https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63153
Bug ID: 63153
Summary: pointers are not nullified with -finit-local-zero
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61330
--- Comment #9 from Yvan Roux ---
Author: yroux
Date: Wed Sep 3 07:23:01 2014
New Revision: 214847
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214847&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2014-09-03 Yvan Roux
Backport from trunk r214526.
2014-08-26
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60606
--- Comment #9 from Yvan Roux ---
Author: yroux
Date: Wed Sep 3 07:23:01 2014
New Revision: 214847
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214847&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2014-09-03 Yvan Roux
Backport from trunk r214526.
2014-08-26
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224
--- Comment #12 from Chris Clayton ---
Sorry, you'll have to stick with me here while a figure out what that means.
I think you are saying that prior to r214208, the symbols definedMacros() and
headerPaths() were present but effectively no-ops.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224
--- Comment #13 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Chris Clayton from comment #12)
> Sorry, you'll have to stick with me here while a figure out what that means.
>
> I think you are saying that prior to r214208, the symbols definedMacros(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59535
--- Comment #21 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
I filed this previously, maybe its duplicate
Bug 61578 - Code size increase for ARM thumb compared to 4.8.x when compiling
with -Os
BR Fredrik
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62662
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
I agree that this is something we need to fix in the back-end. I was just
curious about when this surfaced first and keep that info for the records.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61078
--- Comment #8 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Wed Sep 3 08:06:09 2014
New Revision: 214850
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214850&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-09-03 Andreas Krebbel
PR target/61078
* config/s390/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63152
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61078
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61654
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|4.10.0 |5.0
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61986
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00209.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62015
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed a fix on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00210.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63150
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.3
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63148
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60276
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doug.gilmore at imgtec dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63140
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
You might want to try -fsanitize=undefined and/or -fno-strict-overflow as it
sounds like you may be invoking undefined behavior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224
--- Comment #14 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #13)
> (In reply to Chris Clayton from comment #12)
> > Sorry, you'll have to stick with me here while a figure out what that means.
> >
> > I think you a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53155
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63140
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #39 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Vidya Praveen from comment #38)
> Until we fix this issue, could we have workaround posted by Martin Jambor
> (comment #29) applied again on 4.9 and trunk?
No, not on trunk please.
As I said
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49444
bin.cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker.cheng at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #40 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
nOn Wed, 3 Sep 2014, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
>
> --- Comment #39 from Martin Jambor ---
> (In reply to Vidya Praveen from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63140
--- Comment #5 from Ralf Hoffmann ---
Thanks for the feedback, I am also suspecting I have some problem in my code
regarding undefined behavior.
What I do for testing is to compile my tool Worker
(http://www.boomerangsworld.de/cms/worker/index.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49444
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Thus "dup" of PR61320?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62024
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Sep 3 11:16:29 2014
New Revision: 214871
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214871&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/62024
* c-parser.c (c_parser_static_assert_declaration_no_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62024
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55409
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62026
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
I'm sorry but I cannot reproduce the problem with the attached testcase. I
will try the libxul link.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
Bug ID: 63155
Summary: [4.9/5 Regression] memory hog
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63140
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
There is a git mirror of the svn repo.
Anyway, -fsanitize=undefined enables -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks, perhaps
you could try that option alone if it makes a difference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62259
Ulrich Weigand changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49444
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62294
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Sep 3 12:54:06 2014
New Revision: 214874
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214874&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/62294
* c-typeck.c (convert_arguments): Get location of a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62294
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63140
--- Comment #7 from Ralf Hoffmann ---
Created attachment 33442
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33442&action=edit
simplified example file 1
simple example containing the code piece which triggers the behavior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63140
--- Comment #8 from Ralf Hoffmann ---
Created attachment 33443
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33443&action=edit
aguixtest.cc
file with helper functions, not related to the problem, but required to execute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63140
--- Comment #9 from Ralf Hoffmann ---
Created attachment 33444
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33444&action=edit
aguixtest.hh
file with helper functions, not related to the problem, but required to execute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63140
--- Comment #10 from Ralf Hoffmann ---
Created attachment 33445
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33445&action=edit
build
build script used to create executable test program
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63140
--- Comment #11 from Ralf Hoffmann ---
I managed to create a standalone test program. Attachment "aguix.cc" contains
the stripped down critical code segments. The two other files "aguixtest.cc"
and "aguixtest.hh" are just to make a runnable binar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62259
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62294
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Sep 3 13:20:43 2014
New Revision: 214876
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214876&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/62294
* gcc.dg/pr62294.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/pr62294.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62294
--- Comment #6 from Emmanuel Thomé ---
Thanks.
E.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58526
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
See also RFC patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00232.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I wonder why we need to explicitely represent abnormal PHIs in the dispatcher.
All incoming edges are abnormal and all SSA names have to be coalesced anyway.
Thus we could instead have
:
/* Not: # _2(ab)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334
--- Comment #41 from Richard Biener ---
New attempt: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00232.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61986
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Sep 3 14:16:54 2014
New Revision: 214877
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214877&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-09-03 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/61986
* ipa-cp.c (find_aggre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So the issue is that the setjmp argument needs two temporaries:
D.2832 = Unity.CurrentAbortFrame;
D.2833 = &Unity.AbortFrame[D.2832];
:
D.2834 = _setjmp (D.2833);
and the EH edge going into the _s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62015
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Sep 3 14:26:38 2014
New Revision: 214878
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214878&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-09-03 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/62015
* ipa-cp.c (intersect_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57335
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #3 from Pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61986
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
I can reproduce the bug on the 4.9 branch too and the code is the same
in 4.8 as well (although the bug does not manifest form me there), so
please keep this bug opened until I commit the same fix to the two
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62259
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to saugustine from comment #0)
> My uneducated guess is that the template at :189 should either use
> &_M_i in calls to __atomic_is_lock_free (instead of nullptr) or should add
> alignment as nece
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62270
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Sep 3 16:04:27 2014
New Revision: 214881
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214881&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/62270
* interface.c (compare_parameter): Fix conditi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57335
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
The code in cxx_eval_bit_field_ref needs some work, doesn't handle CONSTRUCTORs
inside CONSTRUCTORs. This is a reduced testcase:
struct BitsOrderCheck
{
struct Data
{
const unsigned char set:1;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62259
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61986
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Sep 3 16:13:03 2014
New Revision: 214882
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214882&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-09-03 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/61986
* ipa-cp.c (find_aggre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62015
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Sep 3 16:16:28 2014
New Revision: 214883
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214883&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-09-03 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/62015
* ipa-cp.c (intersect_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61986
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Sep 3 16:33:10 2014
New Revision: 214884
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214884&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-09-03 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/61986
* ipa-cp.c (find_aggre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63140
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62015
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Sep 3 16:36:06 2014
New Revision: 214885
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214885&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-09-03 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/62015
* ipa-cp.c (intersect_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61986
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62015
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63156
Bug ID: 63156
Summary: web can't handle AUTOINC correctly
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61559
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63150
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63156
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62270
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Sep 3 17:25:45 2014
New Revision: 214887
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214887&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/62270
* interface.c (compare_parameter): Fix conditi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63156
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63157
Bug ID: 63157
Summary: may_alias doesn't work as expected in template nested
types
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63158
Bug ID: 63158
Summary: Possible wrong code with absend optional BT_CLASS ->
optional BT_DERIVED dummy argument
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Key
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62174
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Sep 3 18:50:27 2014
New Revision: 214891
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214891&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-09-03 Fritz Reese
PR fortran/62174
* decl.c (var
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62174
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087
Vitali changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vlovich at gmail dot com
--- Comment #11 from V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087
--- Comment #12 from Vitali ---
Actually, http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/header seems to indicate that when
compiling as C++, complex.h should be equal to including ccomplex in a global
namespace. It seems like the inclusion of C99 complex.h i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Vitali from comment #12)
> It seems like the inclusion of C99 complex.h is a GNU
> extension & should only be done if GNU extensions are enabled.
That would be a possibility, but do you think you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087
--- Comment #14 from Vitali ---
Actually, found a better workaround for lapacke.
Adding
#include
#define lapack_complex_float std::complex
#define lapack_complex_double std::complex
before I include causes lapacke.h to avoid including complex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087
--- Comment #15 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Vitali from comment #14)
> Actually, found a better workaround for lapacke.
Good.
> #include
Please save one character and include instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63150
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62306
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
So, yeah.
When we were originally developing the ABI, we wanted to allow implementations
to make all of the symbols entry points to the same function. But this didn't
end up being reflected in the ABI docum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62306
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #8)
> I think I'm sympathetic to Rafael's argument that we should stick with the
> 4.7 behavior since that's what most deployed GCCs currently do.
4.5+4.6+4.9 is more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412
--- Comment #5 from Roland Schulz ---
This seems to me to be a duplicate of 49001.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61730
Roland Schulz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49001
--- Comment #4 from Roland Schulz ---
*** Bug 61730 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63159
Bug ID: 63159
Summary: Demangler crash
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee: unass
/home/stevenb/devel/build-arm/gcc/xgcc version 5.0.0 20140903 (experimental)
[trunk revision 214887] (GCC)
What is your command line for configure?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63156
--- Comment #3 from Carrot ---
../trunk3/configure '--build=x86_64-build_unknown-linux-gnu'
'--host=x86_64-build_unknown-linux-gnu' '--target=arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi'
'--prefix=/usr/local/google/home/carrot/x-tools/arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi'
'-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63148
Doug Gilmore changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63156
--- Comment #4 from Carrot ---
In function df_uses_record, we have:
...
case PRE_DEC:
case POST_DEC:
case PRE_INC:
case POST_INC:
case PRE_MODIFY:
case POST_MODIFY:
gcc_assert (!DEBUG_INSN_P (insn_info->insn));
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61943
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087
--- Comment #16 from Vitali ---
Yup - I caught that on a self code-review.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61943
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
gcc was compiled with -fsanitize=undefined option.
Call it gcc-sanitized.
Then I did
gcc-sanitized -S gccerr13.c -O
where gccerr13.c is the sample C code I sent bugzilla
The option -O is necessary to reprodu
93 matches
Mail list logo
