
Würden sie bitte die Überschriften dieser Problembenachrichtigungen mit "PDT"
voranstellen und sie mit dem "Meta-Bug" PR82173 verknüpfen.
Vie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82606
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to G. Steinmetz from comment #1)
> BTW, with an invalid modification (--> fortran/decl.c:3244) :
>
>
> $ cat z4.f90
> program p
>type t(a, b, *)
> integer, kind :: a
> in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82606
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82609
Bug ID: 82609
Summary: missing -Warrray-bounds on an argument in parentheses
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82233
--- Comment #16 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #14)
> Removing the last
>call execute_command_line(command , wait=.false., exitstat=i)
> or moving it before
>call execute_command_line(command ,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82233
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Oct 18 17:54:18 2017
New Revision: 253865
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253865&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-18 Thomas Koenig
PR libfortran/82233
* gfor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82606
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82605
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82608
Bug ID: 82608
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds VLA index
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #10)
> Yes, and moreover foo() could access non-volatile memory.
> And only a memory clobber can prevent the compiler from
> using cached values.
But you *want*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82556
--- Comment #8 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Oct 18 16:47:38 2017
New Revision: 253863
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253863&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-18 Vladimir Makarov
PR middle-end/82556
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82556
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Oct 18 16:44:27 2017
New Revision: 253862
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253862&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-18 Vladimir Makarov
PR middle-end/82556
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82607
Bug ID: 82607
Summary: SPARC Linux: go frontend runs infinitely on 5.4.0,
6.4.0 and 7.2.0
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82606
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
BTW, with an invalid modification (--> fortran/decl.c:3244) :
$ cat z4.f90
program p
type t(a, b, *)
integer, kind :: a
integer, len :: b
real(a) :: r(b)
end type
type(t(8, 3)) ::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82606
Bug ID: 82606
Summary: ICE in gfc_extract_int, at fortran/expr.c:641
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #10 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Yes, and moreover foo() could access non-volatile memory.
And only a memory clobber can prevent the compiler from
using cached values.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82605
Bug ID: 82605
Summary: ICE in insert_parameter_exprs, at fortran/decl.c:3154
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool ---
You cannot do that if you do not know what foo() does (it could for
example contain another volatile asm). But yes, the code as written
is not so great.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82235
Mukesh Kapoor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mukesh.kapoor at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50169
Nathan Ridge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeratul976 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82264
--- Comment #6 from etienne_lorrain at yahoo dot fr ---
fixed for my testcase (tested gcc version 7.2.1 20171012), can be closed.
Thanks, Etienne.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82574
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Wed Oct 18 15:56:15 2017
New Revision: 253857
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253857&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/82574
* tree-loop-distribut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604
Bug ID: 82604
Summary: [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 410.bwaves ~50%
performance regression with trunk@253679 when
ftree-parallelize-loops is used
Product: gcc
Vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10740
etienne_lorrain at yahoo dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||etienne_lorrain at yahoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #8 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to David Brown from comment #7)
> There is no intention to make "asm volatile" a barrier, as you get with a
> memory clobber. The intention is to stop it moving past other volatile code
> (such as oth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82233
--- Comment #14 from Christophe Lyon ---
I think I understand the problem better now, after a few experiments, and a
discussion with proot's author.
The testcase finishes with a call to execute_command_line with wait=.false, so
the main process
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #23 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #22)
> So maybe somebody should submit the patch to the mailing lists.
Submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-10/msg00045.html
Sorry I didn't d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82591
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82591
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Oct 18 14:35:26 2017
New Revision: 253856
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253856&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-10-18 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/82591
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82603
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |7.3
Summary|[8 Regression] I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82603
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #7 from David Brown ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3)
There is no intention to make "asm volatile" a barrier, as you get with a
memory clobber. The intention is to stop it moving past other volatile code
(such as other asm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3)
> I'm still not convinced this is a bug. For example, all kernel code
> uses `asm volatile ("" ::: "memory")` as barrier to stop GCC to reorder code
> through it,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
By the way, in kernel code (compiler-gcc.h) there is a comment:
/* The "volatile" is due to gcc bugs */
#define barrier() __asm__ __volatile__("": : :"memory")
So the developer(s) actually think "volatile" is u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ryxi at stu dot xidian.edu.cn
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42393|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82600
--- Comment #8 from Andi ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> (In reply to Andi from comment #0)
> > Building firefox with gcc8 trunk i get this error:
>
> This is a warning, not an error.
>
> If you use -Werror to cause compila
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
BTW, perhaps powerpc64, aarch64 or other targets could benefit from similar
approach. Shall we clone this PR for those?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82603
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82517
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82600
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #7 from Jonatha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
--- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely ---
So maybe somebody should submit the patch to the mailing lists.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42394
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42394&action=edit
gcc8-pr82580-peephole2.patch
Untested incremental patch with the 2 peepholes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The fact that flags is live is the reason why the
(define_peephole2
[(parallel [(set (reg FLAGS_REG) (match_operand 0))
(match_operand 4)])
(set (match_operand:QI 1 "register_operand")
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82591
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> i.e. for the flags we first clear %eax and then setX %al, but for f2
> cmpq%rdi, %rdx
> sbbq%rsi, %rcx
> setb%al
> movz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Nice. I wonder about one further thing.
With your patch, we generate e.g. in f0:
xorq%rdx, %rdi
xorq%rcx, %rsi
xorl%eax, %eax
orq %rsi, %rdi
sete%a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|uros at gcc dot gnu.org|ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jakub at gcc dot gnu.org |uros at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 42393
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42393&action=edit
Prototype patch
Attached patch generates:
foobar:
cmpq%rdx, %rdi
sbbq%rcx, %rsi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> I'll have a look.
Oh, I already have a patch...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66031
Mason changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slash.tmp at free dot fr
--- Comment #2 from Mas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575
Bug ID: 82575
Summary: [8 Regression] lto debugobj references __gnu_lto_slim,
ld test liblto-17 fails
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65461
Mason changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82600
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82445
Petr Cvek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||petrcvekcz at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
David Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david at westcontrol dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82600
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase:
void *b[10];
template
void **
foo (int x)
{
void **a = b;
return &a[x];
}
void **
bar (int x)
{
return foo <0> (x);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82603
Bug ID: 82603
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in ifcvt_local_dce w/ -O2
-ftree-loop-vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69698
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Dep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||82596, 82588, 82585, 82583,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82600
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82598
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Oct 18 09:20:31 2017
New Revision: 253851
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253851&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/82598
* simple-object.c (handle_lto_debug_sections)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82599
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid, wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
--- Comment #5 from Mason ---
Slightly smaller testcase, similar to bug 80907.
extern int M[16];
void foo(int n)
{
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
for (int j = 0; j < i; ++j)
M[i+j] = 0;
}
$ gcc-7 -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82602
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
