https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67056
--- Comment #10 from Henning Baldersheim ---
Wrong code generation on valid code does sound like a P2 to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67120
Bug ID: 67120
Summary: wrong code for volatile pointers at -O1 and above on
x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67107
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Aug 5 07:42:54 2015
New Revision: 226609
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226609&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-05 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/67107
* mat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67121
Bug ID: 67121
Summary: wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67109
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Aug 5 07:48:34 2015
New Revision: 226610
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226610&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-05 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/67109
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67109
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67107
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67056
--- Comment #11 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Henning Baldersheim from comment #10)
> Wrong code generation on valid code does sound like a P2 to me.
The release manager sets the importance.
Another question is if the transition fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67122
Bug ID: 67122
Summary: [5/6 Regression] installed plugin headers not
sufficient
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67122
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67120
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67116
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Cezary Śliwa from comment #4)
> OK, the newly built compiler cannot be used because we are cross-compiling.
That's not true, the compiler can be used, but you can't run the executables.
The r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66731
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67123
Bug ID: 67123
Summary: ICE with source allocation
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66731
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
--- Comment #12 from Ramana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67124
Bug ID: 67124
Summary: wrong code at -O1, -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67121
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67124
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67120
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67114
--- Comment #9 from Cezary Śliwa ---
One think I missed is that MinGW64 uses the winpthreads library. If using
winpthreads, there is no failure. However, as far as I understand,
pthreads-win32 is in use in MinGW.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66595
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini ---
This is fixed in mainline. I'm adding a testcase and closing the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Aug 5 10:01:12 2015
New Revision: 226616
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226616&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-05 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/67055
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67056
--- Comment #12 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #11)
> Another question is if the transition from "requests valid" to
> "wrong code" is a regression at all.
Apart from the typo (s/requests/rejects) plea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66595
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Aug 5 10:07:57 2015
New Revision: 226617
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226617&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-05 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/66595
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66595
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67116
--- Comment #6 from Cezary Śliwa ---
Created attachment 36131
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36131&action=edit
config.log
libstdc++v3 config.log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67121
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Disabling if-conversion fixes it so does disabling VRP2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67121
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67124
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Component|rtl-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #66 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Wed Aug 5 11:20:59 2015
New Revision: 226618
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226618&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk
2015-05-12 Andrew MacLeo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #67 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Wed Aug 5 11:29:28 2015
New Revision: 226619
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226619&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk.
2015-06-01 Matthew Waha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67123
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #68 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Wed Aug 5 11:40:25 2015
New Revision: 226620
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226620&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk.
2015-06-01 Matthew Waha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67125
Bug ID: 67125
Summary: Incorrect bounds with source allocation,
source=
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67125
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #69 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Wed Aug 5 11:48:43 2015
New Revision: 226621
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226621&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk
2015-06-01 Matthew Wahab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52846
--- Comment #25 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Wed Aug 5 12:06:25 2015
New Revision: 226622
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226622&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-05 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/52846
* module.c (che
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67126
Bug ID: 67126
Summary: [6 Regression][SH] gcc.target/sh/pr51244-12.c failures
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67120
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Aug 5 12:47:59 2015
New Revision: 226623
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226623&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-05 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/67120
* mat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67121
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r223863.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67124
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r225852.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67127
Bug ID: 67127
Summary: [ARM] Avoiding odd-number ldrd/strd in movdi
introduced a regression on armeb-linux-gnueabihf
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67120
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67126
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |6.0
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #70 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Wed Aug 5 13:27:41 2015
New Revision: 226625
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226625&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk:
2015-06-29 Matthew Waha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67126
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Probably related to PR67103.
Yep, I've been following the discussion on the patches ML. I was expecting
something to break for SH, too :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #71 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Wed Aug 5 13:40:14 2015
New Revision: 226627
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226627&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk:
2015-06-29 Matthew Waha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #72 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Wed Aug 5 13:43:04 2015
New Revision: 226628
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226628&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk:
2015-06-29 Matthew Waha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66870
--- Comment #17 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
Created attachment 36132
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36132&action=edit
Configure gold linker with split stack if available
Attaching my patch to detect for split stack supp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67121
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Aug 5 14:16:51 2015
New Revision: 226630
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226630&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-05 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/67121
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67121
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Target Milestone|6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67121
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Fixed on trunk but latent issue on the branches, esp. the gcc 5 branch which
also uses old ranges during VRP2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
--- Comment #17 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Wed Aug 5 14:23:42 2015
New Revision: 226632
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226632&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR middle-end/66311
* wide-int.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
--- Comment #18 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Fixed on trunk. I'll wait a few days to see whether there's any
unexpected fallout before backporting to gcc 5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66965
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58271
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55721
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|rsa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51931
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510
--- Comment #7 from xili_gchen_5257 at hotmail dot com ---
On 8/5/15 00:45, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510
>
> --- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
> (In reply to Iain Buclaw from comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66870
--- Comment #18 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
In the patch in comment #17, the code in gcc/configure.ac looks misplaced:
shouldn't it be before the ";;", and not add another ";;"?
Can you explain why the test in libgo/configure.ac will fail for a li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66870
--- Comment #19 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #18)
> In the patch in comment #17, the code in gcc/configure.ac looks misplaced:
> shouldn't it be before the ";;", and not add another ";;"?
>
> Can you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66336
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65706
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66336
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ldionne.2 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64035
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66260
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65195
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Vittorio Zecca from comment #11)
> I have a version of gcc 5.2.0 compiled with the -fsanitize=undefined option.
> This sanitized version gave me a runtime error due to dereferencing
> the pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921
--- Comment #27 from Mikael Morin ---
Author: mikael
Date: Wed Aug 5 16:15:40 2015
New Revision: 226636
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226636&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix random class_allocate_18.f90 failure
PR fortran/64921
gcc/fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921
--- Comment #28 from Mikael Morin ---
Author: mikael
Date: Wed Aug 5 16:42:00 2015
New Revision: 226639
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226639&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix random class_allocate_18.f90 failure
PR fortran/64921
gcc/fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66260
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #1)
> Fixed on trunk.
Oops, haven't checked in the fix yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66596
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #31 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Author: manu
Date: Wed Aug 5 17:36:29 2015
New Revision: 226640
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226640&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2015-08-05 Manuel López-Ibáñez
Jeff L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66619
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66649
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66923
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #32 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
The NULL dereference warnings originally requested should be working in GCC 6
(unless we find some issue and the patch gets reverted). However, the original
patch by Jeff also used the nonnull attribut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67041
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66619
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 5 17:51:29 2015
New Revision: 226641
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226641&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65195
PR c++/66619
* semantics.c (finish_id
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65195
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 5 17:51:29 2015
New Revision: 226641
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226641&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65195
PR c++/66619
* semantics.c (finish_id
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66923
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 5 17:56:14 2015
New Revision: 226642
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226642&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66260
PR c++/66596
PR c++/66649
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66596
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 5 17:56:14 2015
New Revision: 226642
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226642&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66260
PR c++/66596
PR c++/66649
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66260
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 5 17:56:14 2015
New Revision: 226642
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226642&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66260
PR c++/66596
PR c++/66649
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66649
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 5 17:56:14 2015
New Revision: 226642
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226642&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66260
PR c++/66596
PR c++/66649
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66870
--- Comment #20 from boger at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: boger
Date: Wed Aug 5 18:07:16 2015
New Revision: 226643
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226643&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-15 Lynn Boger
PR target/66870
* gcc/c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67117
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 5 18:13:24 2015
New Revision: 226646
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226646&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67117
* decl.c (grokvardecl): Set constraints here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67117
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66521
--- Comment #11 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to ctice from comment #10)
> Author: ctice
> Date: Sun Aug 2 01:17:39 2015
> New Revision: 226471
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226471&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> Fix PR 66521
>
Thank
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66521
--- Comment #12 from Eric Gallager ---
Created attachment 36133
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36133&action=edit
vtv-related warnings printed upon linking libstdc++
(as I said I'd attach in my previous comment)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67029
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
The problem is
/* The value of get_preferred_alternatives for the current instruction,
supplemental to recog_data. */
static alternative_mask preferred_alternatives;
ira_implicitly_set_insn_hard_regs may use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67029
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-08/msg00313.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67128
Bug ID: 67128
Summary: Makefile.in, libcc1 and --enable-shared
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67128
--- Comment #1 from Дилян Палаузов ---
To be precise, here is the complete error message, when linking shared libcc1.
I use GNU ld 2.25.51.20150804.
libtool: link: /src/gcc/gcc-git/./gcc/xg++ -B/src/gcc/gcc-git/./gcc/
-nostdinc++ -nostdinc++
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
Michael Karcher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc-bugzilla at mkarcher dot
dialu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #16 from Michael Karcher ---
The bug seems to be quite similar to the infamous "sloth that was dropped on
the head as a baby"-bug Linus discovered (https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/24/584 ,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=619
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #17 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Michael Karcher from comment #16)
PR 61904 has been marked as a dup of PR 61801, which has been marked as fixed.
So this must be some other bug.
When compiling the same code as C and as C++ there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #18 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Michael Karcher from comment #15)
The first different line of diff of the .pre dumps of Michael's
test case with/without -g is:
< Expression hash table (53 buckets, 12 entries)
---
> Expressi
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
