https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88213
Bug ID: 88213
Summary: ICE in change_address_1, at emit-rtl.c:2286
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88212
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, ra
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88212
Bug ID: 88212
Summary: IRA Register Coalescing not working for the testcase
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88190
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #0)
> While playing with pr88052 I have found that the value of
> compile_options.allow_std passed to libgfortran is the same (4095) when
> compiling with -std=g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #31 from Christian Häggström ---
What you describe Sandra is mentioned in the man page for longjmp(3). Maybe we
can steal some of its documentation.
Caveats
If the function which called setjmp() returns before longjmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88210
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88208
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88211
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87756
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon Nov 26 23:55:36 2018
New Revision: 266494
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266494&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 87756 - missing unterminated argument warning using address of a consta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88211
Bug ID: 88211
Summary: missing warning on printf %ls and unterminated wide
member array
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88120
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] ICE in |[7/8 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88120
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Nov 26 23:26:40 2018
New Revision: 266492
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266492&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/88120 - ICE when calling save_expr in a template.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The only asan execution failures I see on Solaris 11/SPARC are
>
> c-c++-common/asan/pointer-compare-1.c
> c-c++-common/asan/pointer-compare-2.c
> c-c++-common/asan/pointer-subtract-1.c
> c-c++-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ---
> This is weird: this test PASSes for me on Solaris 11.3, 11.4 and 11.5,
> both 32 and 64-bit, as and gas.
A more useful backtrace just before the crash:
(gdb) bt
#0 0xfe8d9080 in free ()
from /home/bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78206
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87836
--- Comment #20 from Gary Mills ---
For a test, I defined the symbol DEBUG_ET in gcc-7.3.0/gcc/et-forest.c .
During
the build, I got this ICE and a backtrace:
/export/home/mills/Downloads/code/oi-userland/components/developer/gcc-7/build/sparcv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52795
--- Comment #15 from Mike Stump ---
Can the bug be marked as resolved? :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71044
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86756
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88207
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Thank you for reporting it. I've started to work on the PR. I'll keep you
informed about the progress.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88195
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 26 21:26:19 2018
New Revision: 266487
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266487&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/88195
* config/i386/i386.c (def_builtin2): If tc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88090
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 26 21:25:22 2018
New Revision: 266486
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266486&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/88090
* obj-c++.dg/attributes/method-nonnull-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86900
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 26 21:24:00 2018
New Revision: 266485
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266485&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/86900
* dwarf2out.c (secname_for_decl): For functio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58397
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58370
Bug 58370 depends on bug 58397, which changed state.
Bug 58397 Summary: Please add host_hooks for NetBSD to make precompiled headers
work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58397
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58397
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Nov 26 21:21:16 2018
New Revision: 266484
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266484&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/58397
* config.host (*-*-netbsd*): Use x-netbsd a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88210
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Even without a fix-it, "has not been declared" would be more helpful than "is
not a template".
Clang is more informative (although wrong about the instantiation needing to
occur in namespace x):
expl.cc:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88210
Bug ID: 88210
Summary: Add fix-it hint for explicit template instantiations
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88178
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Fixed for gcc-9, no backports planned.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88178
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu|x86
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88178
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Nov 26 20:50:57 2018
New Revision: 266480
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266480&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/88178
* config/i386/i386.c (dbx_register
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88209
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88209
Bug ID: 88209
Summary: Inefficient array initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88208
Bug ID: 88208
Summary: new test case c-c++-common/builtin-has-attribute-3.c
in r266335 has multiple excess errors
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81033
--- Comment #50 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Mon Nov 26 19:49:19 2018
New Revision: 266478
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266478&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
darwin - backport r263763 to fix PR81033
2018-11-26 Iain Sandoe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81733
--- Comment #24 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Mon Nov 26 19:49:19 2018
New Revision: 266478
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266478&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
darwin - backport r263763 to fix PR81033
2018-11-26 Iain Sandoe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52795
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Mon Nov 26 19:49:19 2018
New Revision: 266478
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266478&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
darwin - backport r263763 to fix PR81033
2018-11-26 Iain Sandoe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88207
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88207
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i?86-*-*, x86_64-*-*|i?86-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87486
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88184
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Interesting that on both my computers I see
$ ./cc1plus -quiet 88184.C -std=c++2a
88184.C: In function ‘void g()’:
88184.C:10:12: error: no matching function for call to ‘f()’
10 | f < T > ();
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57182
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57182
--- Comment #3 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sandra
Date: Mon Nov 26 18:22:19 2018
New Revision: 266473
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266473&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-26 Sandra Loosemore
PR c/57182
gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88206
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88207
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88207
Bug ID: 88207
Summary: [9 regression] gcc.target/i386/pr22076.c etc. FAIL
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16615
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I'd suggest reviewing the set of files changed to see if any are generated
files, or their sources (configure.ac, aclocal.m4, etc.), and doing a
regeneration in that case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Robert J. Simpson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||robert.simpson.lists@gmail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88055
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
See rs6000.c:validate_condition_mode. This is:
r36191 (from 2000), original;
r39610 (from 2001), -ffast-math;
r40300 (from 2001), -funsafe-math-optimizations;
r55904 (from 2002), -ffinite-math-only.
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88206
Bug ID: 88206
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in gfc_match_type_spec, at
fortran/match.c:2229
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78892
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #2 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70817
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #2 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88205
Bug ID: 88205
Summary: ICE in gfc_wide_strncasecmp, at fortran/scanner.c:249
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66681
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #12 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86900
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45097
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45097&action=edit
gcc9-pr86900.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88204
Bug ID: 88204
Summary: New test case
26_numerics/complex/operators/more_constexpr.cc from
r266416 fails
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88203
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87947
--- Comment #5 from comm+gnu at squotd dot net ---
OK, thanks. I appreciate the explanation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88203
Bug ID: 88203
Summary: assert does not compile with OpenMP's pragma omp
parallel for default(none)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87075
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Nov 26 15:53:43 2018
New Revision: 266468
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266468&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/87075 - ICE with constexpr array initialization.
My patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84281
--- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Nov 26 15:53:48 2018
New Revision: 266469
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266469&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84281
2018-02-12 Richard Biener
* constexpr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88182
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88182
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 26 15:37:35 2018
New Revision: 266467
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266467&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-26 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/88182
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88184
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88202
Bug ID: 88202
Summary: FAIL: runtime/pprof
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
Assignee: ian at a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88175
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45077|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88175
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #8)
> Do you agree this warning output should be changed to clarify?
Yes, there's plenty of room to improve it.
> I understand your reply about it being non-POD when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88201
Bug ID: 88201
Summary: lambda function fails to compile, when deactivated by
a constexpr and deduced return type
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87937
--- Comment #6 from Tomáš Trnka ---
The above is from GNU Fortran (GCC) 8.2.1 20181126
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88181
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45094
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45094&action=edit
gcc9-pr88181.patch
This untested patch fixed the ICE for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87937
--- Comment #5 from Tomáš Trnka ---
Could you please kindly suggest what do I need to do to get this out of
WAITING? I will gladly assist with any debugging and testing, but I'm not well
versed enough with GCC internals to fix the underlying issu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40196
Manfred Schwarb changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manfred99 at gmx dot ch
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86952
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, I've updated slightly the micro-benchmark and I see following difference:
https://github.com/marxin/microbenchmark/tree/retpoline-table
on my Haswell desktop:
./test
no jump table: 4265908653
jump table
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87645
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 26 14:16:01 2018
New Revision: 266461
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266461&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-10-19 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/87645
Backp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87645
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88195
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88175
--- Comment #10 from Jonny Grant ---
I wonder if the "POD" location of the struct is also still recorded? In which
case could just output that.. rather than the implicitly defined
copy-constructor.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88191
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88200
Bug ID: 88200
Summary: [9 Regression] ada bootstrap failure on
alpha-linux-gnu (aised STORAGE_ERROR : stack overflow
or erroneous memory access)
Product: gcc
Vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88191
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
Author: doko
Date: Mon Nov 26 13:30:50 2018
New Revision: 266459
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266459&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-26 Matthias Klose
PR ada/88191
* libgnarl/s-lin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87745
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 26 13:31:21 2018
New Revision: 266460
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266460&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-26 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87665
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 26 13:31:21 2018
New Revision: 266460
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266460&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-26 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87610
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 26 13:31:21 2018
New Revision: 266460
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266460&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-26 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87665
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87610
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88191
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||charlet at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88199
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |8.2.1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88181
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
The C++ FE does
if (flag_pack_struct)
{
tree v;
TYPE_PACKED (t) = 1;
/* Even though the type is being defined for the first time
here, there might have been a forward declar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88191
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose ---
that fixes the build, taken from the sparc64 file.
--- gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-linux__alpha.ads (revision 266457)
+++ gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-linux__alpha.ads (working copy)
@@ -87,6 +87,7 @@
SIGKILL: constan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88181
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #4)
> It is possible that the verifier is just overzelaous here, but it seems it
> really does not make sense to have packed variant of nonpacked structure and
> vice ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87988
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
>
> Honza - can you test the effect of this patch please?
Thanks! I am just redoing the tests (rebuilding firefoxes with updated
tree), so i will do that today or tomorrow.
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88181
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
It is possible that the verifier is just overzelaous here, but it seems it
really does not make sense to have packed variant of nonpacked structure and
vice versa because the memory layout is different. So i wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
--- Comment #32 from H.J. Lu ---
*** Bug 86831 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86831
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87988
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 45092
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45092&action=edit
better patch
This is a less hacky approach mimicking TREE_DIEs. It elides BLOCK
BLOCK_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN if that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88181
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88189
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88199
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88181
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> How could ICE start with a library change?
It was dependent to how Tuple class was defined. However doing a pre-processed
source file I see it starting from r2232
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
