https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83589
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #2)
> This looks like another nvidia driver problem (with driver version 384.111).
Confirmed.
The empty branch
> @ %r36 bra $L5;
> $L5:
is translated into:
...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83900
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat Jan 20 07:00:43 2018
New Revision: 256913
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256913&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-19 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/83900
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83900
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Sat Jan 20 06:15:55 2018
New Revision: 256912
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256912&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-19 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/83900
= json.j("");
for (size_t i;;)
jservers->at(i);
} catch (int) {
}
}
$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 8.0.1 20180119 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2018 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66310
--- Comment #18 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Can this be closed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80768
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80768
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Jan 19 23:51:18 2018
New Revision: 256908
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256908&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-19 Steven G. Kargl
Backport of r250734 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80768
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Jan 19 23:37:29 2018
New Revision: 256907
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256907&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-19 Steven G. Kargl
Backport of r250734 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80768
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Jan 19 23:28:18 2018
New Revision: 256906
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256906&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-19 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/80768
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83728
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83919
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81167
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61458
Arthur O'Dwyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83949
--- Comment #3 from Peter Foelsche ---
also happens with
pfoelsch@TXA-PFOELSCH-LT:/mnt/d/BSIMSOI$ g++-7 --version
g++-7 (Ubuntu 7.2.0-1ubuntu1~16.04) 7.2.0
Copyright (C) 2017 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81167
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 19 22:37:37 2018
New Revision: 256905
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256905&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/81167
* call.c (joust): Use TREE_TYPE (source) if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83728
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 19 22:36:04 2018
New Revision: 256904
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256904&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/81570
PR debug/83728
* dwarf2cfi.c (DEFAU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81570
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 19 22:36:04 2018
New Revision: 256904
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256904&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/81570
PR debug/83728
* dwarf2cfi.c (DEFAU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83919
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 19 22:35:09 2018
New Revision: 256903
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256903&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/83919
* typeck.c (convert_for_assignment): Suppress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83949
--- Comment #2 from Peter Foelsche ---
Created attachment 43193
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43193&action=edit
*.ii compressed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83949
--- Comment #1 from Peter Foelsche ---
Created attachment 43192
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43192&action=edit
compiler stdout/stderr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83949
Bug ID: 83949
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (only with
-g)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83147
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Jan 19 22:16:30 2018
New Revision: 256902
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256902&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-19 Andreas Krebbel
PR rtl-optimization/83147
Note that crash only happens when using -g
Peter
-Original Message-
From: gcc-bugs-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-bugs-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf
Of Foelsche, Peter
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 16:06
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: FW: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (al
I removed the compressed preprocessed file, as your email server does not
accept an email of this size.
I tried before to get an account at GCC bug tracker but was ignored.
Peter
From: Foelsche, Peter
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 16:01
To: 'gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: internal compiler er
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83948
--- Comment #1 from Bill Long ---
The same code compiles and executes OK at 20 threads with other compilers. The
size of the internal file is small (700 bytes).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83948
Bug ID: 83948
Summary: Thread safety issue writing to internal file -
libgfortran
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78809
--- Comment #25 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Qing Zhao from comment #24)
> From the above, we can see:
> even with n is as big as 20, inlined version is much faster than the
> non-inlined version, both on aarch64 (no hardware string compare in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83947
Bug ID: 83947
Summary: ICE on invalid C++ code with auto: in tsubst_decl, at
cp/pt.c:13046
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83946
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=78809
--- Comment #24 from Qing Zhao ---
From the above, we can see:
even with n is as big as 20, inlined version is much faster than the
non-inlined version, both on aarch64 (no hardware string compare insn provided)
and X86 (hardware string compa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78809
--- Comment #23 from Qing Zhao ---
I have an implementation for the part C of this task in my private space:
part C: for strcmp (s1, s2), strncmp (s1, s2, n):
if the result is NOT used to do simple equality test against zero, one of
"s1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83946
--- Comment #4 from David Edelsohn ---
The rest of rs6000.md uses "$" unconditionally for the same purpose, although
common parts of GCC uses ".".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83946
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Does $ instead of . work on non-AIX though, and even if it does, isn't .
preferrable? I.e. shouldn't the changes be conditional on AIX (or just AIX
assembler, GAS should handle . on all targets)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83946
--- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 43191
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43191&action=edit
proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83660
kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82303
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Thomas Garnier from comment #9)
> I tested the change against a modified version of the proposed Linux x86_64
> PIE support. The changes removes all the PLT32 and GOT64 entry but I still
> get R_X86_6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83946
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83946
Bug ID: 83946
Summary: [7/8 Regression] Safe Indirect Jumps broken on AIX
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82303
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Garnier ---
I tested the change against a modified version of the proposed Linux x86_64 PIE
support. The changes removes all the PLT32 and GOT64 entry but I still get
R_X86_64_GOTPC64 & R_X86_64_GOTOFF64 relocations on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82303
Thomas Garnier changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #43189|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83901
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82303
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Garnier ---
Created attachment 43189
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43189&action=edit
testcase for mcmodel=large
Build with: gcc -mcmodel=large -c -fstatic-pie ./test.c -o test
Dump relocations on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83945
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
*** Bug 83944 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83945
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
*** Bug 83943 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83943
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83944
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83945
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83851
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83888
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83889
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83335
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
--- Comment #15 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The build succeeds with -fno-split-stack. Turned out that willow2 had
glibc-2.17 so split-stack was disabled and genoa has 2.23 which enables it. So
this issue has something to with compiling fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83945
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.3
Summary|internal compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83945
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83942
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83920
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83945
Bug ID: 83945
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault with -O
-fcode-hoisting
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83944
Bug ID: 83944
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault with -O
-ftree-pre
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83920
--- Comment #12 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Fri Jan 19 16:29:41 2018
New Revision: 256894
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256894&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx] Fix bug in jit bug workaround
2018-01-19 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83081
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83943
Bug ID: 83943
Summary: internal compiler error: in
get_constraint_for_ptr_offset, at
tree-ssa-structalias.c:3155
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83147
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andreas Krebbel from comment #1)
> > Created attachment 42714 [details]
> > Experimental patch
> >
> > This patch appears to fix the problem fo
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sbergman at redhat dot com
Target Milestone: ---
With recent trunk "g++ (GCC) 8.0.1 20180119 (experimental)" towards GCC 8:
> $ cat test.cc
> enum class E {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79262
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83147
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83008
--- Comment #29 from sergey.shalnov at intel dot com ---
Richard,
Thank you for your latest patch. I would like to clarify
the multiple_p() function usage in if() clause.
First of all, I assume that architectures with fixed
size of HW register
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82517
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83081
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think the bug is in do_compare_rtx_and_jump probability handling, looking
into this now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83941
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So just use some needed bit on each DIE and only prune those which don't cary
any additional information from their abstract origin and aren't referenced by
anything?
E.g. there is die_mark bit that could be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83934
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Try r256890. Sorry for screwing it up.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83934
--- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
These tests started failing again somewhere in the revision 256866 to 256871
range.
New failures:
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr83619.C -O0 (test for warnings, line 27)
FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr83619.C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83790
--- Comment #1 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cesar
Date: Fri Jan 19 14:21:08 2018
New Revision: 256891
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256891&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx] Add support for CUDA 9
PR target/83790
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83920
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc, patch
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83081
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83906
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Ah, or maybe the typedef std::__cxx11::string is not in the debug info, so
> the type printer doesn't know that std::__cxx11::basic_string is the
> same type as std::
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83510
--- Comment #6 from Franz Sirl ---
The patch in comment 5 applied to r256877 fixes the warning in both the
testcase and the original code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83055
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83941
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83941
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83941
Bug ID: 83941
Summary: Debug info generated with -flto contains useless
forwarders
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: lto, missed-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81657
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
strchr with a c == 0 codepath doesn't have to be the same inner loop as strlen
and for the returning of pointer rather than length can be more efficient than
strlen.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83833
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Rounding errors, I'll make it check within a tolerance.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83833
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81657
--- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #17)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> > (In reply to Wilco from comment #15)
> > > I don't think it's safe to compare different benchmark results like that.
> > > Bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83845
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83886
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78797
Vladimir Fuka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vladimir.fuka at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83651
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018, arnd at linaro dot org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83651
>
> --- Comment #15 from Arnd Bergmann ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83651
--- Comment #15 from Arnd Bergmann ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #14)
> Would be nice if somebody can bisect it. It doesn't look like a PRE
> specific issue because there's no relevant PRE changes in the rev. range.
> I can't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81657
--- Comment #17 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #15)
> > I don't think it's safe to compare different benchmark results like that.
> > But yes the kernel for both should be very simila
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81657
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #15)
> I don't think it's safe to compare different benchmark results like that.
> But yes the kernel for both should be very similar. The key difference is
> that strchr need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81657
--- Comment #14 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> No matter what, I don't see how you could use much common infrastructure
> here.
> Say if the tailcall pass sees strlen (something) + something being returned,
> it cou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81657
--- Comment #15 from Wilco ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #12)
>
> > >
> > > Do you have data to show that?
> >
> > Yes, on x64 I get these timings for a simple function containing just the
> > lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83651
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018, arnd at linaro dot org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83651
>
> --- Comment #13 from Arnd Bergmann ---
> Created attachment 43185
> --> https://gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83917
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83906
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah, or maybe the typedef std::__cxx11::string is not in the debug info, so the
type printer doesn't know that std::__cxx11::basic_string is the same
type as std::__cxx11::string.
In testsuite/libstdc++-pre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83940
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83906
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83651
--- Comment #13 from Arnd Bergmann ---
Created attachment 43185
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43185&action=edit
Linux kernel version of AES algorithm, ported to standalone executable
I've had another look at extracting a t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83940
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Unfortunately, on the trunk, the vect_is_simple_use call for op is hidden in
the new vect_check_store_rhs function and the dt isn't propagated to the
caller, I think we should change that.
The several
vect_i
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
