http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55125
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59350
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
enough --enable-checking=yes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59369
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Potapenko ---
Should be fine to disable this test on Darwin due to what Yury said.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56706
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regression]|[4.8 Regression] failure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59374
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Dec 5 09:12:29 2013
New Revision: 205694
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205694&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-05 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/59374
* tree-v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56787
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Dec 5 09:20:51 2013
New Revision: 205696
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205696&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-05 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/56787
* gcc.dg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56787
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biene
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59374
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9 Regres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56787
--- Comment #11 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> Maybe it works now.
PASSes on arm* now, thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59368
--- Comment #5 from ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ygribov
Date: Thu Dec 5 09:56:03 2013
New Revision: 205698
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205698&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-05 Yury Gribov
PR sanitizer/59368
* Makefi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52023
Jan-Benedict Glaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jbg...@lug-owl.de
--- Comment #15 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54300
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59368
--- Comment #6 from Yury Gribov ---
Dmitry, please close if trunk works for you.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59369
--- Comment #4 from ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ygribov
Date: Thu Dec 5 10:00:47 2013
New Revision: 205699
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205699&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-05 Yury Gribov
PR sanitizer/59369
* c-c++-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59369
--- Comment #5 from Yury Gribov ---
Mac should be fine now. Jack, could you check and close?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59317
--- Comment #4 from Robert Suchanek ---
Created attachment 31384
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31384&action=edit
LRA dump for testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59317
--- Comment #5 from Robert Suchanek ---
Dump attached.
Ah, it's not triggered on mips16-linux target but mips-elf. I double checked it
with the same svn revision.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59368
Dmitry Gorbachev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59393
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59390
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58251
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59387
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59388
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|4.8.2 |
Summary|[4.9 Regression] ICE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59381
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59394
Bug ID: 59394
Summary: Unused code generated
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59394
--- Comment #1 from smalcom ---
Created attachment 31386
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31386&action=edit
generated assembly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58251
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
I've tested this on my Gentoo box and cannot reproduce the issue
on trunk or gcc-4.8 branch.
So it is most likely already fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59371
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59379
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58251
--- Comment #5 from jpakkane at gmail dot com ---
I retried this with Gcc 4.8.2 on trusty and no longer get the crash. I have not
tried to reproduce David Kredba's issue so that might still remain.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52023
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59350
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
first FAIL r205461
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58956
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Dec 5 13:10:20 2013
New Revision: 205709
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205709&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-05 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2013-11-19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59395
Bug ID: 59395
Summary: internal compiler error (memory access error)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fort
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59395
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59396
Bug ID: 59396
Summary: [avr] Wrong warning with ISR() and -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59396
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59397
Bug ID: 59397
Summary: ICE in ubsan_encode_value, at ubsan.c:143 for
-fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59397
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59397
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Reduced testcase for c-c++-common:
typedef enum E { A = -1 } e;
int
foo (void)
{
e e = A;
return e + 1;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58251
--- Comment #6 from David Kredba ---
I "reduced" it to this:
/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-g++ -fPIC -O2 -ggdb -pipe -march=native
-mtune=native -flto=4 -fuse-linker-plugin -Wnon-virtual-dtor -Wno-long-long
-Wundef -Wcast-align -Wchar-subscripts
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59285
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #3)
> Working on this again. I'm on the 4th iteration of the fix. Bootstrapping
> on ARM boxes is painfully slow :(
I could bootstrap a patch on arm-non
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59285
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Working on this again. I'm on the 4th iteration of the fix. Bootstrapping on
ARM boxes is painfully slow :(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59285
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
How fast is your box? I'm using 4 processors on a calxeda system... It's
painful, particularly when the first calxeda box's disk died, thus losing my
build trees & test results.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59285
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #5)
> How fast is your box? I'm using 4 processors on a calxeda system... It's
> painful, particularly when the first calxeda box's disk died, thus losi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #72 from Oleg Endo ---
The original test case in PR 59343 is an interesting one with regard to T bit
optimizations (or the lack thereof):
void validate_number (char **numbertext)
{
char *ptr = *numbertext;
int valid = (ptr != 0) &
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59397
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Dec 5 18:03:44 2013
New Revision: 205714
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205714&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/59333
PR sanitizer/59397
* ubsan.c: Include rtl.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59333
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Dec 5 18:03:44 2013
New Revision: 205714
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205714&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/59333
PR sanitizer/59397
* ubsan.c: Include rtl.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59333
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59397
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58253
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Dec 5 18:07:08 2013
New Revision: 205715
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205715&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-05 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/58253
* ipa-prop.c (ipa_modify
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59398
Bug ID: 59398
Summary: Wrong bounds for allocatable result and for
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59399
Bug ID: 59399
Summary: ICE in expand_expr_real_1 with -m64
-fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59343
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to gcc-bugzilla-f5d8 from comment #0)
> Created attachment 31327 [details]
> miscompilation testcase
>
> The attached testcase miscompiles on sh4 target if build with -Os
>
BTW thanks for the test cas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59375
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Nobuhiro Iwamatsu from comment #4)
> Oleg and Kojima-san, thanks for your work.
>
> Yes, I was building on SH native.
> And I am using gcc 4.6.3 version in the host.
Iwamatsu-san, if you have some t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56787
--- Comment #12 from Pat Haugen ---
Working on PowerPC also.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59052
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59044
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
*** Bug 59052 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59044
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59390
--- Comment #3 from Sriraman Tallam ---
JFYI, I am seeing this issue even in gcc-4.7.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59399
--- Comment #1 from Peter Bergner ---
More hopefully useful gdb output:
(gdb) pr decl_rtl
(reg:DI 123 [ D.2805+-4 ])
(gdb) ptree exp
unit size
align 32 symtab 0 alias set -1 canonical type 0xfffafec0690 precision
32 min max
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49468
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34040
--- Comment #13 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #11)
> As far as I can say, the targets with this problem are: avr, bfin, h8300,
> picochip and sh (for some subtargets of sh).
>
> On avr, bfin, h8300 and picoc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59317
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Dec 5 19:39:39 2013
New Revision: 205718
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205718&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-12-05 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/59317
* lr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59385
Sriraman Tallam changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davidxl at google dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59399
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27906
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36939
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #22 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59189
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo ---
Maybe adding a "conditional far branch" insn, as mentioned in PR 54762, would
fix this problem, or at least parts of it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59400
Bug ID: 59400
Summary: [SH] gcc.c-torture/compile/pr55921.c fails with -O0 on
big endian with FPU
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59401
Bug ID: 59401
Summary: [SH] GBR addressing mode optimization produces wrong
code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59398
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59401
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo ---
An example where the base address is retrieved from the GBR in one basic block,
but used in different basic blocks:
struct tcb_t
{
int x, y, z, w;
};
int test_01 (int a, tcb_t* b, int c)
{
tcb_t* tcb = (tcb_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59398
--- Comment #2 from Sergio Losilla ---
There should be no need to deallocate. From the excerpt you copied: "If the
variable is an allocated allocatable variable, it is deallocated if expr is an
array of different shape".
For the second, the obtai
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59398
--- Comment #3 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Sergio Losilla from comment #2)
> There should be no need to deallocate. From the excerpt you copied: "If the
> variable is an allocated allocatable variable, it is deallocated if expr is
> an arr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59395
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59398
--- Comment #4 from Harald Anlauf ---
I also tested the modified case with NAG 5.3.2(951).
It agrees with gfortran.
I now wonder whether there is something special about
allocatable function results.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51523
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59402
Bug ID: 59402
Summary: [4.9 Regression] bootstrap failure on x32
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitize
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59402
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59052
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Dec 5 22:46:36 2013
New Revision: 205720
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205720&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/59044
PR c++/59052
* pt.c (most_specialized_class): Use t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59044
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Dec 5 22:46:36 2013
New Revision: 205720
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205720&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/59044
PR c++/59052
* pt.c (most_specialized_class): Use t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59044
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Dec 5 23:28:25 2013
New Revision: 205723
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205723&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/59044
PR c++/59052
* pt.c (most_specialized_class): Use t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59052
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Dec 5 23:28:25 2013
New Revision: 205723
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205723&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/59044
PR c++/59052
* pt.c (most_specialized_class): Use t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59371
--- Comment #8 from Maciej W. Rozycki ---
Richard,
I wasn't aware integer promotions applied here, thanks for pointing it
out. New code is therefore correct while old one was not. Unfortunately
neither -fwrapv nor -funsafe-loop-optimizations c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #5 from Kai Tietz ---
Yeah, the issue is the use of frame-pointer ... instead we should use here
stack-pointer relative addressing as we are that way realigned stack-pointer
agnostic.
Following patch solves the issue. Could you give
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59403
Bug ID: 59403
Summary: [4.8.2] Segmentation fault in crash_signal
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57897
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50351
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59390
--- Comment #4 from Sriraman Tallam ---
Here is the problem. GCC adds target-specific builtins on demand. The FMA
target-specific builtin __builtin_ia32_vfmaddpd gets added via this
declaration:
void fun() __attribute__((target("fma")));
Specifi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57119
--- Comment #14 from Kai Tietz ---
Does this problem still exists for you with current 4.7 branch?
For me recent bootstrap multilib 64-bit, and 32-bit are working without issues
on 4.7.x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59375
--- Comment #6 from Nobuhiro Iwamatsu ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #5)
> (In reply to Nobuhiro Iwamatsu from comment #4)
> > Oleg and Kojima-san, thanks for your work.
> >
> > Yes, I was building on SH native.
> > And I am using gcc 4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59379
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
A small run-time testcase. It went into an finite loop at -O.
---
[hjl@gnu-mic-2 pr59379]$ cat main.c
#include
typedef unsigned long int __cpu_mask;
void *
__attribute__((malloc, noinline))
gomp_malloc (size_t s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59404
Bug ID: 59404
Summary: declaration shadowing template parameter wrongly
accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59402
Kostya Serebryany changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Church ---
Still broken for me, sorry. Using SVN r205727 with the patch, the assembly now
looks like:
<_bar>:
0: 55 push %ebp
1: 89 e5 mov%esp,%ebp
3:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57119
--- Comment #15 from Dongsheng Song ---
gcc 4.7.x never have such issue.
for gcc 4.8.x or trunk, I did not build multilib long ago.
because I can not build multilib which x64 use SEH, and x86 use SJLJ. I must
build with SJLJ for x64 and x86.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061
--- Comment #39 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Sergey Matveev from comment #37)
> I've patched LSan to use the real memset(). At least on my machine this
> brought no performance improvement compared to kcc's latest change (just FYI
> -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59061
--- Comment #40 from Kostya Serebryany ---
Thanks for the feedback!
Is there anything else left in this bug?
If not, please close this one and open another for the next problem(s)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57897
--- Comment #8 from Dongsheng Song ---
It's hard to understand SEH reqiure unwind table in DWARF 2 format. can you
give me a brief description ?
Your patch does not help:
$ cat << EOF | ./x86_64-windows-gcc49/bin/x86_64-w64-mingw32-g++ -O2 -o
`
100 matches
Mail list logo
