https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86522
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86522
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-03/msg00016.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86480
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86274
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8 Regression] SEGFAULT |[7 Regression] SEGFAULT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86274
--- Comment #19 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Sat Jul 14 21:32:10 2018
New Revision: 262661
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262661&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/86274 - SEGFAULT when logging std::to_string(NAN)
g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86524
Bug ID: 86524
Summary: std::less with pointer arguments not usable in
static_assert in constexpr function
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86259
--- Comment #30 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #28)
>
> Can someone explain why the example in comment #21 works when
> pointer arithmentic instead of integer arithmetic is used?
Because the optimization (making
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86259
--- Comment #29 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #25)
>
> Istr the proposal suggests a -fno-provenance option. How would we handle
> these cases with that?
The proposal is still being discussed and it's not clea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86523
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
One more test-case with a bit different BT:
$ cat ice.ii
namespace {
class a typedef b;
class a {};
} // namespace
class c {
struct C {
b d;
};
C e() const;
};
c::C c::e() const {
C g;
struct h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86523
Bug ID: 86523
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in gen_member_die, at
dwarf2out.c:24933 starting from r262560
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86522
--- Comment #3 from valko at linux dot karinthy.hu ---
Created attachment 44394
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44394&action=edit
sql_prepare.ii.gz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86522
--- Comment #2 from valko at linux dot karinthy.hu ---
Created attachment 44393
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44393&action=edit
gcc compilation output (including -v)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86522
Bug ID: 86522
Summary: gcc-7.3.0 on x86-only fails to compile mariadb/mysql:
error: unsupported size for integer register
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86522
--- Comment #1 from valko at linux dot karinthy.hu ---
Created attachment 44392
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44392&action=edit
gcc command line failing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86259
--- Comment #28 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Davin McCall from comment #27)
> Again, there was no pointer arithmetic (other than the line containing
> 'strlen', but that particular case the pointer has the address of the union
> object, w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86515
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86513
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86521
Bug ID: 86521
Summary: GCC 8 selects incorrect overload of ref-qualified
conversion operator template
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86517
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #2)
> I think the problem here is that you can compile PIE and PIC object into pie
> binary
He used
gcc -pie -O2 -pthread -ldl -lxml2 1.o 2.o x.a -rdynamic -flto=9 -shared
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86259
--- Comment #27 from Davin McCall ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #24)
> The code in example #21 has the same bug:
> [...]
... due to provenance, you are claiming, if I understand correctly. But I don't
see anything in the current lan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86259
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86517
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86517
>
> H.J. Lu changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86259
--- Comment #25 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On July 14, 2018 2:26:06 AM GMT+02:00, "msebor at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86259
>
>--- Comment #24 from Martin Sebor ---
>The code in example #21 ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #14 from zenith432 at users dot sourceforge.net ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13)
>
> But the symbol in question won't be USED by lto1 at all.
Ok. I didn't completely check the logic for resolutions in ld.bfd so didn't
unde
24 matches
Mail list logo
