https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:716bb02b40ecef5564abb5ba45a594323123a104
commit r12-94-g716bb02b40ecef5564abb5ba45a594323123a104
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Fri Ap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #21 from mss at tutanota dot de ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #19)
> I'm worried that there isn't enough time to find out before GCC11 release if
> some packages in the wild aren't using that option.
> E.g. I wonder wher
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.0|12.0
--- Comment #20 from Uroš Bizjak --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'm worried that there isn't enough time to find out before GCC11 release if
some packages in the wild aren't using that option.
E.g. I wonder where it comes from in this PR. Clearly it doesn't come from
g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #18 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #17)
> Can we go with #c15 for GCC11 and do #c16 for GCC12?
I'd like to kill the option for GCC11, and the solution is safer than #c15.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-linux-musl |x86_64
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #15 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> A possible solution might be to disallow the -m64 -m96bit-long-double
> combination, the documentation suggests -m128bit-long-double was intended
> as an "optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
Reduced test-case:
$ cat itanium.ii
template _Tp forward();
void snprintf(...);
struct StringView {
StringView(char *);
};
struct Trans_NS_itanium_demangle_Node {
enum Kind {};
Trans_NS_itanium_deman
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
See PR79514.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
A possible solution might be to disallow the -m64 -m96bit-long-double
combination, the documentation suggests -m128bit-long-double was intended
as an "optimization" over the x86-32 ABI.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #10 from mss at tutanota dot de ---
Turns out I was horribly wrong, apologies:
>The x86-32 application binary interface specifies the size to be 96 bits, so
>-m96bit-long-double is the default in 32-bit mode.
>(https://gcc.gnu.org/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #9 from mss at tutanota dot de ---
> To my knowledge -march=native on my Core2 Duo T8100 is enabled by default,
> so I have it added to compile a native-like LLVM for it from another
> computer.
I meant to say that -m96bit-long-doubl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #8 from mss at tutanota dot de ---
Apologies for the delay, had my account auto-locked.
While I was waiting for the unlocking of my account, I tried removing flags one
by one to see if that'd do a thing and turns out removing
``-m96b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #7 from mss at tutanota dot de ---
Created attachment 50565
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50565&action=edit
Verbose invocation of the cmdline args to reach the ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to mss from comment #5)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> > ... and what compiler options do you use please? Please paste output of
> > --verbose argument.
>
> 0 ~: gcc --verbose
> Us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #5 from mss at tutanota dot de ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> ... and what compiler options do you use please? Please paste output of
> --verbose argument.
0 ~: gcc --verbose
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
... and what compiler options do you use please? Please paste output of
--verbose argument.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #3 from mss at tutanota dot de ---
Created attachment 50564
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50564&action=edit
Preprocessed llvm/lib/Support/ItaniumManglingCanonicalizer.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
--- Comment #2 from mss at tutanota dot de ---
Created attachment 50563
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50563&action=edit
Preprocessed llvm/include/llvm/Demangle/ItaniumDemangle.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100041
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target|
24 matches
Mail list logo
