https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71002
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 29 07:30:31 2016
New Revision: 237839
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237839&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-29 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/71002
* al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68961
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 29 07:52:35 2016
New Revision: 237840
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237840&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-29 Richard Biener
PR rtl-optimization/68961
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68095
jbeulich at novell dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jbeulich at novell dot com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71688
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71687
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69281
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71691
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71625
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 29 08:47:46 2016
New Revision: 237841
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237841&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/71625
* tree-ssa-strlen.c (get_addr_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71688
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71692
Bug ID: 71692
Summary: Running target unix FAIL: syscall
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53646
--- Comment #22 from Paolo Carlini ---
Not sure if we still want to keep this open!?! Anyone willing to comment /
summarize?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71693
Bug ID: 71693
Summary: ICE: verify_gimple failed (type mismatch in shift
expression, -O0, -O1, -O2, -O3)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71692
--- Comment #1 from Danilo Horta ---
There is also this output from grep -o '$BASESYS/lib.*/crt[1in].*succeeded'
dummy.log that my be useful.
[horta@hh-yoda-11-01 tmp]$ grep succeeded dummy.log
attempt to open /lib/../lib64/crt1.o succeeded
att
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71693
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70729
--- Comment #27 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Wed Jun 29 10:16:43 2016
New Revision: 237844
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237844&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2016-06-29 Yuri Rumyantsev
PR tree-optimization/707
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70814
--- Comment #10 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> On x86, they use ifuncs for this purpose inside libatomic. Basically the
> requirement is only one libatomic can be used at a time.
If we can guarantee that,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71693
--- Comment #2 from niva at niisi dot msk.ru ---
Is it possible to obtain a patch fixing this bug?
(We are using a cross compiler based on 4.7.4, with
substantial changes in backend).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67494
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64057
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67905
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
Created attachment 38786
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38786&action=edit
bzipped testsuite log
It happened again with yesterday's trunk. I'm attaching the logfile this time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71628
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71595
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71572
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71553
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71473
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71170
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71627
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Also confirmed on current trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71067
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71009
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70980
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71067
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I am not 100% sure that is a regression: with 4.8 and 4.9 I get
Internal Error at (1):
free_expr0(): Bad expr type
i.e., old version of an ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70980
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
> Can't reproduce the problem with current trunk of x86_64-linux-gnu.
Seems the ICE went away after 20160506 (either hidden or fixed).
Ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71067
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
You are right, however 4.7.4 produces an error message:
4.7.4: running command with result: FAILED
/home/marxin/Programming/testcases/pr71067.f90:4.14:
data z /2*i/
1
Error: Symbol 'i' mus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70980
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71066
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71694
Bug ID: 71694
Summary: store-data race with bitfields and tail-padding in C++
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71694
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71067
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
GCC 4.8 branch is frozen, thus just '4.9/5/6/7 Regression'.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71694
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I guess even if not obviously used as a base we need to consider it being a
base.
Thus for
void foo (B *b)
{
b->c = 1;
}
we may not access tail padding either.
So stor-layout.c needs to be conservative
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71694
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
The C++ FE identifies such types with
CLASSTYPE_NON_LAYOUT_POD_P (t) || CLASSTYPE_EMPTY_P (t)
where only CLASSTYPE_NON_LAYOUT_POD_P is interesting to us. Only available
in struct lang_type. Possibly ab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71693
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71585
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Jun 29 12:12:56 2016
New Revision: 237845
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237845&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Mark -fstack-protect as optimization flag.
PR middle-end/71585
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70971
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71693
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71691
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71655
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71488
Bug 71488 depends on bug 71655, which changed state.
Bug 71655 Summary: [7 Regression] GCC trunk ICE on westmere target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71655
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71655
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Wed Jun 29 12:26:40 2016
New Revision: 237846
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237846&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR tree-optimization/71655
* tree-vect-stmts.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69869
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71585
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71067
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Thus I would consider the PR as 4.8/4.9/5/6/7 regression, do you agree?
Yes, the change occurred between revisions r190641 (2012-08-24, error) and
r190786 (2012-08-29, ICE). The backtrace is
* thre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69869
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69869
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
--- Comment #57 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Jun 29 13:03:22 2016
New Revision: 237850
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237850&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/48835
PR ada/61954
* gcc-interface/gig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61954
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Jun 29 13:03:22 2016
New Revision: 237850
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237850&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/48835
PR ada/61954
* gcc-interface/gigi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71695
Bug ID: 71695
Summary: m68k: long long multiplication broken
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
--- Comment #58 from Eric Botcazou ---
> OK, so the fix is that the System.Address type must be changed in GNAT
> to be handled as pointer in the GCC middle-/back-end. Is any GCC/GNAT
> developer please working on this?
That's at last implemente
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61954
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18041
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
GCC 6 at -O2 on x86_64 produces
foo:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
movzbl (%rdi), %eax
movl%eax, %edx
shrb%dl
orl %eax, %edx
andl$-2, %eax
an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||71509
--- Comment #16 from Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71499
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71535
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71695
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55266
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71688
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> The change occurred between revisions r201266 (2013-07-26, OK) and r201631
> (2013-08-09, ICE), likely r201526 (pr57987).
Indeed. But I believe the probl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71696
Bug ID: 71696
Summary: Libiberty Demangler segfaults (6)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15256
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Fixed in GCC 6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19466
Bug 19466 depends on bug 15256, which changed state.
Bug 15256 Summary: [tree-ssa] Optimize manual bitfield manipilation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15256
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15256
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 29 13:48:39 2016
New Revision: 237852
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237852&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-29 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/15256
* gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19987
Bug 19987 depends on bug 15256, which changed state.
Bug 15256 Summary: [tree-ssa] Optimize manual bitfield manipilation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15256
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15256
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15826
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Steven Bosscher from comment #6)
> The tree dump for the original test case now looks like this for me:
>
> ;; Function foo (foo)
>
> foo (p)
> {
> :
> return (unsigned int) ((BIT_FIELD_REF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45274
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71688
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
The nesting tree structure contains decls but is built from call graph, in
which there are two different cgraph_nodes for a single decl (s).
Unnesting is done on call graph again but the translation from decl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71697
Bug ID: 71697
Summary: go link error
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
Assignee: ian at airs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71665
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71698
Bug ID: 71698
Summary: ICE related to decimal float when compiling with
-mcpu=power9
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71692
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
The relevant failures are:
--- FAIL: TestCloneNEWUSERAndRemapNoRootDisableSetgroups (0.00s)
exec_linux_test.go:74: Cmd failed with err fork/exec /usr/bin/whoami:
in
valid argument, output:
--- FA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71693
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71697
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Note that as far as I can tell that error is only emitted by the GNU linker
when the --no-add-needed option is passed to the linker. Is something on your
system adding that option or making it the default
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71695
Martin Husemann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71699
Bug ID: 71699
Summary: bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning: gcc misses that
non-NULL pointer + offset can never be NULL
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71697
--- Comment #2 from Matteo Croce ---
I run Ubuntu 16.04, how can I check if --no-add-needed is default?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71697
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
The running the failing command yourself with the -v option and see which
options are being passed to the linker.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71700
Bug ID: 71700
Summary: [4.9/5/6/7 Regression] wrong code with struct
assignment with sub-word signed bitfields
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Key
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71700
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71697
--- Comment #4 from Matteo Croce ---
/home/matteo/src/openwrt/build_dir/toolchain-i386_pentium4_gcc-5.3.0_glibc-2.22/gcc-5.3.0-final/./gcc/collect-ld
-plugin
/home/matteo/src/openwrt/build_dir/toolchain-i386_pentium4_gcc-5.3.0_glibc-2.22/gcc-5.3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70385
Viktor Ostashevskyi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ostash at ostash dot kiev.ua
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71625
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Martin, the changes you wanted to do are desirable in any case.
The changes I've committed don't fix this, they are just preparation for
further changes that might help. But there still would be the subopti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71701
Bug ID: 71701
Summary: bogus token in -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71698
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=71701
--- Comment #1 from Pedro Alves ---
I tried to reduce this manually, but failed. My attempt made gcc warn about
the original variable in my test case:
strtok.c: In function ‘main’:
strtok.h:30:10: warning: ‘saveptr’ may be used uninitialized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71701
--- Comment #2 from Pedro Alves ---
Created attachment 38790
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38790&action=edit
Testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71701
--- Comment #3 from Pedro Alves ---
Created attachment 38791
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38791&action=edit
Preprocessed testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71701
--- Comment #4 from Pedro Alves ---
This was with: gcc version 7.0.0 20160503 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71701
--- Comment #5 from Pedro Alves ---
See original context here, where the warning was truly puzzling:
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-06/msg00515.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71697
--- Comment #5 from Matteo Croce ---
$ x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE
-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing
-Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wmissing-format-attribute -Wov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71699
--- Comment #1 from Pedro Alves ---
Created attachment 38792
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38792&action=edit
Testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71066
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Confirmed, ICEs since GCC 4.6.0.
The ICE appeared between revisions r162456 (2010-07-23, compiles) and r1635293
(2010-08-24, ICE). The ICE is due to the gcc_assert
/* An unknown size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70814
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #10)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> > On x86, they use ifuncs for this purpose inside libatomic. Basically the
> > requirement is only one libatomi
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
