https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84765
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks!
For reference, the fix was r258565.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84888
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84887
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84789
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78499
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69395
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78741
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69395
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78741
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Mar 16 03:30:06 2018
New Revision: 258583
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258583&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Commit ChangeLog entries for revision 258582.
2018-03-15 Steve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78741
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Mar 16 03:28:08 2018
New Revision: 258582
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258582&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-15 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/78741
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69395
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Assignee|unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78741
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78741
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Mar 16 02:56:34 2018
New Revision: 258581
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258581&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-15 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/78741
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84889
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Hacker News user "earenndil" suggested:
> What about a line of ─ in between different unassociated errors?
> So if there is a group of related errors that are about the same actual
> problem, or a note assoc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69395
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Mar 16 02:43:02 2018
New Revision: 258580
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258580&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-15 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/69395
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84898
Bug ID: 84898
Summary: Fix-it hints for '.' vs '->'
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84898
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Note how clang offers fix-it hints (we don't); I also prefer the clang wording.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84897
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Rather we should not report the inline namespace __cx11 .I suspect you can come
up with a shorter t estcase which does not use any includes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84897
Bug ID: 84897
Summary: Better handling of unqualified "string"
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84550
--- Comment #16 from Kevin Buettner ---
Created attachment 43671
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43671&action=edit
GDB patch - dwarf2read.c
I've attached the GDB patch that I'm currently testing. When I try it against
eithe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84896
Bug ID: 84896
Summary: Better handling of missing for std::pair
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84895
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84887
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Similarly, in :
int i
int j;
as of gcc 8 we now print:
q.c:1:6: error: expected ‘;’ before ‘int’
int i
^
;
int j;
~~~
User "jancsika" on Hacker News points out:
> [...] the output is vi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84895
Bug ID: 84895
Summary: Smarter suggestions for "private" accessor hints
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80886
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.4.0
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78778
--- Comment #4 from Erik Rigtorp ---
Looks like this was fixed in trunk: https://godbolt.org/g/nxGRdm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84889
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Example of Rust error (showing colorization):
https://i.redd.it/qm4oceuuckyy.png
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84894
Bug ID: 84894
Summary: [F2018] provide iso_fortran_binding.h
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41897
--- Comment #3 from Damian Rouson ---
With Fortran 2018 now in Committee Draft (CD) and likely to be published this
year, it probably makes sense to close this bug report. Any features from TS
29113 that will be in Fortran 2018 have already been
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84885
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 09:57:08PM +, mdblack98 at yahoo dot com wrote:
>
> --- Comment #3 from mdblack98 at yahoo dot com ---
> I'll correct my reply in that using len > 1 outside of an interoperability
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84893
Bug ID: 84893
Summary: Rejects a valid code with variadic function template
taking a function pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82992
--- Comment #3 from Harald Anlauf ---
The ICE on invalid is solved. The invalid code still needs to be detected.
NAG complains:
NAG Fortran Compiler Release 6.1(Tozai) Build 6106
Error: pr82992.f90, line 2: Name clash between dummy argument X
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84892
Bug ID: 84892
Summary: Missing accessor hint for private field
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84885
--- Comment #3 from mdblack98 at yahoo dot com ---
I'll correct my reply in that using len > 1 outside of an interoperability
block is OK.
So it is apparently now impossible to declare c_char len > 1 inside such a
block?
Mike
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84885
--- Comment #2 from mdblack98 at yahoo dot com ---
I got what's below from Steve Lionel of the FORTRAN working groupWith what
he said you flat should NOT be able to say anything other than LEN=1 for
c_char. Whether it's in a type block or not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84891
Bug ID: 84891
Summary: -fno-signed-zeros leads to optimization which should
be possible only if also -ffinite-math-only is on
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79085
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] ICE with |[6/7 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79085
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 15 21:09:24 2018
New Revision: 258574
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258574&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79085
* calls.c (expand_call): For TREE_ADDRESSABLE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84890
Bug ID: 84890
Summary: Overly verbose notes for missing headers
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84889
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84889
Bug ID: 84889
Summary: Ideas on revamping how we format diagnostics
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66672
--- Comment #4 from Anders Schau Knatten ---
Update: There's a related issue with Clang, in which Richard Smith makes a good
argument: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35423#c2
He refers to http://eel.is/c++draft/expr.prim.id.unqual#2.sente
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84888
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84888
Bug ID: 84888
Summary: C/C++: Improve wording of unclosed paren/brace
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81392
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84887
Bug ID: 84887
Summary: missing semicolon: further improvements
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic, error-recovery
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65137
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82013
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
As
I've invited you to fill out the following form:
Professional Profile
To fill it out, visit:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfQTZkrylE1t49gjzewPQSPWHFnPtGCZfRujg_G8VTwqGrbHg/viewform?c=0&w=1&usp=mail_form_link
Dear friend,
I am a master's student in Computer Science at the Federal Uni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84880
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44033
Bug 44033 depends on bug 44035, which changed state.
Bug 44035 Summary: internals documentation cannot be fixed without new GFDL
license grants
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44035
What|Removed |A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84222
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] |[6/7 Regression]
|[[de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44035
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84880
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 15 18:04:59 2018
New Revision: 258571
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258571&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgfortran/84880
* intrinsics/kill.c (kill): Rename to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84574
--- Comment #1 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Mar 15 17:54:40 2018
New Revision: 258569
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258569&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Don't generate alias for function return thunk
Function retu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84886
Bug ID: 84886
Summary: Add static checking to library components
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84222
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 15 17:45:01 2018
New Revision: 258568
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258568&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84222
* cp-tree.h (cp_warn_deprecated_use): Declare
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55976
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
My advice would be to create a new option Wreturn-pedantic. Make this
option control the pedwarns that don't have any option. Then, enable it by
default, but also make it be enabled by Wpedantic and Wre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84841
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84765
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84885
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84882
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44035
--- Comment #7 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #6)
> Since we have docstring relicensing maintainers, I don't think this is an
> issue now.
Oops, that slipped my mind. Indeed, we can consider t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84876
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #2)
> Sorry, my bad. It is easy to fix. I think the patch will be ready today.
Unfortunately, this test also triggers more serious problem of my last patch
(r2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84841
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
On the other side, the assumption that +/* of two REAL_CSTs can be always
folded isn't false just for -frounding-math, but also e.g. with IBM long double
(aka composite mode) and no -funsafe-math-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55976
--- Comment #6 from Dave Pagan ---
Helpful update, Jonathan - did you want to follow up on this bug then? Or
should I go ahead based on your new information?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39808
Dave Pagan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave.pagan at oracle dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84885
Bug ID: 84885
Summary: c_char bind length
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79085
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Created attachment 43668 [details]
> gcc8-pr79085.patch
>
> Untested fix.
That fixes the original testcase for me. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84841
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84852
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Mar 15 15:39:46 2018
New Revision: 258559
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258559&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix testcase for PR c/84852
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR c/8485
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84811
--- Comment #8 from Zhendong Su ---
> Can you please attach content of --save-temps?
$ gcctk -O3 -c --save-temps small.c
during RTL pass: dse1
small.c: In function ‘fn1’:
small.c:12:1: internal compiler error: in smallest_mode_for_size, at
stor-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84884
Bug ID: 84884
Summary: [DR 2244] [C++17] protected constructor and aggregate
initialization of base
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84883
Bug ID: 84883
Summary: No warning when dereferencing an array as a pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81575
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Eh, never mind the first hunk then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81575
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84859
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Like moving over a const call after the stores might cause us to spill across
the call. Moving over any stmt could enlarge lifetimes enough to do that.
Register
lifetime could be so that we cannot coalesce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84859
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84876
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Sorry, my bad. It is easy to fix. I think the patch will be ready today.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81033
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8 Regression] Revision |[8 Regression] there are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82491
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> Thanks Richard!
>
> Now I still see the other issue in dwarf2out:
>
> Breakpoint 1, based_loc_descr (reg=0x751183a8, offset=...,
> initialized=VAR_INIT_STATU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79085
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84882
Bug ID: 84882
Summary: -mstrict-align on aarch64 should not be RejectNegative
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79085
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70291
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84859
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||33315
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79085
--- Comment #5 from Hein-Pieter van Braam ---
I can build the file I reported #84881 on with the following extra options: -O3
-fno-tree-fre -fno-tree-dominator-opts -fno-tree-copy-prop -fno-tree-ccp
-fno-code-hoisting -fno-tree-pre -fno-tree-vrp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81033
--- Comment #33 from Richard Biener ---
The summary is now misleading as well. IMHO the bug shouldn't have been
overloaded with the fallout of the original fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84873
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Summary|[6/7/8 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84875
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84875
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, we have a function which conditionally bypasses the prologue and epilogue
and just performs a tailcall, otherwise saves two registers (%r10 and %r11)
into %f2 and %f0 registers, clobbers one of them (%r11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79085
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84873
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Mar 15 13:10:24 2018
New Revision: 258556
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258556&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-15 Richard Biener
PR c/84873
* c-gimplify.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #41 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #40)
> Well, your patch only replaces increments it can modify possibly
> leaving uses unaltered. That's IMHO not good.
>
> Which is why I suggested to have it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79085
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at tmm dot cx
--- Comment #3 from Mart
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84881
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #40 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 15 Mar 2018, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
>
> --- Comment #39 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84881
--- Comment #2 from Hein-Pieter van Braam ---
Created attachment 43666
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43666&action=edit
Result of the compilation with -fbugreport enabled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84881
--- Comment #1 from Hein-Pieter van Braam ---
I forgot to mention: The ICE doesn't happen when building for i686 or x86_64.
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo