https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85921
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat May 26 06:56:41 2018
New Revision: 260791
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260791&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/85921
* c-warn.c (diagnose_mismatched_attrib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85921
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat May 26 06:40:50 2018
New Revision: 260790
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260790&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/85921
* c-warn.c (diagnose_mismatched_attrib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85936
Bug ID: 85936
Summary: GCC incorrectly implements
[expr.prim.lambda.capture]/10.2
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85935
Bug ID: 85935
Summary: [8/9 Regression] [graphite] ICE in extract_affine, at
graphite-sese-to-poly.c:287
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71144
--- Comment #9 from Arseny Solokha ---
I can reproduce ICEs w/ C testcases from comments 0 and 2 only w/ gcc 6.3. I
believe the issue is fixed on 7 and all newer branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85934
Bug ID: 85934
Summary: [8/9 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error:
type mismatch in vector pack expression)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85786
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85786
--- Comment #14 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 25 22:06:57 2018
New Revision: 260784
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260784&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-25 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85786
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85915
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis from comment #5)
> Do you know numbers of relevant revisions which I could locally backport to
> GCC 7.3.0?
You should use GCC 7 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85786
--- Comment #13 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 25 21:57:24 2018
New Revision: 260783
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260783&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-25 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85786
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85927
--- Comment #4 from Nick Desaulniers ---
Thanks for the clarification.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85906
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
After checking for possible other execution paths, it looks like the proposed
patch will work fine. It is more obvious then that, the fnode is a local
declaration.
I will commit this one as "obvious" after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85915
--- Comment #5 from Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis ---
Do you know numbers of relevant revisions which I could locally backport to GCC
7.3.0?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85930
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Maybe the easiest fix is to mark __tag as aligned to alignof (type_info).
static constexpr _Sp_make_shared_tag __tag;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85927
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't see the issue with the ud2 instruction here. The only valid thing is
for basic inline-asm statements in the functions which have the naked
attribute. It is undefined if using anything besides basic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85933
Bug ID: 85933
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/sso/p8.c -O3 -finline-functions
(internal compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85932
Bug ID: 85932
Summary: GCC incorrectly rejects mismatch of types, instead of
retrying after type deduction.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57627
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85900
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> A patch is posted at
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-05/msg01495.html
This patch fixes the ICE and related problems I have spotted. Full testing in
progress.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85931
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85815
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 25 21:03:07 2018
New Revision: 260782
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260782&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85815 - reference to member of enclosing template.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85931
Bug ID: 85931
Summary: -Wsizeof-pointer-memaccess for strncpy with size of
source
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85896
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85929
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
With size_type = unsigned long, the bounds check turns out to be exactly the
same test as the loop exit check, and FRE3 gets rid of it.
With size_type = unsigned int, it is harder. We have roughly
long int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85927
--- Comment #2 from Nick Desaulniers ---
Sorry, probably:
__attribute__((naked))
unsigned long save_flags4(void) {
asm volatile("pushf; pop %rax;ret;");
}
is a better example:
:
0: 9c pushfq
1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85930
Bug ID: 85930
Summary: Misaligned reference created in shared_ptr_base.h with
-fno-rtti
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85895
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85895
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 25 20:02:05 2018
New Revision: 260778
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260778&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-25 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85895
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85543
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85780
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85779
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85780
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 25 19:54:51 2018
New Revision: 260777
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260777&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-25 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85780
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85779
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 25 19:45:57 2018
New Revision: 260776
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260776&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-25 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85779
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85929
Bug ID: 85929
Summary: _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS, subscript type mismatch, and
std::vector bounds check elimination
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Ke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85543
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 25 19:38:11 2018
New Revision: 260775
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260775&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-25 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85543
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85915
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis from comment #3)
> If you claim that it is a bug in GCC 7.3.0, then please try to fix it in GCC
> 7.4.0, preferably without breaking ABI compatilibity...
Please try
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85543
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 25 19:24:06 2018
New Revision: 260774
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260774&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-25 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85543
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85915
--- Comment #3 from Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis ---
If you claim that it is a bug in GCC 7.3.0, then please try to fix it in GCC
7.4.0, preferably without breaking ABI compatilibity...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85915
--- Comment #2 from Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis ---
I have firstly rebuilt glibc with GCC 8.1.0 without -mfunction-return=thunk and
at that time GCC 7.3.0 and 8.1.0 were working.
Next I have rebuilt glibc with GCC 8.1.0 with -mfunction-r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85712
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
Patch from c#6 corrects a problem discovered when backporting to GCC 6. With
the two patches, no regressions are seen in trunk, 8, 7, or 6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85779
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 25 19:13:50 2018
New Revision: 260773
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260773&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-25 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85779
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85712
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri May 25 19:12:16 2018
New Revision: 260772
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260772&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-25 Bill Schmidt
PR tree-optimization/85712
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85780
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 25 19:05:52 2018
New Revision: 260771
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260771&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-25 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85780
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85918
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85895
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 25 18:57:04 2018
New Revision: 260770
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260770&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-25 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85895
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85895
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 25 18:40:13 2018
New Revision: 260769
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260769&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-25 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85895
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85780
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 25 18:28:51 2018
New Revision: 260768
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260768&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-25 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85780
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85779
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 25 18:17:35 2018
New Revision: 260767
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260767&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-25 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85779
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85928
Bug ID: 85928
Summary: Misplaced references to some options in info page in
Option Index
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85916
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis from comment #2)
> A space is missing between "-fcf-protection" and "option" in this sentence:
> """
> GCC now supports the Intel Control-flow Enforcement Technology
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85916
--- Comment #2 from Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis ---
A space is missing between "-fcf-protection" and "option" in this sentence:
"""
GCC now supports the Intel Control-flow Enforcement Technology (CET) extension
through -fcf-protectionopti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85543
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri May 25 18:04:42 2018
New Revision: 260766
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260766&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-25 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85543
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85906
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85927
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85927
Bug ID: 85927
Summary: ud2 instruction generated starting with gcc 8
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85922
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85921
--- Comment #16 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 25 May 2018, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Beyond that, #defining macros that match known attributes to something else
> seems like asking for trouble. It even came up at the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85768
--- Comment #6 from Gerald Pfeifer ---
(In reply to François Dumont from comment #4)
> I wonder if this patch could fix the bootstrap ? I try to avoid the usage of
> backtrace during bootstrap. The problem will then be limited to usage of
> debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80485
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri May 25 16:44:55 2018
New Revision: 260762
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260762&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/80485 - inline function non-zero address.
* symtab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85768
--- Comment #5 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Fri May 25 16:40:55 2018
New Revision: 260761
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260761&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-25 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/85768
* sr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85921
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85873
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |missed-optimization
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85790
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85921
--- Comment #14 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 25 May 2018, gcc at mailinator dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/install/ doesn't say anything about make headers_install.
That's because it's not part of installing GCC, it's p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85768
--- Comment #4 from François Dumont ---
Created attachment 44187
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44187&action=edit
Remove backtrace usage during bootstrap.
I wonder if this patch could fix the bootstrap ? I try to avoid the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85906
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> I've added Jerry to the CC as he's probably the most familiar with
> this area of the library. Jerry, does this one-line patch look
> correct or are there deeper issues
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85917
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The difference between -std=gnu11 and -std=gnu17 is not meant to be
significant, since apart from the __STDC_VERSION__ change C17 is purely a
bug-fix version and so there are no other seman
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85924
--- Comment #1 from Jason Vas Dias ---
Aha! Sorry, it appears that when run from command line, just the -fPIC
option appears, not the -DPIC, but in my make.log for the original
GCC build, I do see:
checking for shl_load in -ldld... libtool: comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85278
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85901
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85840
--- Comment #9 from Joshua Cogliati ---
Looking at write.c, there are multiple places where things like the pattern:
result = select_string (dtp, f, str_buf, &res_len, kind);
...
get_float_string (dtp, f, source , kind, 0, buffer,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85842
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85840
--- Comment #8 from Joshua Cogliati ---
Created attachment 44186
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44186&action=edit
Patch by keeping original length
This patches the problem by storing the allocated length in a separate
varia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85840
--- Comment #7 from Joshua Cogliati ---
Created attachment 44185
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44185&action=edit
Patch by checking against original buffer
This is one possible patch for this problem, it just checks if the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83628
--- Comment #12 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri May 25 13:56:16 2018
New Revision: 260760
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260760&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/83628
* config/alpha/alpha.md (ashlsi3)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85926
Bug ID: 85926
Summary: feature request: more fine-grained
Wno-ignored-attributes
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85903
--- Comment #9 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri May 25 13:39:55 2018
New Revision: 260759
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260759&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
* config/i386/sse.md (cvtusi264):
Add {q} suffix t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85903
--- Comment #8 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri May 25 13:38:13 2018
New Revision: 260758
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260758&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
* config/i386/sse.md (cvtusi264):
Add {q} suffix t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85923
--- Comment #7 from Sami Kantoluoto ---
Yes, that seems to fix it:
.skipblk:
.LFB0:
movq_ctype_tab_ptr(%rip), %r8
xorl%eax, %eax
.L2:
movq(%rdi), %rdx
movq(%r8), %rsi
movzbl (%rdx), %ecx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85925
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85925
Bug ID: 85925
Summary: [ARM][7/8/9 Regression] Mis-compilation at -02,
masking with 257 goes wrong in combine
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85923
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Does -fno-strict-aliasing fix this? I suspect the issue is the pointers types
"char*" and "unsigned char*" are considered to be different aliasing groups
(which is correct) and that is causing gcc to output c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85921
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 25 May 2018, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85921
>
> --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85921
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> Maybe it was changed to this to make translation easier?
No other code has similar wording of a translatable message, and for
translators it is beneficial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85832
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri May 25 12:36:03 2018
New Revision: 260756
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260756&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/85832
* config/i386/sse.md (_eq3_1):
Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85921
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 25 May 2018, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85921
>
> --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Or just get rid of the bogus variable.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67259
Miguel Ojeda changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85921
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or just get rid of the bogus variable.
const char *noinline = "noinline";
if (DECL_DECLARED_INLINE_P (newdecl)
&& DECL_UNINLINABLE (olddecl)
&& lookup_attribute (noinline, DECL_ATTRIBUTES (o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85923
--- Comment #5 from Sami Kantoluoto ---
When compiled with
$ gcc-arm-none-eabi-4_6-2012q4/bin/arm-none-eabi-gcc -v -save-temps -Wall
-Werror -Os -c skipblk.c -o skipblk.o
The following assembly is generated:
skipblk:
@ Function support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85805
--- Comment #4 from Sandor Zsuga ---
I tried it with the package offered by Microchip, which has avr-gcc 5.4.0, the
behavior is the same, bug is present.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85923
--- Comment #4 from Sami Kantoluoto ---
Created attachment 44184
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44184&action=edit
generated arm asm code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85923
--- Comment #3 from Sami Kantoluoto ---
When compiled with:
$ gcc-arm-none-eabi-7-2017-q4-major/bin/arm-none-eabi-gcc -v -save-temps -Wall
-Werror -Os -c skipblk.c -o skipblk.o
The following assembly is generated:
skipblk:
@ Function s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85924
Bug ID: 85924
Summary: [6 Regression] ASAN: segfault in
__interceptor_clock_gettime ( because 'asan_linux.o'
for libasan.a built with -DPIC )
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85923
--- Comment #2 from Sami Kantoluoto ---
Created attachment 44183
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44183&action=edit
generated x86 asm code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85923
--- Comment #1 from Sami Kantoluoto ---
Created attachment 44182
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44182&action=edit
stripped preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85921
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85922
John Simon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from John Simon ---
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85923
Bug ID: 85923
Summary: invalid code generation when incrementing pointer
referenced by pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85921
--- Comment #8 from John Simon ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/install/ doesn't say anything about make headers_install.
How/Where to do this?
If this is appropriate then it is much better than manually patching anything.
In this case I'd still suggest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85915
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
