http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60185
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #2 from Joey Ye ---
Created attachment 32131
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32131&action=edit
The function that causes the regression
Attached Proc_8 from dhrystone, header file and good/bad.s
It is the only func
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60191
Bug ID: 60191
Summary: test case gfortran.dg/dynamic_dispatch_1/3.f03 fail on
ARMv7
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60191
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This sounds like the front-end is not producing the correct function type for
the call.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60175
--- Comment #2 from Yury Gribov ---
Created attachment 32132
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32132&action=edit
Proposed patch
So it looks like we are using wrong function here. Frequency does not need to
have the same bounds a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60175
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60192
Bug ID: 60192
Summary: Test case gcc.dg/tree-ssa/sra-12.c fails on ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: mi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60192
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Well, then SRA didn't work. The aggregate copy should have been elided and
the local 'l' should have been removed:
Released 11 names, 183.33%, removed 11 holes
foo (struct S * p)
{
int l$i;
int _3;
:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60183
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60183
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Updated testcase that segfaults for me, no -fsanitize=address is then needed to
trigger it. Works with -O0 or -O? -fno-tree-phiprop:
unsigned char c[0x31] = { 1 };
int j = 2;
static void
foo (unsigned l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60183
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Updated testcase that segfaults for me, no -fsanitize=address is then needed
> to trigger it. Works with -O0 or -O? -fno-tree-phiprop:
>
> unsigned char c[0x300
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60193
Bug ID: 60193
Summary: [4.7.4/4.8/4.9 regression] ICE on big nested frame
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56807
--- Comment #25 from Eric Botcazou ---
The patch has introduced ICEs on x86-64, see PR target/60193.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60181
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I think that it needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis whether the
runtime complex division routine is "precise enough". But yes, you
generally cannot expect constant folding and runtime execution to pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60193
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60193
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60193
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz ---
I built recent 4.8 cross-compiler and tested. Again no ICE for this testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60193
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
Sorry, minor pilot error, try with:
void foo (int i)
{
void nested (void)
{
char arr[(1U << 31) + 4];
arr[i] = 0;
}
nested ();
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60177
--- Comment #1 from Filip Roséen ---
Created attachment 32133
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32133&action=edit
testcase.cpp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60193
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from Kai Tietz ---
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
I can't really interpret the asm differences but it seems we need more
registers?
Forwprop applies the association transform (those that fold-const.c already
does when presented with large enough GENERIC tre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60194
Bug ID: 60194
Summary: -Wformat should also warn when using %d (instead of
%u) for unsigned arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #4 from Joey Ye ---
-fdisable-tree-forwprop4 doesn't help. -fno-tree-ter makes it even worse.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60193
--- Comment #5 from Kai Tietz ---
Ok found issue. Problem is that x86_64 instructions have a maximum-offset of
2^31. Legitimate instruction doesn't detect here that constant is unsigned, so
it fails. Nevertheless issue would happen always too f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60193
--- Comment #6 from Kai Tietz ---
Patch posted to ML at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg00900.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60181
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Krebbel ---
I'll keep the bugreport open with low prio. If I find the time I will at least
try to understand what's going on before closing it.
The testcase is extracted from gcc/testsuite/go.test/test/ken/cplx2.go wh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60179
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Feb 14 12:03:43 2014
New Revision: 207783
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207783&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-14 Richard Biener
PR lto/60179
* lto-streamer-out.c (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60179
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Joey Ye from comment #4)
> -fdisable-tree-forwprop4 doesn't help. -fno-tree-ter makes it even worse.
The former is strange because it's the only pass that does sth that is
changed by the patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60134
Dominik Vogt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #5 from Dominik Vogt -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60194
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus ---
> And of course also the other way round, e.g. using "%lu" or "%lz" with an
> argument which is (signed) "long".
(Ignore '%lz' that should be '%zu'.)
Thinking a bit more about it, -Wformat-unsigned (implied
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60183
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, we do need the post-dominators to avoid
FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr21463.C -std=gnu++98 scan-tree-dump-times phiopt1
"MIN_
EXPR" 2
FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr21463.C -std=gnu++98 scan-tree-dump-times phiopt1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60172
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Note that we can probably avoid regressing TER by removing the dead stmt
in forwprop itself (which would be appropriate at this stage).
But as that doesn't help this still needs more analysis.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60010
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Fri Feb 14 14:14:03 2014
New Revision: 207785
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207785&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR pch/60010
2014-02-14 Kyle McMartin
* config/host-linux.c (T
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60195
Bug ID: 60195
Summary: Strange warnings using atomic types
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
As
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60175
--- Comment #4 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:01 AM, y.gribov at samsung dot com
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60175
>
> Yury Gribov changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60175
--- Comment #5 from Yury Gribov ---
Thanks, I'll run regtests on Monday and send patch for gcc-patches approve if
all goes well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60175
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60196
Bug ID: 60196
Summary: Incorrect compilation with -fwrapv and
-ftree-vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60197
Bug ID: 60197
Summary: ICE with _Cilk_spawn in expression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Ass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60197
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60181
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Could this because of the use of fma for s390 and PPC inside the division code?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60198
Bug ID: 60198
Summary: ICE with _Cilk_spawn in expression within template
function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60198
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60199
Bug ID: 60199
Summary: 'error: field initializer is not constant' error when
initializing static member function pointer to a
function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60200
Bug ID: 60200
Summary: [c++11] ICE with invalid use of auto in typedef
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60200
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #21)
> The new test FAILs on Solaris 11 (both SPARC and x86), which, unlike Solaris
> 10,
> has posix_memalign in libc:
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr60092.c -O0 executio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59347
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59535
--- Comment #16 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Feb 14 16:18:29 2014
New Revision: 207787
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207787&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-14 Vladimir Makarov
Richard Earnshaw
PR rtl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59347
--- Comment #2 from Volker Reichelt ---
Output for the testcase from comment#1:
bug.cc:3:17: error: typedef name may not be a nested-name-specifier
typedef int ::X;
^
bug.cc: In instantiation of 'struct A<0>':
bug.cc:6:6: re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
--- Comment #23 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #21)
>> The new test FAILs on Solaris 11 (both SPARC and x86), which, unlike Solaris
>> 10,
>> has posix_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60200
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59347
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60175
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Even on x86_64 one can see the bogus frequencies like 2 when or 1999N
when maximum is 1, but only in the epilogue blocks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60175
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The incorrect frequencies can be seen even on say -O1 -fsanitize=address
-fdump-rtl-expand-all:
static void *stack_base;
void mark_memory (void **start, void **end);
int
main (void)
{
void *dummy;
stack_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53787
--- Comment #17 from Martin Jambor ---
Created attachment 32136
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32136&action=edit
Patch doing ipa-prop function body analysis in dominator order
Yuri, this patch should make the requested propag
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60025
--- Comment #1 from Piotr Pilarczyk ---
Any feedback? Is it in fact a g++ bug?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60146
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60146
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60201
Bug ID: 60201
Summary: Issue with CRTP generation under 4.8.1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60202
Bug ID: 60202
Summary: < 128 alignment for vector data where T has a
member with alignas(128)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
URL: http://listengine.tuxfamily.org/lists.tux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60202
--- Comment #2 from ilja.honkonen at helsinki dot fi ---
Created attachment 32138
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32138&action=edit
saved temp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60202
--- Comment #1 from ilja.honkonen at helsinki dot fi ---
Created attachment 32137
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32137&action=edit
source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59794
David Abdurachmanov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david.abdurachmanov at gmail
dot c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60202
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|http://listengine.tuxfamily |
|.org/lists.tuxfamily.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60203
Bug ID: 60203
Summary: Support long double/_Decimal128 direct move on power8
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60203
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60175
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/function.c.jj2014-01-06 22:32:17.0 +0100
+++ gcc/function.c2014-02-14 19:05:27.233008179 +0100
@@ -5156,17 +5156,20 @@ expand_function_end (void)
crtl->return_rtx = outgoing;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
--- Comment #26 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I'd pondered the emit-the-condition twice, one marked as NOTHROW and it may
ultimately be the best short term solution. I just don't have enough
background on the original change which resulted in this prob
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59798
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60201
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>P& Subclass = static_cast( *this );
Is this valid as *this at this point is just a Baseclass type (and does not
have a Subclass type.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60201
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Stern ---
>>Is this valid as *this at this point is just a Baseclass type (and does not
>>have a Subclass type.
I believe the code to be valid since the template generates both the Baseclass
and Subclass. The Subclass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60201
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47211
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60201
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Stern ---
Since the examples that I found for CRTP seem to indicate a line very much like
this could you perhaps suggest the correct method to get and call the Subclass
object from the Baseclass object?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59004
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60155
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 32140
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32140&action=edit
Patch
The attach patch fixes the ICE but maybe we should always check
if the INSN might trap. Also, what abo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60201
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Stern ---
It seems that if I change my code
From:
Baseclass, ParamOne, ParamTwo> test;
To:
Subclass test;
Then it seems to work.
This produces the following output:
The this pointer is 7fffddafc360 with a s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60201
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Stern ---
Thank you for your help.
.LCOLDE1:
.text
.LHOTE1:
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 4.9.0 20140214 (experimental)"
.section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
[hjl@gnu-6 avx512-1]$
I am expecting struct m512i is passed/returned in zmm register per
AVX-512 extension to x86-64 psABI.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60131
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Feb 14 20:26:31 2014
New Revision: 207792
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207792&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/60131
* ree.c (get_extended_src_reg): New functio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60131
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60205
Bug ID: 60205
Summary: No ABU warning for AVX-512
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59535
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59066
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60206
Bug ID: 60206
Summary: IVOPT has no idea of inline asm
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60207
Bug ID: 60207
Summary: Wrong TFmode check in construct_container
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60206
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think the real issue __FP_FRAC_SUB_4 needs to be fixed not to use inline-asm
but normal C code. The normal C code should be able to produce as good as the
inline-asm code now too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60206
--- Comment #2 from wmi at google dot com ---
This is a way to fix the problem. libgcc/soft-fp/op-4.h has provided a C
version of __FP_FRAC_SUB_4, but now it is overrided by the inline asm version
in config/i386/32/sfp-machine.h.
But the inline as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60208
Bug ID: 60208
Summary: Please highliight that mudflap support is removed in
GCC 4.9
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60203
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 32142
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32142&action=edit
Proposed patch to fix the problem
This patch adds direct move support for long double and _Decimal128 on ISA 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60108
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59877
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60206
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I think the real issue __FP_FRAC_SUB_4 needs to be fixed not to use inline-asm
> but normal C code. The normal C code should be able
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59877
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60206
--- Comment #4 from wmi at google dot com ---
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2014, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > I think the real issue __FP_FRAC_SUB_4 needs to be fixed not to use
> > inline-asm
> > but normal C code. The normal C code should be a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58170
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58170
--- Comment #2 from Volker Reichelt ---
Stack trace on trunk:
bug.cc: In substitution of 'template using B = A<
, >::B [with T = T; U =
char; V = bool]':
bug.cc:10:18: required from here
bug.cc:6:70: internal compiler error: tree check: expect
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
