https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86566
Bug ID: 86566
Summary: The preprocessor cpp6 loses line concatenation on
FreeBSD
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85624
--- Comment #2 from Senthil Kumar Selvaraj ---
When cfgexpand invokes gen_setmemhi, operands[1] is (const_int 6) - it's the
pattern which copies it to (reg:QI). Setting the mode of operands[1] to HImode
makes the problem go away - clrmemhi match
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86469
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #11)
> Hi Richard
>
> I have a smaller test case which. It shows only part of the error.
> "Dwarf Error: Invalid abstract instance DIE ref"
>
> Richard, would this be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86554
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Assignee|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86566
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86554
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
The issue seems to be that we do
Value numbering ret_10 stmt = ret_10 = (int) _9;
Setting value number of ret_10 to ret_11 (changed)
so we correctly figure both ret are the same. We then continue
Value n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86554
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.4.0
Summary|Incorrect code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86554
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86532
--- Comment #24 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Hope you don't mind, but may I suggest to do the comparison in unsigned
arithmetics, like:
/* We don't know the starting offset, but we do know that the string
has no internal zero bytes. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86523
--- Comment #11 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
r262850 works for me.
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86555
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86544
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86334
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86557
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||53947
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86566
--- Comment #2 from Yuri ---
Replacing cpp with gcc6 -cpp fails:
$ gcc6 -cpp -fno-omit-frame-pointer -D__FFTW3
-I/usr/ports/science/quantum-espresso/work/q-e-qe-6.3/include
-I/usr/ports/science/quantum-espresso/work/q-e-qe-6.3/FoX/finclude
-I/us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86557
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
ICC seems to emulate this even for SSE2 where I'm not sure this is profitable:
..B1.2: # Preds ..B1.2 ..B1.1
# Execution count [1.02e+03]
movd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86557
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86558
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86532
--- Comment #25 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Sorry again Martin,
but with the latest patch I see the following:
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx-vdppd-2.c (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx-vdppd-2.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86532
--- Comment #26 from Bernd Edlinger ---
../../gcc-9-20180715-1/gcc/expr.c:11360 is:
while (TREE_CODE (chartype) != INTEGER_TYPE)
chartype = TREE_TYPE (chartype);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85624
Senthil Kumar Selvaraj changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #2 from The Written Word
---
gcc-6.4.0 on AIX 5.3 exhibits a similar failure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We might need something like:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/src/c++98/math_stubs_long_double.cc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/src/c++98/math_stubs_long_double.cc
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
extern "C"
{
#ifndef _GLIBCXX_HAVE_FABSL
+#u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59480
--- Comment #9 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Jul 18 10:27:12 2018
New Revision: 262851
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262851&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2018-07-18 Paolo Carlini
* class.c (note_name_d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38935
--- Comment #2 from Paweł Zacharek ---
GCC behaves correctly, according to OpenMP 4.0
(https://www.openmp.org/wp-content/uploads/OpenMP4.0.0.pdf#page=175) and OpenMP
4.5 (https://www.openmp.org/wp-content/uploads/openmp-4.5.pdf#page=211)
Specific
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86567
Bug ID: 86567
Summary: [8/9 Regression] -Wnonnull/-Wformat/-Wrestrict affect
code generation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86518
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
GCC 7 sadly has a similar list of miscomparing files. Did not check GCC 6 yet.
So far I managed to catch one set of misbehaving warnings by checking testsuite
fallout with -fcompare-debug=-Wall, but unfo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86559
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #1)
> Might be a duplicate of PR64081.
Wrong bug number?
You might need -mcmodel=large
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86567
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |8.1.1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86471
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Surely static_cast is good enough, and doesn't rule out making the function
constexpr?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86562
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45996
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84100
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86561
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #5 from The Written Word
---
Created attachment 44405
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44405&action=edit
Preprocessed source for math_stubs_long_double.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86557
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 18 12:57:15 2018
New Revision: 262854
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262854&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-07-18 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/86557
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86563
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86560
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://bugs.llvm.org/show_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86559
--- Comment #3 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to The Written Word from comment #1)
> > Might be a duplicate of PR64081.
>
> Wrong bug number?
I was looking at bug 64081 comment 31.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86190
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jul 18 13:13:11 2018
New Revision: 262855
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262855&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/86190 - bogus -Wsign-conversion warning
* typeck
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68663
--- Comment #4 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #3)
> (In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #2)
> > Group Bull, Perzl, and I have been able to build it. Are you using an up to
> > date AIX Assembler?
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
As I suspected, something is doing:
#define fabsl(X) fabs((double) (X))
#define acosl(X) acos((double) (X))
etc.
This would probably be solved by any fix for PR 79700, which would have to add
this to :
#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68663
--- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn ---
GCC 4.9 is quite old now and out of service. If there is a bug in GCC 4.9, it
will not be fixed because there are no bug fix releases planned.
You never showed an example of the assembly line representing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 44406
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44406&action=edit
Undefine macros for long double math functions
Does this fix the build?
This isn't really a proper fix, as i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86190
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8/9 Regression]|[6/7/8 Regression]
|-W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #9 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> As I suspected, something is doing:
>
> #define fabsl(X) fabs((double) (X))
> #define acosl(X) acos((double) (X))
> etc.
/usr/include/math.h on this platf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #10 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> Created attachment 44406 [details]
> Undefine macros for long double math functions
>
> Does this fix the build?
I am trying a similar patch. I basically
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86480
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jul 18 13:42:02 2018
New Revision: 262858
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262858&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/86480 - nested variadic lambda and constexpr if.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86480
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86554
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Anton has been able to work around the problem with a source change (this code
is unnecessarily baroque anyway), so I don't think anybody is urgently awaiting
a fix. If this will be fixed in your eventual rew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68663
--- Comment #6 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #5)
> GCC 4.9 is quite old now and out of service. If there is a bug in GCC 4.9,
> it will not be fixed because there are no bug fix releases planned.
Understood
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86562
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhonghao at pku dot org.cn
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86562
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |INVALID
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68663
--- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn ---
I use GCC 4.6 to bootstrap. It appears that the error is caused by the "system"
bootstrap compiler, which I think is GCC 4.4 in your case. It is generating
code with too large displacements.
Also, some of t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68663
--- Comment #8 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #6)
> gcc-5.5.0 and 7.2.0 errored out in the same way but I am able to build
> gcc-8.1.0 successfully. gcc-6.4.0 seems to have built insn-output.c
> successfully
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68663
--- Comment #9 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #7)
> I use GCC 4.6 to bootstrap. It appears that the error is caused by the
> "system" bootstrap compiler, which I think is GCC 4.4 in your case. It is
> generati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86555
--- Comment #2 from Khem Raj ---
we can avoid the problem by altering the structure, thats not an issue, but do
you think compiler is right here by assuming to generate LDRD on a 4byte
aligned address when it is told that architecture (-march=arm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86567
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86518
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov ---
cp/mangle.o miscompares due to -Wsign-compare, possibly due to caching in
maybe_constant_value as in the above PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86555
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86555
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Khem Raj from comment #2)
> we can avoid the problem by altering the structure, thats not an issue, but
> do you think compiler is right here by assuming to generate LDRD on a 4byte
> ali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86568
Bug ID: 86568
Summary: -Wnonnull warnings should highlight the relevant
argument not the closing parenthesis
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86450
--- Comment #26 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, I needed far more than that. Obviously I needed the right versions of
autoconf and automake first in my PATH, which is simple. But I also needed to
use contrib/gcc_update to fix all the timestamps, so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59480
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86569
Bug ID: 86569
Summary: -Wnonnull-compare affects code generation
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86518
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
Other files seem to miscompare due to -Wnonnull-compare: PR 86569.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86555
Rich Felker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugdal at aerifal dot cx
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86566
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The proper way to preprocess Fortran code is with the Fortran
compiler. You can and should use 'gfortran -cpp'. See the
documentation that comes with your compiler.
If you think you need to use g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85602
--- Comment #14 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed Jul 18 17:20:05 2018
New Revision: 262859
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262859&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk.
PR middle-end/85602 - -Wsizeof-pointer-memaccess fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86570
Bug ID: 86570
Summary: Conditional statement doesn't trigger sincos transform
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86571
Bug ID: 86571
Summary: AIX NaNQ and NaNS output format conflicts with
__builtin_sprintf
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86571
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86572
Bug ID: 86572
Summary: unsafe strlen folding of const arguments with
non-const offset
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86572
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86469
--- Comment #14 from Jonny Grant ---
Hello Richard
My archive of the original problem didn't show it. But when I tried to
re-create I got the following. I'll try also make a small test case for this
one while I have it.
/usr/bin/x86_64-linux-gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86532
--- Comment #27 from Martin Sebor ---
I don't think it would be appropriate to introduce dependencies on the
sanitizer for the same reason we can't do that for warnings. But as I
mentioned in comment 16, I think performing these sorts of simplif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
--- Comment #37 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Jul 18 18:31:59 2018
New Revision: 262860
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262860&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-07-18 Janus Weil
Thomas Koenig
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86571
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86569
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86573
Bug ID: 86573
Summary: Failure to optimise passing simple values to inlined
function
Product: gcc
Version: tree-ssa
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86532
--- Comment #28 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Yes, agreed.
Should I send a patch to take out the statement in comment #17,
or will you do that in your follow-up patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81397
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86573
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Try renaming 'main' to any other name and gcc does optimize...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86574
Bug ID: 86574
Summary: ICE on std::prev with ranges::view::transform
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86573
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
When passing by copy, gcc seems to manage with default flags, but your
-std=c++2a -fno-exceptions hinder it somehow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86575
Bug ID: 86575
Summary: -Wimplicit-fallthrough affects code generation
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86573
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86570
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86535
--- Comment #8 from Curtis Hamilton ---
Based on you last comment, I attempted a build using FreeBSD 11.2 RC1 on the
same hardware (PowerMac G5 Quad) and got the same results.
Are you using native hardware or emulation?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69558
--- Comment #25 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Jul 18 19:36:01 2018
New Revision: 262861
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262861&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libcpp:
2018-07-18 Bernd Edlinger
PR 69558
* macr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86518
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Monakov ---
One more: -Wimplicit-fallthrough issue uncovered by the testsuite: PR 86575.
So far all issues appeared in gcc-6 or more recent.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86535
--- Comment #9 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I haven't tried to recreate the problem on FreeBSD. I've just tried various
inputs to GCC 7 -fgo-dump-spec.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #11 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> As I suspected, something is doing:
>
> #define fabsl(X) fabs((double) (X))
> #define acosl(X) acos((double) (X))
> etc.
>
> This would probably be solve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86535
--- Comment #10 from Curtis Hamilton ---
Is it -fgo-dump-spec or -fdump-go-spec? Below is an extract of my build log:
checking for hypotf... /usr/ports/lang/gcc7/work/.build/./gcc/xgcc
-B/usr/ports/lang/gcc7/work/.build/./gcc/
-B/usr/local/powe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86574
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
