https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81297
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Aug 1 07:04:10 2017
New Revision: 250758
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250758&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-01 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/81297
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81297
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81620
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81637
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81633
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
To answer myself, child_index doesn't need to be equal to i, e.g. if some
operand is constant in all the statements, then there is no SLP child for it.
If there are no NULL oprnd, then we can as well just sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81639
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81640
Bug ID: 81640
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in lookup_fnfields_slot_nolazy w/
-Wshadow=compatible-local
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81636
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81640
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80846
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Aug 1 08:26:14 2017
New Revision: 250759
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250759&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/80846
* optabs.def (vec_extract_optab, vec_init
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81641
Bug ID: 81641
Summary: Assemble failure with named address spaces and
-masm=intel
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81612
--- Comment #2 from vctrex at mailfence dot com ---
The arduino code is:
void setup() {
Serial.begin(9600);
}
void loop() {
}
Arduino:1.8.3 (Linux), Płytka:"Arduino/Genuino Uno"
/usr/lib/arduino/arduino-builder -dump-prefs -logger=machine -h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81400
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #6)
> TLS canary is initialized by the libc; in Glibc sources you can grep for
> THREAD_STACK_SET_GUARD.
>
> In this example the leftmost byte of the SSP canary is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81588
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Aug 1 08:32:37 2017
New Revision: 250760
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250760&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81588
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (optimize_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81612
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Thanks, but I will need output generated with '-E' which will create
pre-processed source file that I can test.
Can you please create it for me?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81633
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81400
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't think we should be adding -lssp automatically.
-mstack-protector-guard=
is meant mainly for kernel or special purpose libraries, libssp.a we build in
gcc is just one of the many possible implementati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79499
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81641
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
See A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81588
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Aug 1 08:43:45 2017
New Revision: 250761
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250761&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81588
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (optimize_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81641
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81624
Andrey Guskov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrey.y.guskov at intel dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81588
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81400
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Not to mention that -mstack-protector-guard= option is a target option (x86,
rs6000 and powerpcspe only), so it doesn't belong into gcc.c.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53542
--- Comment #3 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Tue Aug 1 09:02:58 2017
New Revision: 250762
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250762&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-01 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/53542
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81635
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
I.
The test-case slp.c (minus dg-final checks) looks like this:
...
/* { dg-options "-O2 -ftree-slp-vectorize" } */
int p[1000] __attribute__((aligned(8)));
int p2[1000] __attribute__((aligned(8)));
void __a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81620
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Aug 1 09:17:29 2017
New Revision: 250763
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250763&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81620
* tree-predcom.c (add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81627
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Tue Aug 1 09:20:08 2017
New Revision: 250764
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250764&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/81627
* tree-predcom.c (pre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81638
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
Summary|[7 Regression] A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81635
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81635
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81640
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Version|7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81612
--- Comment #4 from vctrex at mailfence dot com ---
I did tried to create pre-procesed code, but I am unable to make Arduino do so.
I'm sorry, I had tried but I just can't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81642
Bug ID: 81642
Summary: -Wtype-limits should not trigger for defined numbers
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81640
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81642
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81635
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> So maybe finally a testcase where that SCEV analysis did sth useful...
>
> x86_64 testcase should be possible with changing the datatype to double?
Yep.
This f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81400
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> I don't think we should be adding -lssp automatically.
> -mstack-protector-guard=
> is meant mainly for kernel or special purpose libraries, libssp.a we build
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81400
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81612
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, are you able to at least append build flags (CFLAGS) to the build system?
If so, adding --save-temps and --verbose will save the file and you can attach
it here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81643
Bug ID: 81643
Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/long_branch_1.c
scan-assembler Ltb
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81639
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Aug 1 10:57:55 2017
New Revision: 250768
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250768&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/81639
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_funcito
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80383
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81639
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81641
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Aug 1 11:15:52 2017
New Revision: 250769
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250769&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/81641
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_print_o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80400
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81625
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Numbers for i586:
rguenther@murzim:/tmp> /space/rguenther/install/gcc-3.4.6/bin/gcc -c t.c -Os
-ffunction-sections -m32 -Wa,-32; size t.o
t.c:0: warning: `t.gcda' is version `408*', expected version `304*'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80398
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80454
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80409
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation, easyhack
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81638
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 41878
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41878&action=edit
Reduced test-case
Reduced test-case that contains maybe uninitialized warning from the mentioned
commit. Note th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80502
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81591
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Sistek ---
Created attachment 41879
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41879&action=edit
test case producing an error
Hello Jakub,
thanks for looking into it. I have been able to isolate our problem i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81643
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 41881
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41881&action=edit
Assembly after
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81643
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81643
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81591
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Sistek ---
Also, the problem seems to disappear if there is no priority prescribed on the
nested task. However, as soon as I prescribe any priority to the child task, it
seems to appear.
Jakub :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81635
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
Looking at the x86_64 example, the difference between the signed and unsigned
case happens here in split_constant_offset_1:
...
CASE_CONVERT:
{
/* We must not introduce undefined overflow, an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81644
Bug ID: 81644
Summary: ICE in rtl_verify_bb_insn, BBRO pass duplicates BB
that ends with flow control insn
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81643
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> Confirmed that
> /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "Ltb" } } */
>
> is missing after the revision. Can you amker please tell me how the test
> works?
It's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81612
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
I bet it's dup of PR79760 which is fixed in GCC 6.4. Can you please that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81644
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81638
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 41882
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41882&action=edit
Suggested patch
Patch I'm suggesting. Can you David please test it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81635
--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #4)
> Looking at the x86_64 example, the difference between the signed and
> unsigned case happens here in split_constant_offset_1:
Same thing for nvptx.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Aug 1 11:59:27 2017
New Revision: 250771
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250771&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Make mempcpy more optimal (PR middle-end/70140).
2017-08-01 Martin Lisk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81635
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Richard predicted that this might happen. I'll see how easy it would
be to get back the SCEV-based analysis (but hopefully at the point
that needs it, rather than in dr_analyze_innermost)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79499
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80769
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Tue Aug 1 12:22:03 2017
New Revision: 250772
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250772&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport fix for PR 80769
2017-08-01 Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80502
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81645
Bug ID: 81645
Summary: Learn UBSAN to support -fsanitize=builtin
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81645
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81646
Bug ID: 81646
Summary: i386 SSE2 compilation mode which preserves psABI stack
alignment without requiring it
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81181
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Aug 1 13:36:50 2017
New Revision: 250777
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250777&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-01 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/81181
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81647
Bug ID: 81647
Summary: inconsistent LTGT behavior at different optimization
levels on AArch64.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81647
--- Comment #1 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
According to thread https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg00583.html
it's still not clear if LTGT should be quite or singaling, but inconsistent
behavior seems not correct here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81635
--- Comment #7 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue Aug 1 13:52:14 2017
New Revision: 250778
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250778&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Simplify nvptx/slp* test-cases
Use signed loop iteration variable in nvtpx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81646
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71752
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Aug 1 13:58:13 2017
New Revision: 250779
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250779&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-01 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/71752
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81633
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Aug 1 13:58:13 2017
New Revision: 250779
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250779&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-01 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/71752
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81646
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Yes, I think everything asked for is already present via those options (just no
way to configure a different default).
Thus either INVALID or WORKSFORME. Pick ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81645
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|7.0 |8.0
Target Milestone|8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81561
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Aug 1 14:06:13 2017
New Revision: 250780
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250780&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix segfault in gcov.c (PR gcov-profile/81561).
2017-08-01 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81647
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64 |aarch64,x86_64
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81561
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Summary|[7/8 Regression] S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81591
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Slightly adjusted testcase - no headers, no VLAs, etc.:
int
main ()
{
#define MT 4
int a[MT * MT];
for (int i = 0; i < MT * MT; i++)
a[i] = 0;
#pragma omp parallel
#pragma omp master
{
for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81561
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Aug 1 14:49:54 2017
New Revision: 250782
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250782&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix segfault in gcov.c (PR gcov-profile/81561).
2017-08-01 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81591
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I believe the check that triggers here is just wrong, if we have 2 different
queuest, it is very well possible that they will have different tasks with the
same priority as the next candidates. And the code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81561
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77331
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81626
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80619
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78736
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69981
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #20 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Tue Aug 1 15:37:22 2017
New Revision: 250783
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250783&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-01 Steve Ellcey
PR tree-optimization/80925
* gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81646
--- Comment #3 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> The Linux ABI says the stack should be 16-byte alignment, anything else is a
> bug.
The GCC manual recommends this (under -mincoming-stack-boundary):
This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80745
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81648
Bug ID: 81648
Summary: [8 regression] r250759 breaks build on powerpc64
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
Sorry for the breakage, I'm going to take a look.
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
