https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93738
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93619
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
The target (non-testsuite) part is located at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-02/msg00837.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92587
--- Comment #5 from DIL ---
If this helps, the gcc/gfortran svn repository from 17 Jan 2019 already had
this regression bug while gcc/gfortran 8.2.0 did not. Hopefully this may help
shorten the length of bisection.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66552
--- Comment #13 from Li Jia He ---
In this optimization we assume n is either positive or divisible by the nth
power of 2.
So the result of the % is non-negative. However, it is not reasonable for
translating (a % 32)) to (a & 31). If a is sign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93619
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93696
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93675
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92906
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:994e0ad41529f5518fd013474a657968807d9ca5
commit r10-6630-g994e0ad41529f5518fd013474a657968807d9ca5
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #176 from Peter Bisroev ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #174)
> On 2020-02-13 2:44 p.m., dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> > The first thing to note is aCC doesn't use weak. Instead, it uses COMDAT
> > sections. Probabl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #175 from Peter Bisroev ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #173)
> On 2020-02-13 1:11 p.m., peter.bisroev at groundlabs dot com wrote:
> > If I try to compare this to aCC dump in attachment 47840 [details], I do
> > not see an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93418
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93402
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] Wrong code |[8 Regression] Wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93637
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93576
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] |[8 Regression] internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93576
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7276dd4c7480dd952f0d4a9322ca04ca29f5126f
commit r9-8227-g7276dd4c7480dd952f0d4a9322ca04ca29f5126f
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93673
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:488a947b2ddd57a6f44a6aecc32862f8cbf4ec77
commit r9-8225-g488a947b2ddd57a6f44a6aecc32862f8cbf4ec77
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93670
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:20ac13c895c5abe7a350de0b664abf190aa28a16
commit r9-8224-g20ac13c895c5abe7a350de0b664abf190aa28a16
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93637
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b7cbce7a174292adc7c9d6db81bba6922a591d69
commit r9-8223-gb7cbce7a174292adc7c9d6db81bba6922a591d69
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65782
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a91e5d88970c8d865a49f2a4ed4e17ee2c58b73f
commit r9-8222-ga91e5d88970c8d865a49f2a4ed4e17ee2c58b73f
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93696
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:08cf145f991327d943d785066709f5f39d20bd85
commit r9-8226-g08cf145f991327d943d785066709f5f39d20bd85
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93515
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d3266b1311723841ec553277f1fb6bfddef8809d
commit r9-8220-gd3266b1311723841ec553277f1fb6bfddef8809d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93557
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:520b364da0b20dcb492229757190cc3f30322052
commit r9-8219-g520b364da0b20dcb492229757190cc3f30322052
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93515
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:05fa0de35ec63db2c3aacd30cc34a7389b3c4e5d
commit r9-8221-g05fa0de35ec63db2c3aacd30cc34a7389b3c4e5d
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93505
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:329475795c6eeaa2b122672091c9119b9d6c5564
commit r9-8217-g329475795c6eeaa2b122672091c9119b9d6c5564
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93555
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d42f9eaa3e189d4228a4b3a63d02b83fed6385e7
commit r9-8218-gd42f9eaa3e189d4228a4b3a63d02b83fed6385e7
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91118
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b124e3c9c35121969cc23d0aea4bcb2c406fd21
commit r9-8216-g4b124e3c9c35121969cc23d0aea4bcb2c406fd21
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93463
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:244f4b8c2823531a1e479a3773272af539dda258
commit r9-8215-g244f4b8c2823531a1e479a3773272af539dda258
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93402
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3b2fbe3e723b20ea9089e5f45c55b79feb37085b
commit r9-8213-g3b2fbe3e723b20ea9089e5f45c55b79feb37085b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93418
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:764e831291a2e510978ca7be0bffb55589a5a0b6
commit r9-8214-g764e831291a2e510978ca7be0bffb55589a5a0b6
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #174 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-02-13 2:44 p.m., dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> The first thing to note is aCC doesn't use weak. Instead, it uses COMDAT
> sections. Probably, HP ld does support
> weak but it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #21 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #20)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #18)
> > Created attachment 47841 [details]
> > Patch to treat sign_extend as is_just_move
>
> Do you think z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #18)
> Created attachment 47841 [details]
> Patch to treat sign_extend as is_just_move
Do you think zero_extend should maybe be treated as such too? What about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #19 from Segher Boessenkool ---
With that above patch, I get (T0 is original, T2 is with patch, these are
file sizes of a Linux build, mostly defconfig):
T0T2
alpha 6049096 100.020%
arc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93565
--- Comment #18 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Created attachment 47841
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47841&action=edit
Patch to treat sign_extend as is_just_move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93713
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93643
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:abc79c6498a99e9c39e6056f432796c6dde3a887
commit r10-6628-gabc79c6498a99e9c39e6056f432796c6dde3a887
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91476
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:abc79c6498a99e9c39e6056f432796c6dde3a887
commit r10-6628-gabc79c6498a99e9c39e6056f432796c6dde3a887
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93713
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a0c4f5b373e236cb4af5491f50862d41fd8775a
commit r10-6629-g9a0c4f5b373e236cb4af5491f50862d41fd8775a
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93643
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93737
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
I was thinking for small N, the middle-end could make it work by emitting
copies of the sequences using MEM_REFs, along these lines:
char _2[N - 2];
_2 = MEM [(char * {ref-all})&a + 1];
MEM [(char * {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90262
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64-linux-gnu
Component|mid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93737
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Sdee the thread starting at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-09/msg01618.html
Continued at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg00277.html
This infastructure patch was committed October 2,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93731
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #3)
> These systems are EOL so we can't expect any fixes to the systems themselves.
>
> The question is "is the latest imported as an version even supposed to
> support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90515
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93228
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68061
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92572
--- Comment #7 from Walt Karas ---
I see this problem running in a Docker container on a MacBook. When I try it
on the Mac (clang, Darwin kernel), the output is 2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93576
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bacdd5e978dad84e9c547b0d5c7fed14b8d75157
commit r10-6625-gbacdd5e978dad84e9c547b0d5c7fed14b8d75157
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93738
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93738
Bug ID: 93738
Summary: [8/9 regression] test case
gcc.target/powerpc/20050603-3.c fails
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #173 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-02-13 1:11 p.m., peter.bisroev at groundlabs dot com wrote:
> If I try to compare this to aCC dump in attachment 47840, I do not see any
> calls to weak. Equivalent section to the above
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93736
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 05:59:18PM +, thenlich at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #4 from Thomas Henlich ---
> Additionally, we could also imply -std=f2018 with the .f18/.F18 suffix. That
> would m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #172 from Peter Bisroev ---
Hi Dave,
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #168)
> There seems to be something broken regarding stub insertion for calls to
> weak functions. Are we
> using the correct branch form for calls to weak?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #171 from Peter Bisroev ---
Comment on attachment 47839
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47839
GCC 4.9.4 gimple-expr.c dump (aCC)
Obsoleted by attachment 47840 as in this attachment inlining with aCC was not
fully
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
Peter Bisroev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47839|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93736
Thomas Henlich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Henlich
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93572
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93573
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93736
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 04:40:08PM +, thenlich at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93736
>
> --- Comment #2 from Thomas Henlich ---
> I don't know why the Fortran comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93737
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93737
Bug ID: 93737
Summary: inline memmove for insertion into small arrays
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93731
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
These systems are EOL so we can't expect any fixes to the systems themselves.
The question is "is the latest imported as an version even supposed to support
10.7"?
I have a patch to unsupport the sanitiser fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93678
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 03:46:17PM +, mail.luis at web dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93678
>
> --- Comment #3 from Luis Kornblueh ---
> Thanks @kargl for simplifing my still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
Peter Bisroev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47829|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93736
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Henlich ---
I don't know why the Fortran compiler doesn't treat all files as free-form
Fortran source files, unless they have a known extension indicating otherwise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93713
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93734
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93678
--- Comment #3 from Luis Kornblueh ---
Thanks @kargl for simplifing my still very long case. However, a bug has been
introduced in this version.
The nested transfers cannot be split into two as the result of the first
transfer is not a character
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93678
--- Comment #2 from Luis Kornblueh ---
Created attachment 47838
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47838&action=edit
New testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93643
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93736
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93736
Bug ID: 93736
Summary: Add .f18 and .F18 file suffixes
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93705
Kevin Hartman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93734
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93734
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93734
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93735
Bug ID: 93735
Summary: [GCOV] incorrect coverage for calling variable
arguments function with incremental expression in its
parameter list
Product: gcc
Version: 9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93734
Bug ID: 93734
Summary: Invalid code generated with -O2 -march=haswell
-ftree-vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93656
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1d69147af203d4dcd2270429f90c93f1a37ddfff
commit r10-6622-g1d69147af203d4dcd2270429f90c93f1a37ddfff
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu Feb 13 05:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93714
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markeggleston at gcc do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93733
Bug ID: 93733
Summary: F2008: G0.d output editing for
integer/logical/character data
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #168 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-02-13 12:24 a.m., peter.bisroev at groundlabs dot com wrote:
> Tonight I have been trying to find a test case where this problem can be
> reproduced with gcc and then compiled with aCC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93576
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93722
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93609
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||laurent.stacul at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93732
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93731
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> So you could just disable asan and keep ubsan (set ASAN_SUPPORTED=no in
> libsanitizer/configure.tgt for a particular darwin OS version, and if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93027
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93732
Bug ID: 93732
Summary: [10 Regression] Incorrect symbol type when activating
LTO a compile step
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93639
--- Comment #4 from raphael grimm ---
Created attachment 47835
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47835&action=edit
reduced to 11 lines and no includes
http://coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/be3bbfdf6a59b45e
on g++ (GCC) 9.2.0
o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93731
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So you could just disable asan and keep ubsan (set ASAN_SUPPORTED=no in
libsanitizer/configure.tgt for a particular darwin OS version, and if it is
32-bit only, also test x$ac_cv_sizeof_void_p = x4 ?
Of cours
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93730
--- Comment #2 from Akhilesh Kumar ---
Working on Arm architecture.
I am trying to reproduce the same with sample test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93730
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93731
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93715
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93731
Bug ID: 93731
Summary: [10 regression] asan tests cause kernel panic on
Darwin 11
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93667
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
It is easy to prevent the ICE with the following, which prevents total
scalarization from happening. However, if someone marked a field with
such an attribute, the encompassing structure perhaps should be
op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93093
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
This is https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/167
In CWG today we decided that since this is all compiler magic anyway, we can be
a bit more magical to get around this problematic interaction with con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93730
Bug ID: 93730
Summary: [Bug] internal compiler error: in make_decl_rtl, at
varasm.c:1375
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo