https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77975
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 Regression] Missed |[6 Regression] Missed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79972
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79909
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79981
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79958
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79958
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Small C testcase:
struct X { int i; };
void bar ();
void foo (int b)
{
struct X x;
x.i = 1;
if (b)
{
bar ();
__builtin_abort ();
}
bar ();
}
You need to provide -fno-tree-dce a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77581
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
Seems already fixed in trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62045
--- Comment #3 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Both Tobias' and my thought was wrong. In the entry of
__gnu_pbds::detail::binary_heap::push_heap, the array
m_a_entries[0..m_size-2] contains a heap, and
m_a_entries[m_size-1] contains the element being pushed
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62045
--- Comment #4 from Xi Ruoyao ---
> This is certainly a bug making priority_queue::push O(n^2).
> Since it works correctly in GCC 4.6, it's a regression.
Sorry. s/O(n^2)/O(n)/.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77581
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] ICE: |[5/6 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79985
Bug ID: 79985
Summary: ICE in code_motion_path_driver, at sel-sched.c:6580
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79441
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
The difference with other main 64-bit platforms (x86-64, SPARC64, Alpha) comes
from the BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT setting, which is only 64 on s390x instead of 128.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79967
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79981
--- Comment #3 from Dominik Vogt ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> of course needs to be conditional on oldlhs being bool and lhs being
> integral.
Like so?
--
diff --git a/gcc/gimple-fold.c b/gcc/gimple-fold.c
index 9fd45d1..e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79986
Bug ID: 79986
Summary: [6/7 Regression][CHKP] ICE in fold_convert_loc with a
flexiable array
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-inva
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79981
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > of course needs to be conditional on oldlhs being bool and lhs being
> > integral.
>
> Like so?
>
> --
> diff --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79987
Bug ID: 79987
Summary: [CHKP] ICE in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.c:12151
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79986
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79988
Bug ID: 79988
Summary: [7 Regression][CHKP] ICE in tree check: accessed
operand 5 of call_expr with 4 operands in
ix86_expand_builtin, at config/i386/i386.c:36851
Product: g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79986
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
CHKP should somehow handle flexible arrays, thus hopefully it's fixable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79981
--- Comment #5 from Dominik Vogt ---
The knowledge that the integer can only assume the values 0 and 1 seems to be
hard coded. Is it possible to add value range information? With that, all
conditions and arithmetics could be done with the integ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79989
Bug ID: 79989
Summary: [7 Regression][CHKP] ICE in assign_temp, at
function.c:968
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79990
Bug ID: 79990
Summary: [CHKP] ICE in expand_expr_addr_expr_1, at expr.c:7790
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62045
--- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Patch proposal:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-03/msg00516.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62045
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Please note that libstdc++ patches need to be sent to the libstdc++ list as
well, see the policies at https://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62045
--- Comment #6 from Xi Ruoyao ---
Created attachment 40941
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40941&action=edit
performance test result with the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79988
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71569
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62045
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'm guessing this probably regressed with r174100
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79891
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
The instrumentation looks ok to me, we can recover all individual BB counts
from that. What is the issue is likely the association of BB 5 (the merger
block of if (false_var)) with line 13. Not sure where
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62045
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62045
--- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao ---
> Please note that libstdc++ patches need to be sent to the libstdc++ list as
> well, see the policies at https://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html
Sorry. I didn't notice that. Resent thread:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79981
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> (In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > > of course needs to be conditional on oldlhs being bool and lhs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63191
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79986
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79989
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63191
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63191
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> For the C++ FE, the question here is why we actually emit dynamic
> initialization at all. If constexpr is added to the ctor, then we just emit
> the initiali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63191
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> > For the C++ FE, the question here is why we actually emit dynamic
> > initialization at all. If constexpr is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79393
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139
Mikhail Kremnyov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||officesamurai at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79652
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79771
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79886
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79896
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79952
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79956
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Again, changing loop exists from n == sdim to n >= sdim might help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79960
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79891
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Yes, the merged is the issue, but looks it's created at the very beginning:
test.c.004t.gimple:
...
:
if (false_var != 0) goto ; else goto ;
:
ret = 111;
:
goto ;
:
ret = 999;
:
D.2320 = r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79966
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79891
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79891
>
> --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
> Yes, the merged is the issue, but looks it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79986
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79891
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #7)
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79891
> >
> > --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65705
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Mar 10 13:24:45 2017
New Revision: 246027
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246027&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
MPX: Fix option handling.
2017-03-10 Martin Liska
PR target/6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69804
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Fri Mar 10 13:24:45 2017
New Revision: 246027
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246027&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
MPX: Fix option handling.
2017-03-10 Martin Liska
PR target/6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63191
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Anyway, as far as memory consumption goes (compile time is still the same), the
following patch helps a lot:
--- gcc/config/i386/i386.c.jj 2017-03-07 20:04:52.0 +0100
+++ gcc/config/i386/i386.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77498
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, so given we can't have PRE do as good as predcom and a "cost model" for PRE
is out of the question for GCC 7 the following dumbs down PRE again. It does
so in the very much simplest way rather than tryi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51350
Mic changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||micwinx at web dot de
--- Comment #2 from Mic ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77509
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79907
--- Comment #1 from Pat Haugen ---
Author: pthaugen
Date: Fri Mar 10 14:32:42 2017
New Revision: 246029
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246029&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79907
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_init_hard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79907
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79980
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Apparently so is min vs max:
maxcode = std::max(max_single_utf16_unit, maxcode);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79981
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79771
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Do you really need even the zlib.def change?
That part has been added 5 years ago, so it would surprise me if it didn't
build even with that.
If that works, the gzguts.h and zlib.h changes is something we can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79356
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Mar 10 15:23:06 2017
New Revision: 246032
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246032&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
testsuite: attr-alloc_size-11.c (PR79356)
As stated in the PR (and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79981
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> (simplify
> (convert @1)
> (if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@1))
> && INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type)
> && (TREE_CODE (type) == BOOLEAN_TYPE
> || TY
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79896
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 10 15:28:26 2017
New Revision: 246034
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246034&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79896
* decl.c (finish_enum_value_list): If value i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79899
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 10 15:33:04 2017
New Revision: 246038
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246038&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79899
* optimize.c (maybe_thunk_body): Don't ICE if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77498
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77333
--- Comment #21 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed two ways to fix this on the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-03/msg00535.html
(I have not yet looked at how much back-portable they are but I do not
expect any issues.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79967
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79967
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Mar 10 15:36:00 2017
New Revision: 246039
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246039&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79967
* decl.c (grokdeclarator): Check ATTRLIST
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78972
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |bernds at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79896
Jakub Jelinek 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=79899
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79185
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78972
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|7.0 |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79941
--- Comment #2 from Will Schmidt ---
Author: willschm
Date: Fri Mar 10 16:18:44 2017
New Revision: 246040
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246040&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc:
2017-03-10 Will Schmidt
PR target/79941
* config/rs60
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79941
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79356
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|s390x-*-*, powerpc*-*-*,|s390x-*-*, powerpc*-*-*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79771
--- Comment #6 from Yaakov Selkowitz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Do you really need even the zlib.def change?
For standalone zlib, yes; if you try to export a symbol which doesn't exist, ld
errors out.
> That part has been
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79967
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> It seems to be valid, clang++ accepts it and G++ too (with my patch).
I don't have a strong opinion whether this should or should not be accepted but
in comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79960
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 10 17:35:54 2017
New Revision: 246042
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246042&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79960 - alias templates and partial ordering
* pt.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78543
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79985
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79952
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Mar 10 18:39:52 2017
New Revision: 246044
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246044&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix out-of-bounds write in RTL function reader (PR bootstrap/79952)
gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79991
Bug ID: 79991
Summary: typo in params.def,
PARAM_VECT_MAX_PEELING_FOR_ALIGNMENT
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79511
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think this is the fix for comment 9:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/codecvt.cc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/codecvt.cc
@@ -1483,7 +1483,11 @@ do_in(state_type&, const extern_type* __from, const
extern_typ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79952
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
Should be fixed by r246044.
Jeff: does this fix the issue you mentioned in comment #2?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79952
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I was just about to test it... Results shortly :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79952
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
It does!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79921
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Mar 10 19:09:02 2017
New Revision: 246045
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246045&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
c-indentation.c: workaround xgettext limitation (PR c/79921)
gcc/c-fam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79921
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79875
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Mar 10 19:22:35 2017
New Revision: 246047
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246047&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add missing punctuation to message (PR driver/79875)
gcc/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79875
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79956
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Fri Mar 10 19:42:46 2017
New Revision: 246053
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246053&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-03-10 Thomas Koenig
PR libfortran/79956
* m4/i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79981
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 10 19:47:44 2017
New Revision: 246054
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246054&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/79981
* tree-vrp.c (extract_range_bas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79992
--- Comment #1 from Yanai Eliyahu ---
Created attachment 40943
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40943&action=edit
the .cpp that has the bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79511
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And this is the fix for comment 3:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/codecvt.cc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/codecvt.cc
@@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ namespace
{
static_assert(sizeof(C) >= 2, "a code unit must b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79992
Bug ID: 79992
Summary: accessing storage member of lambda via pointer with
-no-pie causes the next function to overwrite the
pointer's data
Product: gcc
Version:
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
