https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80332
--- Comment #2 from Freddie Chopin ---
Same behaviour with gcc 7.0.1 20170409.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80458
--- Comment #4 from Ulya ---
That sounds reasonable, however if I comment out 'if (!p) exit(1);', I get
warning no matter inline or not:
$ cat 1.cc
#include // exit
extern void *f();
inline void *g() {
void *p = f();
//if (!p) exit(1);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69725
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #13)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> > Confirmed. I suspect it's coverage mismatch errors causing the issue.
>
> No. The file in question chan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80461
Bug ID: 80461
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE in modified_type_die, at
dwarf2out.c:12566
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80436
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80290
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On April 19, 2017 8:10:58 AM GMT+02:00, "jason at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80290
>
>--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill ---
>Adding a timevar to cxx_e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38172
--- Comment #13 from Sergio Martins ---
Any point in using warn_unused_result instead of nodiscard on compilers that
support both ?
Probably a good time to close this bug. While it would be nice to have it fixed
there's no point on wasting resou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80435
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Apr 19 08:08:44 2017
New Revision: 246990
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246990&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Introduce gcov.h header file (PR gcov-profile/80435).
2017-04-19 Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80436
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80435
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0.1
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65972
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72815
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
I see, can you please paste configure options for GCC, that would help me so
that I can try to reproduce. Apart from that, the problematic GCC invocation
command line would be also appreciated.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80458
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
In that case no control flow analysis is needed, it's clear that the missing
return is always reached. With the conditional exit it depends on whether p can
be null, which requires more analysis.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80459
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80377
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80459
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80459
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 41226
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41226&action=edit
> gcc7-pr80459.patch
>
> Untested fix.
Works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #52 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I tried again to make a more reduced test case, but I couldn't really separate
it from library structure of our code. Do you think you can work with the given
test case?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80462
Bug ID: 80462
Summary: [avr] Incorrect "warning: uninitialized variable 'xxx'
put into program memory area" for identical strings
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80462
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80429
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Wed Apr 19 10:03:35 2017
New Revision: 246991
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246991&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
IRA: Don't create new regs for debug insns (PR80429)
In split_live_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80460
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #53 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #51)
> (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #50)
> > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #48)
> > > (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #47)
> > > > I'll tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #54 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #53)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #51)
> > (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #50)
> > > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #48)
> > > > (In rep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80460
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
I thought we could (in collect_fallthrough_labels) look at the GIMPLE_COND, see
if its OP0 and OP1 are INTEGER_CSTs, and if they are, determine which branch
cannot be taken, and then maybe don't do
labels->
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #55 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #52)
> I tried again to make a more reduced test case, but I couldn't really
> separate it from library structure of our code. Do you think you can work
> with the giv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80456
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80460
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Would that disable warning for:
if (0)
switch (x)
{
case 5:
x++;
case 6:
x += 17;
break;
}
?
Perhaps that is ok. Wouldn't that also disable warning for:
if (x > 24)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80446
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Apr 19 10:49:12 2017
New Revision: 246992
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246992&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80446 cope with libc defining __has_builtin
PR libs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80446
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80448
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Apr 19 11:03:43 2017
New Revision: 246993
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246993&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/80448 remove noexcept from defaulted functions
PR l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53757
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80448
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54118
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80463
Bug ID: 80463
Summary: [6/7 Regression] ICE with -fselective-scheduling2 and
-fvar-tracking-assignments
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80461
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53925
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51732
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55661
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55519
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55509
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55506
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80461
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 41227
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41227&action=edit
gcc7-pr80461.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #56 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #55)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #52)
> > I tried again to make a more reduced test case, but I couldn't really
> > separate it from library structure of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72815
--- Comment #4 from vicencb at gmail dot com ---
I can confirm that with the provided list of steps it is still reproducible.
To obtain the buildroot version use this:
cd /tmp
git clone git://git.buildroot.net/buildroot
cd buildroot
git check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55799
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50345
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Apr 19 12:00:47 2017
New Revision: 246995
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246995&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix typo in LTO documentation (PR lto/50345).
2017-04-19 Paulo J. Matos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80460
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #57 from Thomas Koenig ---
And here comes the first problem...
Running with rev 243584 (as a bisection) results in
very many failed tests like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50345
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80463
--- Comment #1 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Not sure which pass should be responsible for this.
The test uses un-initialized variable e, which could cause undefined behavior?
Also if I change the test into:
int *a;
int b, c;
void
d ()
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65972
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Apr 19 12:06:35 2017
New Revision: 246996
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246996&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Update SSA after AutoPGO early inlining (PR ipa/65972).
2017-04-19 Rich
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65972
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0.1
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #58 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #57)
> And here comes the first problem...
>
> Running with rev 243584 (as a bisection) results in
> very many failed tests like
*** Error in `/home/ig25/Downloads/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80270
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Ivchenko ---
Another test that fails similarly, but already at "-O0":
typedef int v8 __attribute__ ((vector_size (8)));
struct S2
{
v8 s2f2;
int* f3;
};
int foo (int i)
{
register struct S2 b asm ("xmm0");
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #59 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #58)
> (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #57)
> > And here comes the first problem...
> >
> > Running with rev 243584 (as a bisection) results in
> > very many
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80462
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Apr 19 12:20:57 2017
New Revision: 246997
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246997&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/80462
* config/avr/avr.c (tree.h): Include it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80462
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Apr 19 12:22:59 2017
New Revision: 246998
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246998&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from 2017-04-19 trunk r246997.
PR target/80462
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80462
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80377
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Likewise, I tried but failed to reproduce it.
A hunch: given the "-march=native", is there a chance that this bug is
dependent on the precise CPU flags on the host?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51732
--- Comment #2 from Martin Guy ---
:D :D
Reminds me of the first edition of a Gutenberg text for Shakespeare which, due
to an unfortunate OCR mismatch which also passed the spelling check, had
"He held the babe in his anus" for several years. (T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80463
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70773
wilco at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80453
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
While I could reproduce this yesterday on x86_64-linux (but only with
bootstrapped gcc), I can't reproduce this anymore today. My tree includes the
PR80436 fix, but it doesn't seem that changed spot is ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80460
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Actually, nothing I imagined wouldn't work for the case when the else branch is
dead :(.
A patch that helps with bogus warning for dead then branches:
--- a/gcc/gimplify.c
+++ b/gcc/gimplify.c
@@ -1912,6 +19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51732
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Guy from comment #2)
> :D :D
>
> Reminds me of the first edition of a Gutenberg text for Shakespeare which,
> due to an unfortunate OCR mismatch which also passed the spelling check, had
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80460
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
But even that is not enough for
switch (i)
{
case 0:
goto X;
if (0) // nowarn
X:
nop ();
else
die ();
case 1:;
i++;
}
because we need to reme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80453
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> While I could reproduce this yesterday on x86_64-linux (but only with
> bootstrapped gcc), I can't reproduce this anymore today. My tree includes
> the PR8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80461
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
It's hard to believe that GCC doesn't crash on that test case before 245039,
too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72815
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80401
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
There was some dispute about whether it was fixed. Mike, can you still
reproduce the problem?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80401
--- Comment #8 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I tried to reproduce natively on power using the same revision where Mike was
seeing failures but I didn't see any problems. He was doing an x86->power
cross compiler though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80456
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
With the volatile, cxx_eval_constant_expression sees
*(volatile struct A *) this;, A::test();
and it's not able to evaluate 'this' in it. Without the volatile it only sees
A::test()
which it can evaluate.
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72815
--- Comment #6 from vicencb at gmail dot com ---
Yes, the host (and build) system uses glibc, target system uses musl.
Thanks for the fix!
Should I test it or you already did?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69725
--- Comment #16 from Martin Sebor ---
If there's no way to make profiledbootstrap work with in-tree GMP (or other
prerequisites) then it would be most helpful to change the configure script to
detect it and error out early with a descriptive mess
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72815
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78792
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
I'm unable to feed Fortran FE with a pre-processed file:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2017-04/msg00072.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80453
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #3)
>
> It was "fixed" by r246965, which doesn't make much sense.
On the other hand r246965 "causes" a new heisenbug on ppc64le:
% /home/trippels/gcc_t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69725
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #16)
> If there's no way to make profiledbootstrap work with in-tree GMP (or other
> prerequisites) then it would be most helpful to change the configure script
> to det
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80453
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 41228
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41228&action=edit
another unreduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72815
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
Perhaps it's a good idea to adjust libmpx/configure.tgt to build libmpx only
for Glibc by default? I'm not sure if there's a particular reason that current
code accepts any suffix in the triple.
diff --g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66278
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker.cheng at gmail dot com
Known t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72815
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aivchenk at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80464
Bug ID: 80464
Summary: [7 regression] S/390: ICE failed to split vector move
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80464
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||s390x-ibm-linux
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80464
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Created attachment 41230
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41230&action=edit
Experimental patch
The problem was introduced with the arch12 patchset.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66278
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79929
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80453
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, for the #c0 testcase with r246965 reverted on x86_64-linux, the ugly thing
is that -fdump-tree-all makes the -fcompare-debug failure go away, but trying
individual -fdump-tree-* usually works. The retslo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80436
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 19 16:29:45 2017
New Revision: 247000
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247000&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/80436
* tree-ssa-loop-manip.c (find_uses_to_renam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80459
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 19 16:31:11 2017
New Revision: 247001
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247001&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/80459
* c-c++-common/opaque-vector.c (SIZEOF_MAXINT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80461
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 19 16:32:02 2017
New Revision: 247002
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247002&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/80461
* dwarf2out.c (modified_type_die, gen_type_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80459
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80436
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80461
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80423
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430
--- Comment #60 from Thomas Koenig ---
r242780 works.
With both r243586 and r244391, plus the patch for r245191
applied, I got numerous failures in the test suite.
Apparently, something else was wrong for some time, which
blocks the attempt at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80460
--- Comment #7 from Thiago Macieira ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> The warning is done before optimizations (except GENERIC opts), and can
> hardly be done much later.
I imagined it would be the case. Treat this as low priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80377
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey Walton ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #5)
> Likewise, I tried but failed to reproduce it.
>
> A hunch: given the "-march=native", is there a chance that this bug is
> dependent on the precise CPU flags on
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
