https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83859
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84251
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82049
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71361
Leslie Zhai changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lesliezhai at llvm dot org.cn
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82930
Timothy VanSlyke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vanslyke.t at husky dot neu.edu
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71166
Leslie Zhai changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lesliezhai at llvm dot org.cn
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84241
Paul Hua changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paul.hua.gm at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243
--- Comment #10 from igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #8)
> > --- Comment #7 from igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com ---
> [...]
> >> Btw., I'm seeing the cet-intrin-[34].c ICEs too on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243
--- Comment #9 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Tue Feb 6 23:31:09 2018
New Revision: 257432
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257432&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Don't pass x86-only options on non-x86 targets in
c-c++-common/fcf-protection-[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com ---
[...]
>> Btw., I'm seeing the cet-intrin-[34].c ICEs too on i386-pc-solaris2.11. The
>> two
>> failures are completely differ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243
igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||igor.v.tsimbalist at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86-64-none-linux-gnu, |x86-64-*-*, i?86-*-*,
|a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71662
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79016
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
This is also affects overflowing buffers allocated by a user-defined function
declared with attribute alloc_size.
$ cat t.c && gcc -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -O2 -S -Wall
-fdump-tree-optimized=/dev/stdout t.c
#inclu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84248
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, ice-on-valid-code
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84252
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started with r255867. I'll have a look tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84255
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80589
Göran Uddeborg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84256
Bug ID: 84256
Summary: Use object size checking built-ins in libstdc++
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84252
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84255
Bug ID: 84255
Summary: accepts redefinition of template variable
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81824
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54924
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 43350
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43350&action=edit
Patch to use __builtin_object_size in std::string
So it isn't lost, here's a prototype I was working on last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54924
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> I'm starting to think we should just make libstdc++ headers 100%
> warning-free
We're closer to that now, but not in a position to stop marking our headers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84252
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78303
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
The memory layout is correct. It should not change regardless of endianness
settings. (The byte order of each element is dependent upon the fundamental
endianness, but the order of array elements with respec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84252
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
In vt_add_function_parameter:
(gdb) p incoming
$6 = (parallel:OI [
(expr_list:REG_DEP_TRUE (reg:V4SI 32 v0 [ qIn0 ])
(const_int 0 [0]))
(expr_list:REG_DEP_TRUE (reg:V4SI 33 v1 [ qI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84146
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 6 20:32:45 2018
New Revision: 257431
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257431&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/84146
* config/i386/i386.c (rest_of_insert_endbr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84252
Bug ID: 84252
Summary: ICE in get_tracked_reg_offset when building libvpx for
aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84154
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue Feb 6 20:15:40 2018
New Revision: 257429
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257429&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-02-06 Michael Meissner
PR target/84154
* co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84248
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84248
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
I am testing this patch
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index 6c612c77987..1fa8bebca1d 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@ -4915,7 +4915,7 @@ ix86_optio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84248
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
[hjl@gnu-skx-1 libitm]$
/export/build/gnu/gcc-test/build-x86_64-linux/./gcc/xg++
-B/export/build/gnu/gcc-test/build-x86_64-linux/./gcc/ -nostdinc++ -nostdinc++
-I/export/build/gnu/gcc-test/build-x86_64-linux/x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84251
Bug ID: 84251
Summary: Performance regression in gcc 8 when comparing
floating point numbers
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84250
Bug ID: 84250
Summary: Symbol collision when using both Address and Undefined
Behavior sanitizers (-fsanitize=address,undefined)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84248
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243
--- Comment #2 from James Greenhalgh ---
gcc -v:
Configured with: .../gcc/configure --disable-bootstrap
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --disable-multilib --disable-libsanitizer
--prefix=.../build/install/
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84248
Bug ID: 84248
Summary: r25742 failed to bootstrap in libitm
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83456
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83456
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
And another test case from bug 84095 comment #9, also due to the check in
gimple-fold.c. This one seems closer to the first test case in comment #0.
$ cat t.c && gcc -O2 -S -Wall t.c
extern void* memcpy (vo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243
--- Comment #1 from igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com ---
Hi,
I do not have 'none-linux' platform at hand. Could you please show the output
for the failing tests?
Thanks,
Igor
> -Original Message-
> From: jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83456
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84095
--- Comment #17 from Martin Sebor ---
I've reduced the test case from comment #14 to the one below. I'm inclined to
think the warning is justified. As you say, the code clearly does use the same
pointer for both the source and the destination,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82210
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84246
Bug ID: 84246
Summary: [7/8 Regression] ICE in conv_caf_send, at
fortran/trans-intrinsic.c:1950
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84245
Bug ID: 84245
Summary: [7/8 Regression] ICE in delete_root, at
fortran/bbt.c:150
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84095
--- Comment #16 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks for the test case in comment #14. I've reproduced the warning and will
look into it.
The false positive from comment #9 isn't fixed yet. I'm assuming it's due to
the same root cause as bug 83456 tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84244
Bug ID: 84244
Summary: [7/8 Regression] ICE in
recompute_tree_invariant_for_addr_expr, at tree.c:4535
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #30 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #29)
> I still haven't found a commit where the test passes with
> -fno-vect-cost-model (before -O3).
>
> I went back to r193053 (Nov 1, 2012), where I was able to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84222
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||79078
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84225
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Tue Feb 6 17:11:01 2018
New Revision: 257420
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257420&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/84225
Add test for previous commit for PR84225.
Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243
Bug ID: 84243
Summary: [8 Regression] gcc.target/i386/cet-intrin-4.c at
r257414
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84222
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84241
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84242
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #29 from Christophe Lyon ---
I still haven't found a commit where the test passes with -fno-vect-cost-model
(before -O3).
I went back to r193053 (Nov 1, 2012), where I was able to build GCC but the
test fails.
With a revision 1 month
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84242
--- Comment #1 from James Greenhalgh ---
Also gcc.target/i386/mvc9.c on x86-64-none-linux-gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84242
Bug ID: 84242
Summary: [8 Regression] g++.dg/torture/pr67600.C at r257412
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84241
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78303
kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57547
--- Comment #3 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Oops. Sent that comment to the wrong bugzilla. Please disregard.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84241
Bug ID: 84241
Summary: [8 regression] test case g++.dg/torture/pr67600.C
fails starting with r257412
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57547
--- Comment #2 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The gcc.pdf documentation states the following:
-maltivec=be
Generate AltiVec instructions using big-endian element order, regardless
of whether the target is big- or little-endian.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Jenner ---
I have committed another small patch to the .opt files:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00247.html
and updated my docs patch per Joseph's feedback:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83828
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Kirill Yukhin from comment #10)
> HJ, I cannot reproduce this fail on recent SDE.
>
> Here's what I have in gcc.log:
>
> spawn -ignore SIGHUP /export/kyukhin/gcc/bld-svn/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/xgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81674
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
But -Weffc++ also warns about members that don't need to be initialized, so is
useless in detecting uninitialized data.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84225
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Tue Feb 6 15:44:51 2018
New Revision: 257416
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257416&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/84225
* tree-eh.c (find_trapping_ove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84225
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84100
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
And I see very similar problem for -falign-loops, ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84177
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81674
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84240
Bug ID: 84240
Summary: Error in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2246
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84145
--- Comment #3 from itsimbal at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: itsimbal
Date: Tue Feb 6 15:25:31 2018
New Revision: 257414
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257414&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix checking -mibt and -mshstk options for control flow pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84238
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Untested fix:
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c
@@ -1899,7 +1899,10 @@ maybe_diag_stxncpy_trunc (gimple_stmt_iterator gsi, tree
src, tree cnt)
{
tree range[2];
get_ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84239
Bug ID: 84239
Summary: Reimplement rdssp[d|q] and incssp[d|q] CET intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84237
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43348
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43348&action=edit
gcc8-pr84237.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8 Regression] linking|[7 Regression] linking
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84217
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
C testcase:
...
void
foo (void)
{
#pragma acc parallel loop tile (2, 3)
for (short i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
for (short j = 0; j < 10; ++j)
;
}
...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84217
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Tentative patch:
...
diff --git a/gcc/omp-expand.c b/gcc/omp-expand.c
index 90e0631..bb20490 100644
--- a/gcc/omp-expand.c
+++ b/gcc/omp-expand.c
@@ -1433,6 +1433,8 @@ expand_oacc_collapse_init (const struct o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84238
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84238
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84238
Bug ID: 84238
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE tree check: expected integer_cst,
have plus_expr in to_wide, at tree.h:5527
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84237
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84237
Bug ID: 84237
Summary: [8 Regression] xen build faiulre only zero
initializers are allowed in section
'.bss.page_aligned.const'
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84215
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518
--- Comment #28 from Christophe Lyon ---
It's possible that my bisect script got confused by the fact the GCC started
ICEing at -O2 on this test at r197671.
Investigating
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84235
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43345
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43345&action=edit
gcc8-pr84235.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84215
--- Comment #3 from Christophe Lyon ---
> FAIL: context
> but the next build is still running, I don't know yet if it passes.
Next build completed, and:
PASS: context
Did something change wrt this test since yesterday?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84235
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84235
Bug ID: 84235
Summary: [8 Regression] Miscompilation of floating point code
by dom2
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84234
Bug ID: 84234
Summary: #pragma omp declare simd is ignored
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84100
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84095
--- Comment #15 from Arnd Bergmann ---
(In reply to Arnd Bergmann from comment #14)
> I applied the patches and seem to still get a warning for this
I also just got the one from comment #9 again and found that the reduced test
case is still affe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004
--- Comment #25 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Feb 6 13:27:04 2018
New Revision: 257412
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257412&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/81004
* lto.c: Include builtins.h
(regist
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84228
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84228
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Feb 6 13:25:54 2018
New Revision: 257411
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257411&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/84228
* tree-ssa-strlen.c (maybe_d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83179
Andrey Guskov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
