https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65990
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
We are passing (unsupported on 32bit target) DImode to
expand_set_or_movmem_via_rep:
(gdb) bt
#0 expand_set_or_movmem_via_rep (destmem=0x2e8b8d68,
srcmem=0x2e8b8d80, destptr=0x2e8b8d98, srcptr=0x2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66012
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66013
Bug ID: 66013
Summary: Missed optimization after inlining va_list parameter,
-m32 case
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66013
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Before pass_stdarg, we observe in f1 that va_start and va_arg use the same
argument:
...
# .MEM_2 = VDEF <.MEM_1(D)>
# USE = nonlocal escaped
# CLB = nonlocal escaped { D.1806 } (escaped)
__
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66013
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
And in the pass_stdarg dump, for f2 we see why the va_list escapes:
...
va_list escapes in # .MEM_4 = VDEF <.MEM_2>
apD.1830 = ap.0_3;
...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65873
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Honza, any progress on this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66013
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Before postponing expansion of va_arg to pass_stdarg, we had at pass_stdarg:
...
f2: va_list escapes 0, needs to save 4 GPR units and all FPR units.
...
On one hand, the optimization in pass_stdarg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66010
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Investigated -m32 case in twin PR66013.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65990
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Proposed patch:
--cut here--
Index: i386.c
===
--- i386.c (revision 222796)
+++ i386.c (working copy)
@@ -2988,6 +2988,17 @@ ix86_parse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66011
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66014
Bug ID: 66014
Summary: 5.1 mingw64 fails to perform slim bootstrap-lto:
ccEt8YNj.ltrans4.ltrans.o::(.text+0x628):
undefined reference to `stpcpy'
Product: gcc
Ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
Tim Ruehsen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tim.ruehsen at gmx dot de
--- Comment #23
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #5 from Christian Eggers ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #2)
> code built with
> -fno-ipa-sra appears to be ok on a visual inspection.
linux-3.10.25 boots fine if globally compiled with additional -fno-ipa-sra
The aff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59678
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65841
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64950
--- Comment #12 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #11)
> Unfortunately, the gcc.dg/tree-ssa/stdarg-2.c part of the patch is wrong:
> the test
> now FAILs on i686-unknown-linux-gnu, i686-apple-darwin, and i386-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
--- Comment #35 from Jürgen Reuter ---
What are u waiting for?^^ already confirmed in comment #34 that rverything in
our code works with the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65993
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Tue May 5 09:39:29 2015
New Revision: 222799
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222799&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR testsuite/65205, libgomp/65993] Fix dg-shouldfail usage in OpenA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65205
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Tue May 5 09:39:29 2015
New Revision: 222799
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222799&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR testsuite/65205, libgomp/65993] Fix dg-shouldfail usage in OpenA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65993
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
ynamic -lm' --
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150505 (experimental)
Looking to gdb output:
Breakpoint 1, 0x8608 in test_func() ()
(gdb) disas
Dump of assembler code for function _Z9test_funcv:
0x85b4 <+0>: movwr3, #34480 ; 0x86b0
0x85b8 <+4>: m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65951
--- Comment #5 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I believe the definitive algorithm for converting multiply-by-constant into
adds+shifts(+etc.) lives in expmed.c. I don't at present have a plan for how to
reuse that, but if we could do so _in_s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65950
--- Comment #4 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
The function containing given loop is marked as:
foo/24 (foo) @0x7f39f4b84620
Type: function definition analyzed
Visibility: prevailing_def_ironly
References:
Referring:
Read from file: /tmp/cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65955
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #5)
> Created attachment 35434 [details]
> Proposed fix
>
> Could you please give this patch a try?
> Unfortunately I don't have ada on my arm system so I can't t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65955
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #6)
> I'm now doing a nobootstrap build and test with and without the patch.
I have reproduced the failure using the nobootstrap build:
...
build/gcc/testsuite/gfort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
--- Comment #36 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I am waiting for an official review of the patch, to be allowed to commit to
trunk. So I am not waiting on you. :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65955
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #7)
> (In reply to vries from comment #6)
> > I'm now doing a nobootstrap build and test with and without the patch.
>
> I have reproduced the failure using the n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65955
--- Comment #9 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #8)
> (In reply to vries from comment #7)
> > (In reply to vries from comment #6)
> > > I'm now doing a nobootstrap build and test with and without the patch.
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64950
--- Comment #13 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue May 5 10:32:28 2015
New Revision: 222802
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222802&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Xfail gcc.dg/tree-ssa/stdarg-2.c f15 scans
2015-05-05 Tom de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66015
Bug ID: 66015
Summary: align directives not propagated after __attribute__
((__optimize__ ("O2")))
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64950
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41089
Bug 41089 depends on bug 64950, which changed state.
Bug 64950 Summary: postpone expanding va_arg till pass_stdarg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64950
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51153
Bug 51153 depends on bug 64950, which changed state.
Bug 64950 Summary: postpone expanding va_arg till pass_stdarg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64950
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66016
Bug ID: 66016
Summary: Accessing nil Func's name results in crash
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66016
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Čajka ---
Golang upstream ticket:
https://github.com/golang/go/issues/10696
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57271
Yuri Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65955
--- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> > I can't reproduce it on my cross build with
> > -mthumb/-march=armv7-a/-mfloat-abi=hard/-mfpu=vfpv3-d16 unfortunately
>
> with checking=yes,rtl?
Ah yes, with --enable-checking=yes,rtl I c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65947
--- Comment #3 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yeah, you're right, it's not commutative, but then, it doesn't need to be.
If f(x,y) is "(a[x] ? 7 : y)", then f(0, f(1, ...)) = f(1, f(0, ...))
(associative but not commutative), which is all w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46029
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66017
Bug ID: 66017
Summary: Undefined behaviour in std::set
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66017
--- Comment #1 from M. Hanselmann ---
Forgot to add that A. Bougacha has analyzed the issue. According to him it's a
cast (or casts) invoking undefined behaviour.
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23413#c2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66017
--- Comment #2 from M. Hanselmann ---
This may be related to bug 63345.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52159
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59000
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at use dot net
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
--- Comment #37 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to vehre from comment #36)
> I am waiting for an official review of the patch, to be allowed to commit to
> trunk. So I am not waiting on you. :-)
I see. Got it. :D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #24 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Tim Ruehsen from comment #23)
> The requested warning is an absolutely must-have (enabled by default).
> Seeing this bug open since 2004 is... well ... I have no words.
GCC needs lots of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66018
Bug ID: 66018
Summary: opendir configure test not working when
GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66019
Bug ID: 66019
Summary: Corrupt libstdc++ on AIX 6.1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #25 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #24 from Bill Schmidt ---
> No, I don't think so. The same change was made in GCC 4.9, and it didn't
> cause
> it to XPASS there (looking at gcc-testresults). Also, my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66011
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #26 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to pmatos from comment #25)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #24)
> > I can give you many examples of old "must-have" bugs that are "easy" to fix,
> > but simply there is no on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #27 from pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #26)
> A good place to start is
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.
> cgi?keywords=easyhack&list_id=116934&order=bug_id&query_format=advanced
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64579
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Tue May 5 14:22:33 2015
New Revision: 222807
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222807&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline.
2015-04-27 Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #28 from Tim Ruehsen ---
I far as I can read, not a patch is missing. A review + commit is missing.
How can you ask for more developers (=patches) when the work is ignored ?
Don't get me wrong, I just try to understand how this should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64579
--- Comment #4 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Tue May 5 14:25:35 2015
New Revision: 222808
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222808&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline.
2015-04-27 Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64579
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner ---
Author: bergner
Date: Tue May 5 14:27:30 2015
New Revision: 222809
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222809&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline.
2015-04-27 Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #23 from Thiago Macieira ---
$ pmap `pidof qtcreator` | perl -ne '@_ = split / +/; if ($_[6] eq "r-xp" &&
$_[7] !~ /\[/) { $_[1] =~ s/K//; $total += $_[1]; $bin = $_[1] unless $bin; }
END { print "$bin $total\n"; }'
72 166164
That is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #24 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #23)
> $ pmap `pidof qtcreator` | perl -ne '@_ = split / +/; if ($_[6] eq "r-xp" &&
> $_[7] !~ /\[/) { $_[1] =~ s/K//; $total += $_[1]; $bin = $_[1] unless $bin;
> } END {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #23)
> $ pmap `pidof qtcreator` | perl -ne '@_ = split / +/; if ($_[6] eq "r-xp" &&
> $_[7] !~ /\[/) { $_[1] =~ s/K//; $total += $_[1]; $bin = $_[1] unless $bin;
> }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Plus, if KDE uses so small binaries, why don't just compile them with -fPIC
then?
You can then link them as normal executables or PIEs, depending on what you
prefer, and still it supposedly wouldn't use copy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
--- Comment #26 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So, out of interest, what is needed to make this work properly with target
attributes?
What hooks do we need to implement?
Looking at
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Target-Attributes.htm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65854
Tom Honermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #29 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Tim Ruehsen from comment #28)
> I far as I can read, not a patch is missing. A review + commit is missing.
> How can you ask for more developers (=patches) when the work is ignored ?
> Don
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #27 from Thiago Macieira ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #26)
> Plus, if KDE uses so small binaries, why don't just compile them with -fPIC
> then?
> You can then link them as normal executables or PIEs, depending on what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #28 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #27)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #26)
> > Plus, if KDE uses so small binaries, why don't just compile them with -fPIC
> > then?
> > You can then link them as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65915
--- Comment #4 from tocarip at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tocarip
Date: Tue May 5 15:43:13 2015
New Revision: 222811
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222811&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65915
* config/i386/i386.md (vector convert to flo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #27)
> Still, if this were solved properly, relocations that resolved back into the
> executable itself would still be bound locally, even position-dependently if
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #30 from Thiago Macieira ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #28)
> (In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #27)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #26)
> > Can you guarantee that the linker won't generate copy relocs for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64304
--- Comment #7 from fyang at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: fyang
Date: Tue May 5 15:50:18 2015
New Revision: 222812
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222812&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2015-01-19 Jiong Wang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65886
--- Comment #31 from Thiago Macieira ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #29)
> You are missing the point of copy relocations. Consider:
> int a = 1;
> extern int b, c;
> int foo (void)
> {
> return a + b + c;
> }
> compiled with -fno-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64304
--- Comment #8 from fyang at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: fyang
Date: Tue May 5 15:59:12 2015
New Revision: 222814
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222814&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2015-01-19 Jiong Wang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66016
--- Comment #2 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Tue May 5 16:38:45 2015
New Revision: 222815
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222815&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/66016
runtime: Don't crash in Func.Name if the Func i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66016
--- Comment #3 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Tue May 5 16:38:57 2015
New Revision: 222816
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222816&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/66016
runtime: Don't crash in Func.Name if the Func i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66016
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65990
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue May 5 16:53:27 2015
New Revision: 222817
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222817&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65990
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_parse_s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65990
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65983
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Depends on|65915
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65915
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|65983 |
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65915
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66020
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66020
Bug ID: 66020
Summary: [6.0 regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-2.c execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65990
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66021
Bug ID: 66021
Summary: GCC miscompiles Z3
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35407|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66021
--- Comment #1 from Nuno Lopes ---
Sorry, a bit more information the problem:
On function void
reduce_args_tactic::imp::populate_decl2args_proc::operator()(app * n), when
compiled with -O0 no call to memory::deallocate(void* p) is made, while wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65995
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Starke ---
I have yet to bootstrap the current trunk (r222810). It currently fails with
/usr/new-gcc/bin32/./prev-gcc/xg++ -B/usr/new-gcc/bin32/./prev-gcc/
-B/mingw/mingw32/bin/ -nostdinc++
-B/usr/new-gcc/bin32/prev-min
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66021
--- Comment #2 from Nuno Lopes ---
Created attachment 35465
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35465&action=edit
test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66022
Bug ID: 66022
Summary: 4.8.4 build fails with stage 2 and 3 comparison error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #13 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I will give it a try as soon as possible. Any idea how long propagation into
the trunk might last?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66016
--- Comment #5 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Tue May 5 17:46:31 2015
New Revision: 222820
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222820&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/66016
runtime: Don't crash in Func.Name if the Func i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #14 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
That solely depends on the availability of reviews. At the moment getting a
review is quite difficult.
Btw, when you can use docker, then there is docker image available at:
https://registry.hub.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66021
--- Comment #3 from Nuno Lopes ---
Created attachment 35467
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35467&action=edit
reduced test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66023
Bug ID: 66023
Summary: Investigate and fix IBM z Systems `guality' testsuite
failures
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66023
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66024
Bug ID: 66024
Summary: Implement AddressSanitizer support for IBM z Systems
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66024
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66025
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66025
Bug ID: 66025
Summary: Implement ThreadSanitizer support for IBM z Systems
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
