https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91858
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
PR88074? Probably should be reported to gmp/mpfr/mpc instead (or as well).
See PR88074 for a way to create a simpler testcase for them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91855
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91853
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Bonus: do w/o gimplification...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91846
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91845
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91840
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91855
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
> But this is the OpenJDK Zero VM crashing when being compiled with gcc-8/9,
> apparently because gcc miscompiles it. I don't know which piece of code is
> miscompiled, I just see the result and I provided in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37591
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #9)
> I think this is related to bug 38470
Possibly a dup thereof? Or vice versa?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88566
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> This is a non flow sensitive warning. There are a bunch were are not; flow
> sensitivity would make this warning worse not better in my mind as it means
> in inl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38470
--- Comment #17 from Eric Gallager ---
I'm wondering if Project Ranger will help this bug at all once it's merged?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91858
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91858
Bug ID: 91858
Summary: [9/10 Regression] Compile time hog w/ complex float
trigonometric functions
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91844
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91857
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91844
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
And this will become valid (used to fail with call of overloaded ‘f(int*&)’ is
ambiguous):
template int f (const T *const &); // (1)
template int f (T *const &); // (2)
template int f (T *); // (3)
void
g (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78762
John Keiser changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||john at johnkeiser dot com
--- Comment #17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91857
Bug ID: 91857
Summary: internal compiler error: in verify_marks_clear, at
dwarf2out.c:29123
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91726
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90835
--- Comment #10 from Jack Howarth ---
FYI, Xcode 11 is now released and being pushed, via App Store updates, to
Mojave users. So the gcc bootstrap is now officially broken on Mojave and
Catalina.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83452
--- Comment #16 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-09-21 5:03 p.m., dimitar.yordanov at sap dot com wrote:
> after this fix I see.debug_info entries in the .symtab, which seem unneeded to
> me(on Linux x86_64). If they are unnecessary sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91819
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91819
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Sun Sep 22 12:35:00 2019
New Revision: 276027
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276027&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/91819 - ICE with operator++ and enum.
* call.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91855
--- Comment #7 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #5)
> > Is there anything missing in my instructions? I have provided a step-by-step
> > explanation how to reproduce the crash. I'm not skilled enough with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91855
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
"What we need
Please include all of the following items, the first three of which can be
obtained from the output of gcc -v:
the exact version of GCC;
the system type;
the options given when GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91855
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Is there anything missing in my instructions? I have provided a step-by-step
> explanation how to reproduce the crash. I'm not skilled enough with gcc
> unfortunately to be able to provide a reduced piece o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91856
Bug ID: 91856
Summary: std::list::remove(const T& value) is broken with
-D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG when value is a reference inside the
list
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91855
--- Comment #4 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #3)
> We need a reproducer as explained in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/
Is there anything missing in my instructions? I have provided a step-by-step
explanati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91855
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91855
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #1)
> SIGBUS probably means unaligned access. What is the executed code?
(gdb) disassemble
Dump of assembler code for function SharedRuntime::generate_st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91855
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
SIGBUS probably means unaligned access. What is the executed code?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91855
Bug ID: 91855
Summary: [8/9 Regression] OpenJDK Zero VM segfaults on SPARC
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80824
--- Comment #2 from Dima Kogan ---
I just tried this with Debian builds of gcc8 and gcc9: 8.3.0-19 and 9.2.1-8.
This bug still exists in both.
32 matches
Mail list logo
