https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79590
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79579
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79580
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79621
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79570
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That hunk has been added by Alexandre in r151312 with:
(moveup_expr_cached): Don't use cache for debug insns that
are heads of blocks.
This has been posted to gcc-patches in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79593
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79570
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> --- gcc/sel-sched.c.jj2017-01-01 12:45:38.0 +0100
> +++ gcc/sel-sched.c 2017-02-17 14:14:06.493525368 +0100
> @@ -2529,6 +2529,7 @@ moveup_expr_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79625
Bug ID: 79625
Summary: ICE in write_symbol, at lto-streamer-out.c:2567
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79594
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79595
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79607
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79622
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79626
Bug ID: 79626
Summary: ICE on invalid code in build_temp (call.c:6489)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79593
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79241
--- Comment #7 from night_ghost at ykoctpa dot ru ---
Created attachment 40779
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40779&action=edit
testcase
ii and console log. If I change from -Os to any other mode then it compiles OK
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79621
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79622
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79623
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79151
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
The question is of course whether vector division has comparable latency /
throughput as the scalar one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79627
Bug ID: 79627
Summary: ICE in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:9804
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79623
--- Comment #2 from Sumit ---
Thanks Richard for the quick response.
I understand your point but actually it has been decided to be at 4.8.1 as far
as our current project is concerned.
Is it possible for you to at least give me some pointers wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79628
Bug ID: 79628
Summary: ICE on invalid code in tsubst, at cp/pt.c:13499
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79151
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> The question is of course whether vector division has comparable latency /
> throughput as the scalar one.
On the cores that cavium produces the answer is yes f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79629
Bug ID: 79629
Summary: ICE on invalid code in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:14477
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79619
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79625
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |7.0.1
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79625
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79535
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79626
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79628
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79610
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79627
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This is nasty, all we have is a SAVE_EXPR that is evaluated both outside of the
lambda and inside of it, so ideally we'd capture a temporary assigned that
SAVE_EXPR and use it inside of the lambda. But no id
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79434
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Feb 20 09:42:48 2017
New Revision: 245595
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245595&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-02-20 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/79434
* parse.c (check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79581
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I can't reproduce the difference on my machine.
Judging by your -mcpu option is this on a Cortex-A5?
As far as codegen goes the major difference I can see is that the vfpv4 version
generates vf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79589
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79589
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
The problem seems to be that we've got a COMPOUND_EXPR with null:
, SAVE_EXPR <__for_begin.0>;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79629
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79621
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79589
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'll have a look, as it is decomp related, it is most likely my fault.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59371
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79619
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Note that this fix doesn't properly ensure that ADDR_SPACE_CONVERT of 0 from
generic to non-generic address space "magically changes" from nothing_id to
nonlocal_id, thus if you hide the constant:
void bug(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45397
--- Comment #26 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45397
>
> --- Comment #25 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
> "When doing so allows for simplification" is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64488
Vittorio Romeo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vittorio.romeo at outlook dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79382
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Feb 20 10:52:50 2017
New Revision: 245596
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245596&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-02-16 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/79382
* decl.c (access
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79589
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71838
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #6)
> I get the ICE with the following trivial submodule
>
> submodule ( cgca_m3clvg ) m3clvg_sm3
>
> implicit none
>
> contains
>
> module procedure cgca_clvg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78881
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79588
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Indeed, consider e.g.
// PR c++/79588
// { dg-do compile }
// { dg-options "-Wrestrict" }
void foo (char *__restrict, char *__restrict = __null);
template
void
bar (char **p)
{
foo (p[0], p[0]); // {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78012
mpf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79588
--- Comment #5 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Indeed, consider e.g.
> // PR c++/79588
> // { dg-do compile }
> // { dg-options "-Wrestrict" }
>
> void foo (char *__restrict, char *__restri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77498
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
For a testcase trying to show the issue:
double U[1024];
double V[1024];
void foo (void)
{
for (unsigned i = 1; i < 1023; ++i)
V[i] = U[i-1] + U[i] + U[i+1];
}
we get from PRE (.optimized, w/ IVO di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78660
--- Comment #18 from mpf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpf
Date: Mon Feb 20 12:07:06 2017
New Revision: 245599
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245599&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Tighten condition for converting SUBREG reloads from OP_OUT to OP_I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78660
--- Comment #17 from mpf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpf
Date: Mon Feb 20 12:06:56 2017
New Revision: 245598
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245598&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Handle WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS when reloading (subreg (reg))
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78012
--- Comment #6 from mpf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpf
Date: Mon Feb 20 12:07:23 2017
New Revision: 245601
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245601&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Ensure the mode used to create split registers is suppported
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45397
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener ---
patch misses some ops = {} and ops[1] = NULL_TREE; to avoid ICEing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79114
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
FTR this was found by https://github.com/antlr/antlr4/issues/1608
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79588
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 40781
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40781&action=edit
gcc7-pr79588.patch
Likely yes. In the mean time I've moved it at least to a better place in the
C/C++ FE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79587
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79568
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 20 12:52:21 2017
New Revision: 245602
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245602&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79568
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_builtin)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79568
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79593
--- Comment #3 from Katsunori Kumatani ---
Hi, sorry I forgot to mention, I used Godbolt's Compiler Explorer to test it on
GCC 5 and 7 as I only have version 6 deployed on this machine.
On my end, it probably used march 'native' by default (?) b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79593
--- Comment #4 from Katsunori Kumatani ---
I forgot to mention that in the particular above example, it is obvious the
"fstp" is useless.
If you remove the "fld st(0)" and then the 'p' from the fstp, you end up with
"fst st(0)" which is basicall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79494
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79599
--- Comment #1 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Feb 20 14:17:42 2017
New Revision: 245603
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245603&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-02-20 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/79599
* interface.c (c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79523
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Feb 20 14:17:42 2017
New Revision: 245603
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245603&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-02-20 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/79599
* interface.c (c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79599
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79523
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79545
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52036
Michel Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mimomorin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79494
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79587
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 40783
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40783&action=edit
Untested patch
Untested patch, can you please test building Python with the patch? Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79537
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Feb 20 15:05:53 2017
New Revision: 245604
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245604&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/79537
* gimplify.c (gimplify_expr): Handl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79537
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] ICE in |[5/6 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77333
--- Comment #19 from Tony Kelman ---
The patch also applies and fixes the problem on the gcc-5-branch. I haven't
tried with trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79345
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79558
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Feb 20 15:50:23 2017
New Revision: 245605
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245605&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/79558
* ubsan.c (ubsan_type_descriptor): C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79558
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] ICE: |[5/6 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79581
--- Comment #4 from PeteVine ---
> Judging by your -mcpu option is this on a Cortex-A5?
Yes, if you look at the results on a Cortex A53 running armv7 code, it doesn't
reproduce either, and A5-codegen is king :) (hopefully due to in-order design
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79345
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 40784
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40784&action=edit
gcc7-pr79345.patch
Untested fix. That said, I think (most likely just for GCC8) it would be very
much benefici
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78056
--- Comment #21 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Mon Feb 20 16:43:03 2017
New Revision: 245607
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245607&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2017-02-20 Kelvin Nilsen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79151
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> The question is of course whether vector division has comparable latency /
> throughput as the scalar one.
Here's a test case on a rather old CPU, a Core 2 Q820
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79617
Roland Illig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79616
Roland Illig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79615
Roland Illig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79613
Roland Illig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79603
Roland Illig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79608
Roland Illig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79151
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
A few more test cases with a relatively recent trunk.
POWER7:
[tkoenig@gcc1-power7 ~]$ gcc -mcpu=power7 -O3 foo.c && time ./a.out
41.987257
real0m3.688s
user0m3.685s
sys 0m0.002s
[tkoenig@gcc1-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79536
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Feb 20 17:35:21 2017
New Revision: 245609
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245609&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/79536
* fold-const.c (fold_negate_expr_1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79537
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Feb 20 17:37:20 2017
New Revision: 245610
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245610&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/79537
* gimplify.c (gimplify_expr): Handl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79536
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79537
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79558
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Feb 20 17:38:57 2017
New Revision: 245611
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245611&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/79558
* ubsan.c (ubsan_type_descriptor): C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79558
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79587
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> Created attachment 40783 [details]
> Untested patch
>
> Untested patch, can you please test building Python with the patch? Thanks
Works fine now, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79630
Bug ID: 79630
Summary: ICE in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:1311
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79631
Bug ID: 79631
Summary: ICE tree check: expected integer_cst, have negate_expr
in decompose, at tree.h:5255
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79632
Bug ID: 79632
Summary: params.def should not contain redundant comments
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79633
Bug ID: 79633
Summary: ICE in gimple_call_arg, at gimple.h:3163
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79631
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
