https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92819
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 6 07:53:15 2019
New Revision: 279033
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279033&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-12-06 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92819
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92810
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Dec 6 05:32:49 2019
New Revision: 279032
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279032&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/92810
libgo: recognize aarch64_be as arm64be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92836
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Removing close statement:
$ ./a.out
0 8 4
2 8 4
-10
5 8 4
4 8 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92836
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92837
Bug ID: 92837
Summary: ICE on syntax error in requires clause, in
cp_parser_constraint_primary_expression
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92836
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Benson ---
Answers to questions raised by Jerry at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-12/msg00059.html
> 1) Are you opening a unique file (by file name) in each thread?
No. The code is operating on many files, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92836
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Benson ---
Running with -fsanitize=thread (suggested by Tobias) gives:
==
WARNING: ThreadSanitizer: lock-order-inversion (potential deadlock) (pid=9982)
Cycle in lock order graph: M26 (0x7f02bb31c340)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92836
Bug ID: 92836
Summary: segfault with inquire()
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92826
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92829
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Dec 6 01:04:42 2019
New Revision: 279031
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279031&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/92829 - several test case failures starting with r278983
gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92829
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The failures in Warray-bounds-56.c boil down to this test case where the
powerpc64 cross-compiler diagnoses only three out of the four buffer overflows,
missing the one first one in f(). The native x86_64 co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92820
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92820
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at ubuntu dot com
--- Comment #8 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 92622, which changed state.
Bug 92622 Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/Warray-bounds-22.c on ILP32: missing warnings
for VLA on lines 67 and 69
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92622
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92622
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92622
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Dec 6 00:18:32 2019
New Revision: 279029
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279029&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/92622 - FAIL: gcc.dg/Warray-bounds-22.c on ILP32: missing
wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92824
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
On m68k the padding is internal, and actually part of the representation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92824
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux-gnu, m68k
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 5 23:53:09 2019
New Revision: 279024
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279024&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/92768
* gcc.dg/pr92768.c: Add -w -Wn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67733
--- Comment #7 from Igor Kozhukhov ---
i'd like to have DilOS triplets like:
Intel:
x86_64-dilos/i386-dilos
(or for 64bit amd64-dilos)
SPARC:
sparc64-dilos/sparc-dilos (or sparc32-dilos)
(or 64bit: sparcv9-dilos, 32bit: sparcv7-dilos)
it one da
Can't see this email?. View in browser
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92835
Bug ID: 92835
Summary: [OpenACC] Run time error with enter./exit data
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92453
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92820
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84255
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92206
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek ---
*** Bug 92441 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92441
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92576
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84255
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-02-06 00:00:00 |2019-12-5
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92622
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92833
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
Something similar for this list of tokens:
extern
==
==
==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 91353, which changed state.
Bug 91353 Summary: Implement P1331R2: Permitting trivial default initialization
in constexpr contexts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91353
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88323
Bug 88323 depends on bug 91353, which changed state.
Bug 91353 Summary: Implement P1331R2: Permitting trivial default initialization
in constexpr contexts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91353
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91353
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92825
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Unnecesary stack protection |Unnecesary stack protection
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92834
Bug ID: 92834
Summary: misssed SLP vectorization in LightPixel
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91353
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Dec 5 20:13:03 2019
New Revision: 279019
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279019&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/91353 - P1331R2: Allow trivial default init in constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92831
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Even better testcase that has nested COND_EXPRs:
template using id = T;
struct S { S () { s++; } ~S () { s--; } S (int) { s++; } static int s; };
int S::s = 0;
void
bar (bool cond, bool cond2)
{
if (S::s !
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92271
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Dec 5 20:06:46 2019
New Revision: 279018
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279018&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/92271 - make __is_same alias for __is_same_as.
Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92271
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92800
--- Comment #2 from Christoph Müllner
---
Thanks for mentioning that.
We have an upcoming conf call with Marvell where we will discuss this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92622
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The reduced test case below reproduces the spurious nature of the failure
outside the test harness:
$ (set -x; cat t.c && for i in 1 2 3; do gcc -O2 -S -Warray-bounds
-ftrack-macro-expansion=0 -m32 t.c ; done
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92796
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92796
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Klose ---
the revision always is the one from the LAST_UPDATED file.
This was a build on Ubuntu, which has more hardening flags enabled by default.
I'll recheck with a build on Debian unstable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92833
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92796
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87488
--- Comment #16 from Egmont Koblinger ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #13)
> but using KDE Konsole, the warnings now have:
>
>warning: control reaches end of non-void function [\-Wreturn-type\]
>
> That is: There are spurious \
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92833
Bug ID: 92833
Summary: ice for broken C code
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92831
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87488
--- Comment #15 from David Malcolm ---
I guess the other thing to test it on is on older gnome terminals that predate
the support - but I don't have one handy.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87488
--- Comment #14 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks.
systemd also uses '\a':
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/master/src/shared/pretty-print.c#L53
n = strjoin("\x1B]8;;", url, "\a", text, "\x1B]8;;\a");
I didn't see your update to this B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92832
Bug ID: 92832
Summary: valgrind error in incorporate_penalties
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92831
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Summ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92831
Bug ID: 92831
Summary: extend_ref_init_temps_1 punts on COND_EXPRs
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92830
Bug ID: 92830
Summary: -fdiagnostics-url shows the wrong URL for warnings
which are not in 'gcc' but e.g. in 'gfortran'
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92820
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87488
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92820
--- Comment #5 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Dec 5 17:51:10 2019
New Revision: 279010
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279010&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/92820
runtime: always mark assembly file as non-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92826
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
TS 18661-3 has been accepted in principle for C2x, but no-one has done the
editing work needed to get it into the (LaTeX) form needed to add as an
Annex to the C standard. Once that's in,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92829
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92826
--- Comment #3 from kim.walisch at gmail dot com ---
> I thought the name "pedantic" made it clear that it is going to warn about
> things that are just fine, and you shouldn't use it...
A large number of projects (including mine) run automated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92829
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92796
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose ---
r278994
;
ix = q.e.d & 5;
q.e.d = ix;
if (ix)
return g - g;
{
k = h = k * n;
i = i;
if (p)
i = l;
m = b();
o = m;
j = q.c * o;
return j;
}
}
$ /home/ubuntu/gcc/gcc-10-10-20191205/build/./gcc/xgcc
-B/home/ubuntu/gcc/gcc-10-10-20191205/build/gcc/
-B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92828
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Are you saying the warning shows up which causes the bootstrap to fail?
> Because at runtime there should be no out of bounds access.
Yes. It is just the warni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92828
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Are you saying the warning shows up which causes the bootstrap to fail?
Because at runtime there should be no out of bounds access.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92826
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
I thought the name "pedantic" made it clear that it is going to warn about
things that are just fine, and you shouldn't use it...
You can disable the warning by inserting __extension__ in your code. It might
be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92826
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think this is a duplicate of an existing bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92828
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Created attachment 47430
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47430&action=edit
reduced testcase
on x86_64:
cc1plus -quiet -O2 t.cc -Wall --param max-inline-insns-auto=80
t.cc: In functio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92820
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Klose ---
these are the architectures I see this:
i686-linux-gnu, s390x-linux-gnu, arm-linux-gnueabihf, arm-linux-gnueabi,
alpha-linux-gnu, powerpc-linux-gnu, sparc64-linux-gnu, sh4-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92746
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asutton at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92820
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
What architectures do you see it on? Do we just need to move the
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
in runtime/go-context.S out of the #ifdef?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92828
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92829
Bug ID: 92829
Summary: [10 regression] several test case failures starting
with r278983
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92828
Bug ID: 92828
Summary: array out of bounds access in libcpp/mkdeps.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92821
Emilio Cobos Álvarez (:emilio) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92821
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Emilio Cobos Álvarez (:emilio) from comment #8)
> Another point that someone made in the Mozilla bug tracker is that the ABI,
> in the "Scalar Types" table, specifies that enums are represented a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92827
Bug ID: 92827
Summary: Missing data/state sharing/propagation between host
and offloading devices
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92821
--- Comment #8 from Emilio Cobos Álvarez (:emilio) ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Note that for most types one ends up with zero or sign extension already due
> to C/C++ promotion rules, though in the ABI still can't use that a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92826
Bug ID: 92826
Summary: Impossible to silence warning: non-standard suffix on
floating constant [-Wpedantic]
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92821
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Related links:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46942
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/x86-64-abi/E8O33onbnGQ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92821
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note that for most types one ends up with zero or sign extension already due to
C/C++ promotion rules, though in the ABI still can't use that as guarantee, but
C++ typed enums aren't promoted.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92825
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92768
--- Comment #16 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Thu Dec 5 14:20:38 2019
New Revision: 279002
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279002&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Check for bitwise identity when encoding VECTOR_CSTs (P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92821
--- Comment #5 from Michael Matz ---
Yes, we (intentionally) haven't required any extensions to happen for arguments
or return values smaller than 64bit (e.g. we haven't even specified that
arguments <= 32bit would be zero-extended in the high bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92817
--- Comment #5 from PaX Team ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> You are right, it's wrong. Can you please explain to me what control-flow
> integrity check do you use?
it's my own called RAP (Reuse Attack Protector, see
https://pax
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92821
Emilio Cobos Álvarez (:emilio) changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://bugs.llvm.org/sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92825
Bug ID: 92825
Summary: Unnecesary stack protection and missed SLP
vectorization in Firefox's LightPixel.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92820
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose ---
I don't see it here on x86_64-linux-gnu, aarch64-linux-gnu,
powerpc64le-linux-gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92821
--- Comment #3 from Emilio Cobos Álvarez (:emilio) ---
If my reading of https://godbolt.org/z/BNHxEY is correct (sorry, still a bit of
a noob with disassembly), it looks like GCC does correctly load only the low
byte in the equivalent implementat
mp;& ./a.out
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 80 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
--
gcc x86-64 version: gcc (GCC) 10.0.0 20191205 (experimental)
Another variation of pr92486 and pr71475. This time on trunk and without
structs. Feel free to close as dup.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92818
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92823
Bug ID: 92823
Summary: Is that possible to optimize C++ exception???
I always HATE 2 phases of exception unwind
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92818
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Dec 5 13:02:57 2019
New Revision: 278998
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278998&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-12-05 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/92818
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92822
Bug ID: 92822
Summary: regressions on aarch64 after r278938
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92820
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
Don't see that on aarch64 or riscv64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92821
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92817
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92817
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Dec 5 12:35:26 2019
New Revision: 278995
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278995&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix __gcov_exit fn prototype.
2019-12-05 Martin Liska
PR gcov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92817
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
>
> as it is, the builtin-in prototype does not match what one would define in
> source code and this trips up type based control-flow integrity checks.
You are right, it's wrong. Can you please explain to m
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
