https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79522
Bug ID: 79522
Summary: std::regex_match always returns false
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79522
--- Comment #1 from Jim Michaels ---
Tue 02/14/2017 23:45:45.01 L:\projects\find\1.0\win>g++ -static -lstdc++
-std=c++11 -o ut.exe unit-test-std-match.cpp
Wed 02/15/2017 0:01:55.04 L:\projects\find\1.0\win>ut
0
0
here is updated test. I wond
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79523
Bug ID: 79523
Summary: valgrind error for
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dtio_13.f90
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78672
Bug 78672 depends on bug 78958, which changed state.
Bug 78958 Summary: Unallocated memory access after SOURCE-ALLOCATEing unlimited
polymorphic object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78958
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78958
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79344
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79524
Bug ID: 79524
Summary: valgrind error for
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fimplicit_none_2.f90
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79524
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79524
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|valgrind error for |[7 Regression] valgrind
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79522
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79524
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
> Note that the test expects the -fimplicit-none option. Do you
> see the valgrind error with this option?
No I didn't.
$ /home/dcb/gcc/results.245439/bin/gfortran -c -fimplicit-none
gfortran.dg/fimplici
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78723
--- Comment #4 from Tim Shen ---
Author: timshen
Date: Wed Feb 15 09:01:06 2017
New Revision: 245475
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245475&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/78723
* include/std/variant (operator<(), operat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78723
Tim Shen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79514
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79515
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79516
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79421
--- Comment #6 from Dominik Vogt ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #5)
> Patch available here:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79421
Wrong link. Patch is here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-02/msg00692.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79525
Bug ID: 79525
Summary: [c++1y] ICE with auto as function parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79519
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79241
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Wed Feb 15 09:27:57 2017
New Revision: 245476
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245476&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79241: S/390: define TARGET_CUSTOM_FUNCTION_DESCRIPTORS.
gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79421
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Wed Feb 15 09:27:57 2017
New Revision: 245476
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245476&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79241: S/390: define TARGET_CUSTOM_FUNCTION_DESCRIPTORS.
gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79515
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79523
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79524
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79512
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 40743
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40743&action=edit
Demonstrator patch. Uses flag_openmp_simd in DEF_GOMP_BUILTIN
This patch roughly restores the situation from bef
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79525
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68749
Dominik Vogt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79421
Dominik Vogt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79526
Bug ID: 79526
Summary: loop-9.c fails on s390 + s390x
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79527
Bug ID: 79527
Summary: non-call-exceptions optimize attribute not propagated
during inlining
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79527
--- Comment #1 from Stefan M Freudenberger ---
Created attachment 40745
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40745&action=edit
Output of -fdump-tree-einline-eh with -fnon-call-exceptions command line flag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #55 from Dominik Vogt ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #53)
> no fails with -m31; with -m64 null-deref-1.c fails with c and
> c++, and memcmp-1.c with c++ only.
memcmp-1.c is not reproducible.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79527
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #26 from PeteVine ---
OK, maybe this SoC is kinky, I give up:
http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1702154-RI-CRAYFAST326
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79478
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Reso
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68749
--- Comment #13 from James Greenhalgh ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #12)
> This also fails on s390x with -m31 and s390.
I'd just add those targets to the dg-skip-if if they don't have support for
conditional select instructions.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #27 from James Greenhalgh ---
(In reply to PeteVine from comment #25)
> The original issue never mentioned -Ofast or -ffast-math and I see no
> difference at -Ofast, indeed:
>
> http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1702153-RI-CRAYFAST4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68749
--- Comment #14 from Dominik Vogt ---
Thanks. Patch is here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-02/msg00975.html
With that, the test is fine on s390 and s390x.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79514
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79512
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79518
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79519
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79523
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79524
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #28 from PeteVine ---
Lesson learnt, thanks!
If you look at the last -Ofast result (or 1702153-RI-CRAYFAST467), the suspect
difference is there (the compiler had been rebuilt from scratch with all the
patches), and I even managed to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79487
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 15 12:19:53 2017
New Revision: 245477
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245477&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79487
* real.c (real_from_integer): Call real_c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79273
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2)
> I can't reproduce these failures with an hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11
> cross-compiler and I don't see them in the most recent test results for the
> target (https:/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #56 from Dominik Vogt ---
null-deref-1.c fails because the test expects this message in source line 10
but gets it for line 11:
#0 0x1000853 in NullDeref .../c-c++-common/asan/null-deref-1.c:11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79528
Bug ID: 79528
Summary: DFP double rounding bug
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79528
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77369
Daniel Böhmer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@daniel-boehmer.net
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79529
Bug ID: 79529
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE in is_maybe_undefined
(tree-ssa-loop-unswitch.c:162)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-o
Hello, I've posted on the mailing list because I could not get an
account on Bugzilla created, as it was disabled, and contacting the
overseer as instructed didn't quite work out: it's been two weeks
already and no response.
Anyway, this is a regression bug leading to wrong code generation with
__
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79529
--- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Looks reasonable, thanks.
I would probably check for def == NULL too, just in case:
if (!def || gimple_nop_p (def))
return true;
...since I see that replace_ssa_name can set it to NULL:
/* Now tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79529
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #1)
> Looks reasonable, thanks.
>
> I would probably check for def == NULL too, just in case:
>
> if (!def || gimple_nop_p (def))
> return true;
>
> ...since I see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #57 from Dominik Vogt ---
libsanitizer miscalculates the Pcs in the backtrace:
#0 0x1000839 in NullDeref
#1 0x10006c1 in main
#2 0x3fff6e23069 in __libc_start_main
#3 0x100073d
These are all odd addresses, pointing t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #58 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #57)
> libsanitizer miscalculates the Pcs in the backtrace:
>
> #0 0x1000839 in NullDeref
> #1 0x10006c1 in main
> #2 0x3fff6e23069 in __libc_start_main
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #59 from Ulrich Weigand ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #57)
> libsanitizer miscalculates the Pcs in the backtrace:
>
> #0 0x1000839 in NullDeref
> #1 0x10006c1 in main
> #2 0x3fff6e23069 in __libc_start_main
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #60 from Ulrich Weigand ---
... well, as Florian said as well :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59170
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Feb 15 13:38:48 2017
New Revision: 245481
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245481&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR59170 make pretty printers check for singular iterators
Backport from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59161
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Feb 15 13:38:42 2017
New Revision: 245480
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245480&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR59161 make pretty printers always return strings
Backport from mainli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #61 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #58)
> (In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #57)
> > libsanitizer miscalculates the Pcs in the backtrace:
> >
> > #0 0x1000839 in NullDeref
> > #1 0x10006c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #62 from Dominik Vogt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #61)
> It is true that libasan calls just _Unwind_GetIP rather than
> _Unwind_GetIPInfo,
> but I don't see where there is that subtraction of 1, so it shouldn't matter;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #63 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #61)
> It is true that libasan calls just _Unwind_GetIP rather than
> _Unwind_GetIPInfo,
> but I don't see where there is that subtraction of 1, so it shouldn't matter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #64 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps the easiest hack would be for
sanitizer_common/sanitizer_unwind_linux_libcdep.cc (Unwind_GetIP) call
_Unwind_GetIPInfo instead of _Unwind_GetIP (perhaps just on SANITIZER_LINUX or
wherever it is avai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #65 from Dominik Vogt ---
That patch does not compile, and fixing the compiler error (context -> ctx)
doesn't help either.
> but I also can't reproduce the nullptr-1.c failure myself
An example command line is
$ .../gcc/build-fixe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79512
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79530
Bug ID: 79530
Summary: GCC segfault when calling weakref+alias functions
within __transaction_atomic block
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79530
--- Comment #1 from tdz at users dot sourceforge.net ---
Full gcc output with -v -save-temps:
cc -Wall -std=c11 -fgnu-tm -v -save-temps -c -o main.o main.c
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/usr/bin/cc
Target: x86_64-redhat-linux
Configured wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79530
--- Comment #2 from tdz at users dot sourceforge.net ---
Created attachment 40749
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40749&action=edit
main.i from gcc -save-temps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #66 from Dominik Vogt ---
Compiled from scratch to make sure it's not a build dependency problem, but the
tests still fail because of the odd backtrace addresses. Can I provide some
information from single stepping in Gdb?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79530
--- Comment #3 from tdz at users dot sourceforge.net ---
Created attachment 40750
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40750&action=edit
main.s from gcc -save-temps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79489
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 40746
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40746&action=edit
Patch for nonzero on non-boolean types
With the patch, I get following numbers for CPU2006 SPEC:
HEURISTICS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79530
--- Comment #4 from tdz at users dot sourceforge.net ---
Created attachment 40751
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40751&action=edit
Preprocessed source code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79282
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79531
Bug ID: 79531
Summary: bad location when trying to define undeclared method
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79530
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79521
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79532
Bug ID: 79532
Summary: [7 regression] ICE in ira_init_register_move_cost, at
ira.c:1580
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79532
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79532
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79521
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79521
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I'm testing a potential fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #67 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This seems to fix the testcase with -march=zEC12 for me.
The problem is that while we carefully compute it, other code than "cleverly"
overwrites it back to the pc it got from the siginfo.
--- sanitizer_com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79515
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Feb 15 16:14:19 2017
New Revision: 245485
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245485&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/79515
* c-warn.c (do_warn_double_promotion): Don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79515
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79533
Bug ID: 79533
Summary: ICE in build_over_call under -std=c++17 in 'S
s(static_cast(f()));'
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #68 from Dominik Vogt ---
Okay, that fixes the test failure, but the addresses further up in the
backtrace are still bad, e.g.
#0 0x10008d2 in NullDeref
#1 0x1000759 in main
#2 0x3fffce23069 in
#3 0x10007d5
Maybe it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79533
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79533
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
commit c821ae1a57320c4b1ba47afef6136b534f830351
Author: jason
Date: Sat Oct 8 16:23:26 2016 +
Further P0135 refinement.
* call.c (build_user_type_conversion_1): Consider conve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79533
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #69 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Is it really that bad? Does it really matter if the addresses printed in the
backtrace are somewhere in the call instructions, end of those call
instructions or their start?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #70 from Dominik Vogt ---
If funny line information is the only consequence, no. Is it safe to assume
that libsanitizer won't crash or produce garbege because of this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #71 from Ulrich Weigand ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #70)
> If funny line information is the only consequence, no. Is it safe to assume
> that libsanitizer won't crash or produce garbege because of this?
Why should lin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #72 from Dominik Vogt ---
I wanted to refer to the funny pc value. The line information is actually
correct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79114
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79114
--- Comment #7 from Christophe Lyon ---
I should probably mention that the test passes on trunk in the same
configurations.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79356
--- Comment #7 from Dominik Vogt ---
Patch with all reported targets in a negative list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-02/msg01006.html
Can you please double check that the xfail selectors are correct for your
targets?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79341
--- Comment #73 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've filed https://reviews.llvm.org/D29992 upstream for this.
1 - 100 of 203 matches
Mail list logo
