https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79433
--- Comment #11 from Marc Mutz ---
Fair enough. Sorry for filing it under the wrong component.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79435
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79431
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79429
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79428
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79438
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79432
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69823
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0.1
Summary|[6/7 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79436
--- Comment #6 from Freddie Chopin ---
> On a newer Intel (or AMD) machine, add -march=naitve and you will
> see the same behavior.
You are right, adding that switch causes the assert to appear...
> VFMA is not just multiply and accumulate but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79432
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
We gimplify this to
fn2 ()
{
int a;
_1 = fn1 ();
_2 = vfork ();
a = _1 + _2;
}
and at CFG construction time try to "fixup" via
fn2 ()
{
int D.1803;
int D.1802;
int a;
[0.00%]:
D.1802
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
Bijan Chokoufe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bijan at chokoufe dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79431
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Obviously it doesn't make any sense to mark automatic variables this way, but
sadly OpenMP 4.5 doesn't prohibit that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79431
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79427
--- Comment #3 from Dominik Vogt ---
The xfail was removed from the test because it caused an XPASS on many systems.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79432
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
I guess the fix will be in the gimplifier instead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79429
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79427
--- Comment #4 from Dominik Vogt ---
See here for discussion of this bug report:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-02/msg00666.html
And here for discussion of the patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-02/msg00446.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79428
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The weird thing is that this occurs for many pragmas, but only #pragma omp
ordered seems to ICE:
for i in pr79428-*.c; do echo ===$i===; cat $i; done
===pr79428-1.c===
/* { dg-options "-fopenacc" } */
void
fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79437
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79438
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #19 from Bijan Chokoufe ---
So in the build with '-O2 -g' (default), valgrind tells us
==8214== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==8214==at 0x5300201: __shower_core_MOD_shower_generate_next_isr_branching
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79356
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79438
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #20 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Is this really a regression?
I have run 'make check -k' with gfortran 5.4.0, 6.3.0, and a patched trunk at
revision r245279. I see respectively 258, 259, and 199 FAILs, and
mlm_matching_isr is always
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79439
Bug ID: 79439
Summary: Missing nop instruction after recursive call corrupts
TOC register
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #21 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #20)
> Is this really a regression?
>
> I have run 'make check -k' with gfortran 5.4.0, 6.3.0, and a patched trunk
> at revision r245279. I see respectively 25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79413
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The DECL_EXPR is there, the problem is that gimplify_type_sizes doesn't do
anything about it, because is_gimple_sizepos says it is ok:
101 return (expr == NULL_TREE
102 || TREE_CONSTANT (e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=75964
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79428
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
So should I fix the one spot and add the testcases?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79428
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
I think that's because in c_parser_omp_ordered we ate the pragma with
c_parser_consume_pragma, so the next token is CPP_PRAGMA_EOL, but e.g. in
c_parser_pragma the pragma tokens have not been eaten yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79428
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes. Please add them to c-c++-common where possible (and test on top of the
PR79429 patch, because otherwise #pragma omp ordered will fail in C++ for a
different reason).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #22 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> With make -k you continue irrespective of the fact that some targets could
> not have made.
Without '-k' 'make check' stops at
make[5]: *** No rule to make target `test_omega95.f90', needed by
`te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79413
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 40704
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40704&action=edit
gcc7-pr79413.patch
Untested fix. Let's see what Ada will say to this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79440
Bug ID: 79440
Summary: internal compiler error: in fold_convert_loc, at
fold-const.c:2373
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79434
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69675
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Yeah, seems to be gone with ISL 0.18 here as well... (but with 0.16.1 I can
still reproduce it). ISL 0.18 doesn't do anything to the loop. ISL 0.16.1
just did some IV transforms it seems:
[scheduler] orig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69728
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
removing the assert doesn't fix it (ISL complains). This is all ISL stuff I
don't understand, somebody else needs to look at this - the SCOP is quite
regular.
Confirmed with ISL 0.18.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70390
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0.1
Summary|[6/7 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79403
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79439
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
What command line options does this need? I get different assembly
(also with GCC 6), since GCC recognises that rec can never return:
.globl rec
.type rec, @function
rec:
.LCF1:
0:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79413
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79439
--- Comment #2 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #1)
> What command line options does this need?
Sorry, I used -O2 -fpic.
Indeed, GCC seems to perform target-independent optimizations based on an
assumption th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79439
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
-fpic does the trick. Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71351
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spop at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79421
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79432
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Richard Bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79439
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79411
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79439
--- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn ---
current_file_function_operand probably needs to add a test for
flag_semantic_interposition when the ABI mandates interpolation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79439
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #5)
> current_file_function_operand probably needs to add a test for
> flag_semantic_interposition when the ABI mandates interpolation.
Maybe better just call decl_re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79441
Bug ID: 79441
Summary: gnat.dg/pack9.adb fails since r 236279
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79403
--- Comment #3 from Dominik Vogt ---
The files are symlinks in the build tree, mode 640 in the source tree (like
everything else) and are installed with "cp -p" which explains the broken
permissions. Most other things are installed "install -m 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79440
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79436
--- Comment #7 from Richard Earnshaw ---
double __attribute__((optimize("fp-contract=off"))) x (double a, double b,
double c)
{
return a*b + c;
}
You might also need to mark the function as no-inline to prevent it being
inlined into functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79421
--- Comment #2 from Dominik Vogt ---
And on a target not using function descriptors otherwise,
#define TARGET_CUSTOM_FUNCTION_DESCRIPTORS 1
affects only Ada?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79431
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 9 14:01:44 2017
New Revision: 245302
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245302&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/79431
* gimplify.c (gimplify_adjust_omp_clauses): Ign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79432
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
int fn1 (void);
int __attribute__((returns_twice)) vfork (void);
void fn2 ()
{
int a;
a = fn1() + 2 + (vfork() + 1 + vfork());
}
live over two vfork calls.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79429
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 9 14:06:58 2017
New Revision: 245303
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245303&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79429
* parser.c (cp_parser_omp_ordered): Don't che
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79413
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 9 14:26:40 2017
New Revision: 245304
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245304&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/79413
* gimplify.h (is_gimple_sizepos): Only test for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79429
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 Regression] ICE in |[6 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79431
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 Regression] ICE in |[6 Regression] ICE in get,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79413
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
--- Comment #28 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to vehre from comment #27)
> Waiting on week for regression reports before closing.
From our side this is ok. No regression, except for the special problem
in PR79430 most likely unrelated to this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79442
Bug ID: 79442
Summary: GCC 5.4 does not fully support N3652 (Relaxing
constraints on constexpr functions)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69675
--- Comment #10 from Sebastian Pop ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> Yeah, seems to be gone with ISL 0.18 here as well... (but with 0.16.1 I can
> still reproduce it). ISL 0.18 doesn't do anything to the loop. ISL 0.16.1
> just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79442
--- Comment #1 from Ose Pedro ---
To be more precise, it does not work under GCC 5.4.0, but does work under GCC
6.1.0. I haven't been able to find a GCC cloud service that provides 5.4.1, so
haven't been able to test that version.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79439
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56727
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Yuri Gribov from comment #9)
> (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #8)
> > Well, if my argument is correct, then GCC generates wrong code for the very
> > first example in comment #0.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56727
--- Comment #11 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Don't we also inline any beneficial inline functions at -O3 even if they
> could be interposed (definitely not suggesting we stop doing that, that
> would tot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56727
--- Comment #12 from Yuri Gribov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> (In reply to Yuri Gribov from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #8)
> > > Well, if my argument is correct, then GCC generates wrong code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56727
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Yuri Gribov from comment #12)
> Inlining inline functions is fine due to ODR rule.
ODR doesn't apply just to inline functions. So all semantic interposition,
except for the case when both func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56727
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka ---
For the draft patch you need to check for aliases. If global symbol is indeed
the only way to reach the function, then the transformation is IMO valid.
As for tailcall, we have recursive_call_p predicate tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79443
Bug ID: 79443
Summary: libgo/math test fails on s390x (undefined symbols
cosh, sinh, tanh, hasVX)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79441
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79441
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79444
Bug ID: 79444
Summary: Inconsistent use of DW_OP_piece for vector registers
on s390x
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79443
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Created attachment 40707
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40707&action=edit
Possible patch
Can you check whether this patch fixes the problem? Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79224
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
This is all bit about luck. We have big_speedup hack that lets us to bypass
inline-insns-auto when we know the combination caller+callee improve by given
precentage. Because we inline more, caller is now bigg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79428
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Feb 9 17:07:26 2017
New Revision: 245309
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245309&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/79428
* c-parser.c (c_parser_omp_ordered): Call c_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79428
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79421
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
> And on a target not using function descriptors otherwise,
>
> #define TARGET_CUSTOM_FUNCTION_DESCRIPTORS 1
>
> affects only Ada?
It affects languages defining LANG_HOOKS_CUSTOM_FUNCTION_DESCRIPTORS to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79445
Bug ID: 79445
Summary: Address clause on named number gives Assert_Failure in
the compiler
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79443
--- Comment #2 from Dominik Vogt ---
Yes, that fixes it. Now there's another one in crypto/sha256. Do you want me
to open another bug report for that?
--
fallback_test.go:19:5: error: reference to undefined name 'useAsm'
if useAsm == false {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79433
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #12 from Jonat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79442
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's true that C++14 support is incomplete in GCC 5, but this is very unlikely
to change. In other words, this bug should be closed as RESOLVED FIXED by GCC
6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79442
--- Comment #3 from Ose Pedro ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> It's true that C++14 support is incomplete in GCC 5, but this is very
> unlikely to change. In other words, this bug should be closed as RESOLVED
> FIXED by GCC 6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79443
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Created attachment 40708
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40708&action=edit
crypto patch
This patch may fix the crypto/sha256 problem.
Any other problems? `make check-target-libgo` s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79442
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ose Pedro from comment #0)
> GCC 5 is supposed to provide full support for N3652, but the code below does
> not compile under GCC 5.4 (it does, however, compile under GCC 6.1).
It compiles fin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79433
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79421
--- Comment #4 from Dominik Vogt ---
Okay, that change fixes it without regressions. I'll post a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79442
Ose Pedro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #60 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Proposed all-inclusive patch for this PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-02/msg00691.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70795
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70795
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Feb 9 18:16:00 2017
New Revision: 245312
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245312&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/70795
* cgraphunit.c (cgraph_node::add_new_functio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79421
--- Comment #5 from Dominik Vogt ---
Patch available here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79421
The bug can be closed when the patch is applied.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79433
--- Comment #14 from Marc Mutz ---
You can hide behind the letter of the standard, but you cannot escape the
simple fact that __has_include is the intended mechanism to check for library
features that added a new header. Proof: You need to includ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79433
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Marc Mutz from comment #14)
> You can hide behind the letter of the standard, but you cannot escape the
> simple fact that __has_include is the intended mechanism to check for
> library features
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79446
Bug ID: 79446
Summary: Passing internal procedure as argument causes segfault
at runtime
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
