https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68117
--- Comment #21 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #20)
> I haven't seen this issue since Jason's GC related C++ patches went in:
> r230201 and r230202.
>
> But of course this may well be another statistic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68117
--- Comment #22 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #21)
> likely so, since my testcase is Fortran based. For me the nightly build of
> CP2K now fails with
>
> /data/vjoost/gnu/cp2k/cp2k/makefiles/../src/pw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68324
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68071
Ralph Tandetzky changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ralph.tandetzky at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68311
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 36700
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36700&action=edit
Suggested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68328
Bug ID: 68328
Summary: wrong code at -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68329
Bug ID: 68329
Summary: [4.8 4.9]gcc using array index to accelerate loop
running , why turn off at gcc 5.X
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68197
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, it seems underspecified. I have raised it with the C++ committee.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68329
zuogang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||amd64 ppwerpc32 (tested)
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015, jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
>
> --- Comment #10 from Joseph S. Myers ---
> I have verified that the patch in commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68134
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68306
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
I'm testing another followup...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68295
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Maier-Komor ---
The bug is reproduceable with gcc 5.2.0 on cygwin.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68295
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Maier-Komor ---
Created attachment 36701
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36701&action=edit
Another preprocessed testcase
This testcase has no missing symbols and should compile cleanly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68330
Bug ID: 68330
Summary: [6 Regression]: FAIL: gcc.target/alpha/pr42269-1.c
scan-assembler-not addl on alpha-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68330
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65083
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68324
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64-none-linux-gnu,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68324
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Also seen on x86_64-apple-darwin14. Revision r230007 is OK, r230269 gives the
ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66558
--- Comment #3 from alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: alahay01
Date: Fri Nov 13 10:51:34 2015
New Revision: 230297
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230297&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Optimize condition reductions where the result is an integ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47266
--- Comment #6 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Fri Nov 13 10:58:53 2015
New Revision: 230298
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230298&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-13 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/47266
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68331
Bug ID: 68331
Summary: [meta-bug] fipa-pta issues
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47266
--- Comment #7 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Fri Nov 13 11:03:40 2015
New Revision: 230299
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230299&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-13 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/47266
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68332
Bug ID: 68332
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: in rs6000_is_valid_mask, at
config/rs6000/rs6000.c:17052 with
__sync_and_and_fetch() @ powerpc
Product: gcc
Version: 6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68295
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-cygwin
Host|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68328
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.5
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68198
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #6)
> Fixing ought to be fairly easy...
Create a forwarder block outside of the path?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68327
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68317
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68324
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68306
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68321
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68315
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Yes. The easiest way would be to make tree-data-ref.c use it I suppose.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68332
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47266
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36854
Bug 36854 depends on bug 47266, which changed state.
Bug 47266 Summary: Optimization: Declare PRIVATE module procedures as
"TREE_PUBLIC = 0" ("static function")
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47266
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68332
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Statistics for other variants:
4 internal compiler error: RTL check: expected code 'const_int', have
'mem' in rs6000_is_valid_mask, at config/rs6000/rs6000.c:17052
4 internal compiler error: RTL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67613
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
This is awesome! Great job. Do not forget to mention all your awesome work in
https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-6/changes.html Some people think GCC is dead, and it is
far from it. Let them know!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67790
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
The issue here is that
/* If we detected "res -= x[i]" earlier, rewrite it into
"res += -x[i]" now. If this turns out to be useless reassoc
will clean it up again. */
if (orig_code == MINUS_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Can you attach preprocessed source for x32?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> Can you attach preprocessed source for x32?
Ah, it's in the tar file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68333
Bug ID: 68333
Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/slp-multitypes-4.c
-flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times vect
"vectorized 1 loops" 1
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68295
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Maier-Komor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Works for me on x86_64-linux.
Yes - it seems to be cygwin specific...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68333
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> + /* If that didn't simplify to a constant see if we have recorded
> + temporary expressions from taken edges. */
> + if (!val || TREE_CODE (val
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68306
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Nov 13 12:14:57 2015
New Revision: 230310
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230310&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-13 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/68306
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68311
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Nov 13 12:26:23 2015
New Revision: 230311
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230311&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR ipa/68311
PR ipa/68311
* ipa-icf.c (sem_item_optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68311
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68311
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> Fixed.
Except that the Changelog doesn't describe the patch :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68311
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #6)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> > Fixed.
>
> Except that the Changelog doesn't describe the patch :).
Enhanced in r230313 :)
Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68311
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Nov 13 12:39:00 2015
New Revision: 230313
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230313&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Enhance Changelog entry related to PR ipa/68311.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68334
Bug ID: 68334
Summary: combination of weak and noreturn attributes
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47266
--- Comment #9 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8)
> In comment 6
>
> * gfortran.dg/warn_unused_function_2.f90: New test.
>
> should be
>
> * gfortran.dg/module_private_2.f90: New test.
>
> The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52277
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Implementation of Levenshtein distance (in C++) committed to trunk as r230285;
currently we offer hints for misspelled command-line options (PR 67613), and in
the C FE for misspelled fields.
There's plenty m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68321
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68321
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
I'll try bisecting with --param allow-store-data-races=0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68321
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
So in fact started with r211725.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68335
Bug ID: 68335
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name, have real_cst in
add_phi_arg_for_new_expr, at sese.c:1373
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
||.ch, spop at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Joost VandeVondele
---
graphite ICE trying to collect some timing data..
gcc version 6.0.0 20151113 (experimental) [trunk revision 230282] (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68334
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I don't see any difference between declaring the function noreturn (or
pure, or const, or returning non-aliased memory like malloc, or ...) and
declaring it to have a certain type. In both
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68335
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68334
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68247
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from vrie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68320
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Nov 13 14:05:59 2015
New Revision: 230322
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230322&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/68320
* c-parser.c (c_parser_for_statement): Treat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68320
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68264
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Fri Nov 13 14:43:38 2015
New Revision: 230323
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230323&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR68264: Use unordered comparisons for tree-call-cdce.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61580
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Nov 13 14:51:25 2015
New Revision: 230324
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230324&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
More fine-grained autoconf checks for C99 library
2015-11-13 Jennifer Y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58393
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Nov 13 14:51:25 2015
New Revision: 230324
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230324&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
More fine-grained autoconf checks for C99 library
2015-11-13 Jennifer Y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64358
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68264
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68319
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:42:16AM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> It seems that gfortran is missing a check for ENTRY. F2008 has
>
> C1206 (R1205)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68194
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
--- Comment #30 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Fri Nov 13 15:19:19 2015
New Revision: 230327
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230327&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-13 Christian Bruel
PR target/65837
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68323
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68327
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68319
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> In fact, gfortran is not issues an error for data-stmt, format-stmt,
> or stmt-function-stmt.
Confirmed: the following test compiles
module m
interface
subroutine s
entry e
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68117
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68317
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68336
Bug ID: 68336
Summary: False positive Wreturn-type warning
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68336
--- Comment #1 from Yichao Yu ---
Ref clang bug report https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=25521
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68317
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68319
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68319
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:42:16AM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> It seems that gfortran is missing a check for ENTRY. F2008 has
>
> C1206 (R1205) An interface-body shall not contain a data-stmt,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68330
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #0)
> Revision r230164 [1] regressed:
>
> FAIL: gcc.target/alpha/pr42269-1.c scan-assembler-not addl
>
> on alpha-linux-gnu.
>
> The difference starts in combine, where
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68319
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 04:08:05PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:42:16AM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68337
Bug ID: 68337
Summary: [MPX] memcpy() for arrays with function pointers
results in huge resource usage and binaries
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68060
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68330
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68198
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Creating a forwarder outside the path doesn't help since you still have to have
an edge to the forwarder from each copy of the block with the SWITCH_EXPR.
The solution is to realize that a path containing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68330
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2)
> Hrm, I don't think your analysis is entirely correct yet -- you say
> with the old compiler insn 19 is removed, but that sets reg 73 which
> is still used in i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68338
Bug ID: 68338
Summary: tsan report error about c++11 static local initialize
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61580
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58393
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68338
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |5.2.0
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68336
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67629
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
See also bug 68336, which may be a possible duplicate of this one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68338
--- Comment #2 from Evgeniy Dushistov ---
The problem as I understand assembler in check
that find out is static variable initialized,
clang emit this:
callq 45bdb0 <__tsan_atomic8_load>
while gcc emit
callq 401260 <__tsan_read1@plt>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68338
Dmitry Vyukov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dvyukov at google dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63517
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68339
Bug ID: 68339
Summary: g++.dg/vect/simd-clone-2.cc ICEs with aggressive GC
settings and OpenMP
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
