https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65458
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35051|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60851
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|uros at gcc do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #11 from Jens Gustedt ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #10)
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, jens.gustedt at inria dot fr wrote:
>
> > (Perhaps gcc interprets _Generic as you say, but even the standard committee
> > doesn'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65400
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 19 07:53:38 2015
New Revision: 221508
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221508&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/65400
* ipa-split.c (find_return_bb): Allow TSAN_FUN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64265
--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 19 07:55:22 2015
New Revision: 221509
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221509&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/64265
* g++.dg/tsan/pr64265.C: New test.
Added:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #13 from Jens Gustedt ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #12)
> What does clang differently wrt _Generic?
Arrays. I don't recall which way around, but one of gcc and clang converts
array types to pointers and the other not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #14 from Jens Gustedt ---
Perhaps we should end the discussion here, this goes too far for a bug report,
and we should push for a solution of this type of questions by the C committee.
Perhaps you could leave this "bug" open, even if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60595
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59579
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59760
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60595
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sshannin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59686
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
Mainline properly rejects this. I'm adding the testcase and closing the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59686
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Mar 19 08:57:01 2015
New Revision: 221510
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221510&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-19 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/59686
* g++.dg/cpp0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59686
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65467
Bug ID: 65467
Summary: [libgomp] sorry, unimplemented: '_Atomic' with OpenMP
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59702
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59729
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59729
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59739
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62051
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60180
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60595
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ignoreddropbox at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65465
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59950
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65449
--- Comment #2 from ma.jiang at zte dot com.cn ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #1)
> Hi Richard,
>
> the invalid/different code for -O2 -fstrict-volatile-bitfields will be
> fixed with my proposed patch, because the misalignedness of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65468
Bug ID: 65468
Summary: Optimize static schedule with chunk_size one
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65072
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Here, we SEGV in build_class_member_access_expr, called recursively:
tree anonymous_union;
anonymous_union = lookup_anon_field (TREE_TYPE (object),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65072
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
(Just bailing out of build_class_member_access_expr if MEMBER is null fixes the
ICE, but in view of the unclarity above I don't think it's the right fix.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65468
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Using the patch submitted for gomp-4_0-branch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-07/msg01881.html, we get a simple loop:
...
bar._omp_fn.0 (struct .omp_data_s.0 & restrict .omp_data_i)
{
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59550
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65467
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This is indeed just a big hammer approach.
The OpenMP standard only supports C up to C99 and C++ up to C++98 at this
point, for _Atomic it is non-trivial to figure out how it should behave with
different clau
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65465
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65400
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65400
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 19 10:12:34 2015
New Revision: 221512
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221512&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/65400
* tsan.c (instrument_gimple): Clear tail call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65235
--- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Mar 19 09:58:42 2015
New Revision: 221511
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221511&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[simplify-rtx] PR 65235: Calculate element size correctly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59526
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65469
Bug ID: 65469
Summary: ICE on bad code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #17 from Honggyu Kim ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #16)
> I'm working on a patch btw.
This bug is only shown in arm code so maybe the bug is in gcc/config/arm
directory.
I was trying to fix it myself but I may need more expe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62051
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #18 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Honggyu Kim from comment #17)
> (In reply to ktkachov from comment #16)
> > I'm working on a patch btw.
>
> This bug is only shown in arm code so maybe the bug is in gcc/config/arm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60687
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #16 from Jens Gustedt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> Usually such bugs are SUSPENDED with reference to the DR and when the DR is
> resolved, the bug is resolved accordingly.
Here the situation is a bit more compli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62109
--- Comment #7 from Kai Tietz ---
I agree that we change it to
#define __GTHR_W32_InterlockedCompareExchange InterlockedCompareExchange
not sure if we actually should error out here at all. We might want to remove
instead the use of __GTHREAD_I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60583
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50025
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andreaskem at web dot de
--- Comment #25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56636
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #17 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jens Gustedt from comment #16)
> Here the situation is a bit more complicated, since __typeof__ is an
> extension to C, so no DR will directly say something about this.
I can look into this, bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65470
Bug ID: 65470
Summary: regex_search corrupts matches when haystack is
destroyed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65470
--- Comment #1 from aral at gmx dot de ---
AFAICT the same bug is applicable to the regex_match function. Sorry for the
copy & paste error in the very last comment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56636
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52659
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini ---
This is fixed for 5.0. I'm adding the testcase and closing the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52659
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Mar 19 11:02:47 2015
New Revision: 221513
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221513&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-19 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/52659
* g++.dg/cpp0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52659
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64715
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, given that you promoted this to P1, what are we going to do with this?
This indeed started with r214941, and from objsz POV, in *.original, while it
changed from:
- strcpy (&a.buf1[4], str1 + 5);
+ str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64715
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For the option of not folding this to MEM_REFs before objsz pass, I'd note this
could be just about the &MEM_REF cases, if there is an actual memory access, so
we aren't taking the address of the MEM_REF, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64715
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
I do think that the gimplifiers "folding" is premature. All propagators know
to apply the trick internally. This premature folding is probably to avoid
regressions with removing the invalid maybe_fold_* s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63230
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64715
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 35064
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35064&action=edit
patch
I am testing the attached, testcases to be ameded from the dups.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8270
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #55 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65459
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Mar 19 13:36:18 2015
New Revision: 221515
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221515&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-19 Richard Biener
Revert
2015-03-10 Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|5.0 |
Summary|[4.9 Regression] me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65449
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Yes, but that is not the fault of the strict volatile code path any more.
For bit-fields this redundant read is exactly what AAPCS demands:
"7.1.7.5 Volatile bit - fields preserving number and width of con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65471
Bug ID: 65471
Summary: type interpretation in _Generic
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65457
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm-linux-gnueabihf
Component|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65464
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Klose ---
> Well, on x86_64 if you build gcc with --disable-multilib you still
> can compile with -m32 (even without a 32-bit user runtime).
> Why should this be different on ppc64le?
$ gcc -m32 -c foo.c
foo.c:1:0: e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65464
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #5)
> > Well, on x86_64 if you build gcc with --disable-multilib you still
> > can compile with -m32 (even without a 32-bit user runtime).
> > Why should this be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62255
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |middle-end
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65465
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Patch I've been testing:
diff --git a/gcc/cgraphunit.c b/gcc/cgraphunit.c
index e640907..8b7d056 100644
--- a/gcc/cgraphunit.c
+++ b/gcc/cgraphunit.c
@@ -2484,8 +2484,9 @@ cgraph_node::create_wrapper (cgraph_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64787
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #3 from ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55901
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57456
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #5 from ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63230
--- Comment #5 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fix available with:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-03/msg00074.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-03/msg00075.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-03/msg00085.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65472
Bug ID: 65472
Summary: -Wunreachable-code failure
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65472
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65472
--- Comment #2 from Ulya ---
$ gcc -W -Wall -Wextra -c 1.c
gives the same result: no warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65473
Bug ID: 65473
Summary: Including does not define __GLIBCXX__
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65472
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65472
Ulya changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Ulya ---
So GCC's inte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46476
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||skvadrik at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65472
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65472
Ulya changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |FIXED
--- Comment #6 from Ulya ---
(In reply to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65465
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase:
struct A {};
struct B { virtual A foo () const; };
struct C { A foo () const; };
struct D : virtual B { A foo () const {} };
struct F : D { virtual int bar () const; };
int F::bar () const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17534
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46582
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65472
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #7 from Manu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46476
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
*** Bug 65472 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65466
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62051
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
So what's happening here is that the compiler sees that *m is a Derived, so it
can devirtualize the destructor call to ~Derived, and ~Derived refers to the
vtable.
One solution would be to give ~Derived defa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65465
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Mar 19 17:35:52 2015
New Revision: 221518
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221518&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix for PR ipa/65465.
PR ipa/65465
* cgraphunit.c (cgraph_node::c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64715
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For the early objsz pass, I'm afraid it can have security implications.
Artificial testcase:
extern char *strcpy (char *__restrict __dest, const char *__restrict __src)
__attribute__ ((__nothrow__ , __leaf__
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65380
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Mar 19 17:37:15 2015
New Revision: 221519
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221519&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR ipa/65380.
PR ipa/65380
* ipa-icf.c (sem_function::merge)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65465
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65380
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65303
Bug 65303 depends on bug 65380, which changed state.
Bug 65380 Summary: [5 Regression][ICF] LTO: ICE in add_symbol_to_partition_1,
at lto/lto-partition.c:158
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65380
What|Removed
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
