https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83192
--- Comment #2 from Vivek Rao ---
Using GNU Fortran (GCC) 8.0.1 20180408 (experimental) from equation.com the
code now compiles, so there may have been a bug in their previous build. I
suggest closing this report.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86436
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The reason Foldable are not folded is because Foldable<0> and Foldable<42>
clases are different. Yes they have the same layout but for aliasing rules
they are different.
is also about ICF, but there are only free standing functions.
Used platform was Debian Stretch AMD64, the GCC versions tested:
$ g++-7.3.1 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++-7.3.1
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/7.3.1/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61807
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77510
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58489
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52082
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44566
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42047
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49263
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86433
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86417
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8)
> Caused/exposed by revision r262442.
Thanks for the info, Dominique.
The following patch seems to be sufficient to fix the regression:
Index:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86268
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86248
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85534
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||simon.kluepfel at gmail dot com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86262
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86416
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85855
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tomastrnka at gmx dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86330
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86167
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86220
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86435
--- Comment #4 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #3)
> But the assembler is allowed to resolve the reference directly without the
> possibility for interposition.
Hmm. The assembler would still produce a relocatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86417
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86435
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
But the assembler is allowed to resolve the reference directly without the
possibility for interposition.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86435
--- Comment #2 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #1)
> Without -fpic, f1 is considered not interposable.
That's an odd assumption. ld can interpose the definition with -z muldefs,
after all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86435
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86421
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86421
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86435
Bug ID: 86435
Summary: -fsemantic-interposition does not appear to have any
effect
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
29 matches
Mail list logo