https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78224
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Nov 8 08:03:54 2016
New Revision: 241955
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241955&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-08 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/78224
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78224
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0
Summary|[5/6/7 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78205
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Nov 8 08:06:42 2016
New Revision: 241956
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241956&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-08 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/78205
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 78205, which changed state.
Bug 78205 Summary: BB vectorization confused by too large load groups
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78205
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78205
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78191
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78242
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78241
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78241
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78246
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78244
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78239
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78248
Bug ID: 78248
Summary: wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu (in
both 32-bit and 64-bit modes)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78247
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78248
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm, works for me with TOT.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78248
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
--- Comment #35 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #34)
> -Ofast does reorder execution..
So does a block algorithm.
> Opinions welcome.
I'd say go for -Ofast, or at least its subset that enables
reordering of exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
--- Comment #36 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #34)
> -Ofast does reorder execution..
> Opinions welcome.
That is absolutely OK for a matmul, and all techniques to get near peak
performance require that (e.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78172
--- Comment #12 from Tony Reix ---
Hi Ian
We were working on official 6.2.0 version. We are now moving to trunk of
version 7. Since we have a proxy issue with SVN for now due to security rules,
we'll use the snapshots till the issue is understood
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77471
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78242
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
I'm going to remove the test as it actually does not test any special expected
behavior. I'll send patch after it finishes regression tests.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78248
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78249
Bug ID: 78249
Summary: In consistent results for 0.0 * inf when optimizer is
enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78249
--- Comment #1 from Joshua England
---
[je@josh-fedora tmp]$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/usr/bin/gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/6.1.1/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-redhat-linux
Configured with: ../configu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
--- Comment #37 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #36)
> #pragma GCC optimize ( "-Ofast -fvariable-expansion-in-unroller
> -funroll-loops" )
and really beneficial for larger matrices would be
-floop-nest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78250
Bug ID: 78250
Summary: Gcc 6 bootstrap failure
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37150
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #25 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
--- Comment #38 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #37)
> (In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #36)
> > #pragma GCC optimize ( "-Ofast -fvariable-expansion-in-unroller
> > -funroll-loops" )
>
> and really
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78250
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
You should have "#define HAVE_DECL_BASENAME 1" in gcc/auto-host.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65173
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78007
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #39827|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78007
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78250
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Yep, usually this happens when a configure test ICEs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78193
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78200
--- Comment #7 from Venkataramanan ---
Bisecting shows non canonical gimple generation at r238370.
--snip--
commit f3dce1cdd016e16cf9dc051d127bdf6eb58430fc
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Jul 15 10:53:29 2016 +
2016-07-15 Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78249
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78249
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
libstdc++ uses __builtin_huge_val(). On trunk I see some changes but CCP still
folds __builtin_huge_val () * 0.0 to -NaN.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78200
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37150
--- Comment #26 from Richard Biener ---
I believe that https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg00686.html will
fix this (currently in testing).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78242
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Nov 8 12:28:33 2016
New Revision: 241961
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241961&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
use-after-scope fallout
PR testsuite/78242
* g++.dg/asan/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78234
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Nov 8 12:31:31 2016
New Revision: 241962
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241962&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[1/2] Fix off-by-one error in clear_bit_region in store me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78251
Bug ID: 78251
Summary: config/gettext.m4 and config/iconv.m4 contaminate
CPPFLAGS
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78234
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Marcus, could you please try r241962 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78242
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78251
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth ---
FYI, the only reason we never see the same breakage on fink as MacPorts is that
we don't happen to have a libunwinder package in our package set to expose us
to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78234
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60500
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37150
--- Comment #27 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #26 from Richard Biener ---
> I believe that https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg00686.html will
> fix this (currently in testing).
While it fixes the failures
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37150
--- Comment #28 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37150
>
> --- Comment #27 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43366
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39627
Bug 39627 depends on bug 43366, which changed state.
Bug 43366 Summary: [OOP][F08] Intrinsic assign to polymorphic variable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43366
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72770
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78250
--- Comment #3 from Dominik Vogt ---
After throwing away the build dir I cannot reproduce the failure anymore.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78250
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78252
Bug ID: 78252
Summary: C++ demangler crashes with infinite recursion
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60500
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|vehre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66145
Davin McCall changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davmac at davmac dot org
--- Comment #27
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60500
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
BTW does it make sense to back port r241885?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78251
--- Comment #2 from Jack Howarth ---
It appears that config/iconv.m4 needs to be reworked for its tests to succeed.
Removing INCICONV from CPPFLAGS on darwin causes the headers from /usr/include
to be accidentally used against the libs from /opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78243
--- Comment #1 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 39992
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39992&action=edit
complete asm output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60777
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78254
Bug ID: 78254
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr77822.C -O3 -g (internal
compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78253
--- Comment #1 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 39993
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39993&action=edit
main.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78253
--- Comment #2 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 39994
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39994&action=edit
some_module.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78253
--- Comment #3 from Christophe Lyon ---
Compile the attached code with:
CFLAGS="-marm -fpie"
arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc $CFLAGS -c main.c -o main.o
arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc $CFLAGS -c some_module.c -o some_module.o
Link with
arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc -pie -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
--- Comment #39 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #38)
>
> Jerry, what Netlib code were you basing your code on?
http://www.netlib.org/blas/index.html#_level_3_blas_tuned_for_single_processors_with_caches
Used the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78253
Bug ID: 78253
Summary: [ARM] call weak function instead of strong when called
through pointer
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50069
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The attached patch adds a slight variation of Tobias Burnus's patch
> for 50069 to my patch for 55086, and it seems to fix the two tests in 50069.
I have applied the patch without the last hunk. It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60777
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78253
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77822
--- Comment #26 from Dominik Vogt ---
Patch for s390[x], gcc-6:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg00745.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119
--- Comment #40 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #37)
> (In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #36)
> > #pragma GCC optimize ( "-Ofast -fvariable-expansion-in-unroller
> > -funroll-loops" )
>
Using: (I fou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78248
--- Comment #3 from Zhendong Su ---
Interesting. I just doubled checked, and my r241911 build does miscompile both
the original test that I have and the reported reduced test above.
Let me also build the TOT and check.
Thank you both for inve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28901
--- Comment #39 from Pekka ---
Well this change did now hit me.
We have a code base of thousands of modules for a set of industrial systems.
Every now and then we must recompile for new platforms with new versions of
things like gcc. And now is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78255
Bug ID: 78255
Summary: [5/6/7 regression] Indirect sibling call causing wrong
code generation for ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77596
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Nov 8 16:10:56 2016
New Revision: 241972
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241972&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-08 Janus Weil
PR fortran/77596
* exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77596
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78256
Bug ID: 78256
Summary: test case gcc.dg/pr35691-1.c fails starting with its
introduction in r241915
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68440
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78231
Eric Niebler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eric.niebler at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68440
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from j
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78257
Bug ID: 78257
Summary: missing memcmp optimization with constant arrays
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78238
--- Comment #5 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
> Also, what happens if you use -freal-4-real-8?
-freal-4-real-8 : works
-freal-4-real-10 : works
-freal-4-real-16 : works
-fdefault-real-8 : works
-finteger-4-integer-8 : fails
-fdef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78239
--- Comment #3 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Adding an explicit declaration of "n" to snippet from comment 0 :
$ cat zz1.f90
subroutine s(n)
integer :: n
character(n) :: c
c = 'c'
print *, len(c), ' >>' // c // '<<'
end
program p
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78258
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
For completeness, two correct and working variants :
$ cat y1.f90
program p
implicit none
call sub (1, 'abcd')
call sub (2, x4=4, x3='1234567')
contains
subroutine sub (x1, x2, x3, x4)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78258
Bug ID: 78258
Summary: ICE in compare_values_warnv, at tree-vrp.c:1218
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78259
Bug ID: 78259
Summary: ICE in gfc_trans_subcomponent_assign, at
fortran/trans-expr.c:7330
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78260
Bug ID: 78260
Summary: ICE in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.c:11939
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78260
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Another name clash :
$ cat z2.f90
module m
integer :: n = 0
contains
subroutine s
!$acc declare present(s)
n = n + 1
end
end
$ gfortran-7-20161106 -fopenacc -c z2.f90
z2.f90:1:0:
mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78114
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78114
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #3)
> At r241973, I see these failures on x86_64-linux-gnu:
... but only if I configure using --with-arch=haswell.
(the CPU on that machine is Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78231
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Eric Niebler from comment #6)
> Jonathan, the wording for std::reverse mentions iter_swap and doesn't seem
> to say whether it is called qualified or unqualified.
17.6.1.1 [contents] means it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70799
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Nov 8 19:06:54 2016
New Revision: 241974
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241974&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70799
* config/i386/i386.c (dimode_scala
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70799
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78261
Bug ID: 78261
Summary: vect pass only vectorizes half of the array in
gcc.c-torture/execute/pr68532.c
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
aphite-amd64
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20161108 (experimental) (GCC)
/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20161108 (experimental) [trunk revision 241970] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -Os small.c
$ ./a.out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50069
--- Comment #11 from louis.krupp at zoho dot com ---
You're right. I wasn't paying attention to the third ("function reverse ...")
in the bug report.
I believe that's fixed with the attached patch to trans-expr.c along with my
other patch. I no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77459
--- Comment #8 from François Dumont ---
Ok, at least it confirms what I thought about builtins. So the problem is
rather a buggy target.
Even if so I'll try to find an alternative approach to avoid snprintf usage.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78248
Qirun Zhang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||helloqirun at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
