https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88315
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||88567
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88301
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88775
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 15 08:11:00 2019
New Revision: 267931
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267931&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/88775
* match.pd (cmp (convert1?@2 a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88682
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87306
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87306
--- Comment #1 from Kewen Lin ---
Confirmed.
This issue is power7 and below only, since it implicitly sets
-mno-allow-movmisalign, which disallow unaligned load/store in vectorization.
The proposed fix to guard the case under vect_hw_misalig on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83531
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
On current 10.136, with Xcode 9.4 command line tools, and/or GCC 7.4 (with a
new enough linker to support v2 tbd files), this seems to work for me:
clang bootstrap (trunk)
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresult
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87306
--- Comment #2 from Kewen Lin ---
Created attachment 45432
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45432&action=edit
Similar to the patch fixing pr65484
Referring to pr65484.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84995
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
In theory liblto_plugin is backwards compatible (newer versions work with older
compilers). Still a make install cannot simply replace the installed version
since it may end up replacing a newer one. So i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88852
Bug ID: 88852
Summary: [openacc] Host fallback doesn't create private copy
for reduction var on gang clause
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80547
--- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #1)
> An additional observation: for host fallback (adding an "if(0)" clause to
> both the OpenMP and OpenACC directives, for example), the OpenMP code still
> works,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88610
--- Comment #2 from simon at pushface dot org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #1)
> There is probably little value in filling PRs against new ACATS tests though.
I can see this argument if you mean that a new ACATS test might be dispu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88587
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Yes, it depends on the supported ISAs. In essential the issue is that
TYPE_MODE
depends on the (function) context it is used, that's even true for globals
(IIRC there are existing bugs with respect to that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88610
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84995
--- Comment #13 from Дилян Палаузов ---
At https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70345#c4 is written that “Right
now the plugin from any gcc can be used with any gcc.” This is not the same as
the last comment. Please clarify again, if an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88841
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574
--- Comment #30 from Jan Hubicka ---
We may still want to backport to gcc 7 branch. The ICF bug at least
exists there as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88842
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88844
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88846
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88850
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |9.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88851
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |9.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88847
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88853
Bug ID: 88853
Summary: ICE: verify_type failed (error: type variant differs
by TYPE_PACKED)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-chec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84995
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574
--- Comment #31 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #30)
> We may still want to backport to gcc 7 branch. The ICF bug at least
> exists there as well.
Sure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88788
--- Comment #16 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: prathamesh3492
Date: Tue Jan 15 09:37:22 2019
New Revision: 267933
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267933&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-15 Richard Biener
Prat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84995
--- Comment #15 from Дилян Палаузов ---
Why isn’t liblto_plugin.so tweaked to claim only the GCC LTO files, it can
handle? E.g. liblto_plugin.so from GCC7 does not claim files for GCC 8 LTO?
I do not get the conclusion here:
* liblto_plugin.so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80547
--- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue Jan 15 10:11:16 2019
New Revision: 267934
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267934&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx] Handle assignment to gang-level reduction variable
2019-01-15 Tom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80762
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
But it's a { dg-do compile } test so doesn't need the linker option.
So I don't know how this is failing still. If the
header is absent, the test shouldn't run.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71499
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, except that isn't all that r265398 did. It has both the make_more_copies
part and
|| (HARD_REGISTER_P (dest)
- && ! TEST_HARD_REG_BIT (fixed_reg_set, REGNO (dest))
- &&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88854
Bug ID: 88854
Summary: redundant store after load that would makes aliasing
UB
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88854
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84995
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84995
>
> Richard Biener changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88854
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
GCC 5 doesn't see the CSE opportunity because it doesn't process the unused
load and the translation code is not up-to-speed. Then DOM figures out the
redundant store it sees them adjacent.
So I wouldn't r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
btw looks likes ICC vectorises this as well as unrolling:
..B1.14:
movl (%rcx,%rbx,4), %r15d
vmovsd(%rdi,%r15,8), %xmm2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84995
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #16)
>
> Plugin interface should be good enough to allow LTO optimizing one
> binary with multiple compilers (multiple versions of GCC or GCC+LLVM
> combination) where
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019, ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760
>
> --- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> btw looks likes ICC vectoris
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88855
Bug ID: 88855
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (error:
SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI should be set)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37835
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Updated patch
--- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/resolve.c 2019-01-13 08:36:53.0 +0100
+++ gcc/fortran/resolve.c 2019-01-15 11:06:51.0 +0100
@@ -16649,7 +16649,7 @@ resolve_types (gfc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88856
Bug ID: 88856
Summary: [8/9 Regression] gfortran producing wrong code with
-funroll-loops
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42958
--- Comment #25 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> If you find anything still missing in the library, please let me know.
> I thought I had converted everything to the macros, which are fairly
> easy to change, but I may be mistaken.
Is there anyth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70303
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
My reading of the N3644 changes is that only equality comparisons are
supported, not relational ones.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70303
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Or is the implication of equality being valid that a+n is valid for n==0, and
therefore b-a is valid, and therefore relational ops are valid?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #12 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com ---
Created attachment 45434
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45434&action=edit
Debug output in gdb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88810
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88857
Bug ID: 88857
Summary: ICE in build_value_init
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #13 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com ---
The crash is not 100% reproducible. Looks like it is a race.
I'll check whether I can give you access to a system on our side.
I also encountered a differnt crash:
[Switching to Thr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88857
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88857
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.5
Summary|ICE in build_valu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88857
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88856
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.3
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88855
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86964
Johan.karlsson at enea dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Johan.karlsson at enea do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88858
Bug ID: 88858
Summary: ICE in rtl_verify_fallthru, at cfgrtl.c:2930 in
Firefox build with LTO and PGO
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88079
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 88801, which changed state.
Bug 88801 Summary: [9 Regression] Performance regression on 473.astar on aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88801
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88801
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88857
--- Comment #3 from Will Benfold ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> Started with r202612.
Is that just because before r202612, there was no support for 'auto' in a
function declaration?
I see the ICE with every release down to 4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37826
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65847
--- Comment #2 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
I've just found the same issue. The code is a bit different (here, AFAIK, this
is AVX), but I assume that the cause is the same.
With -O2:
foo:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
vaddsd %xmm3, %xmm1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78421
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39795
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Domin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88854
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Causes
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-pre-30.c scan-tree-dump-times pre "Replaced MEM" 2
the extra entry somehow confuses PRE (AVAIL compute I guess).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88046
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
This particular ICE can be fixed with avoiding generating inheritance DIEs
late.
Index: gcc/dwarf2out.c
===
--- gcc/dwarf2out.c (revision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88859
Bug ID: 88859
Summary: FAIL: experimental/string_view/operators/wchar_t/2.cc
execution test
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88854
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Kretz ---
Another test case, which the patch doesn't optimize:
short f(int *a, short *b) {
short y = *b; // 1
int x = *a; // 2
*b = 1;
*a = x;
return y;
}
The loads in 1+2 are either UB or a an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86736
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm, I can no longer reproduce -g0 vs -g on x86_64-linux. Ians testresults now
list
FAIL: g++.dg/asan/pr62017.C -O2 -flto (internal compiler error)
FAIL: g++.dg/asan/pr62017.C -O2 -flto (test for exc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88854
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019, kretz at kde dot org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88854
>
> --- Comment #4 from Matthias Kretz ---
> Another test case, which the patch doesn't opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #14 from dominik.stras...@onespin-solutions.com ---
With the 9.0 version of libasan I also experience an additional crash which is
100% reproducible:
buffer points to non-accessible memory:
(gdb) p buffer
$1 = (__sanitizer::u64 *) 0x7f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88854
--- Comment #6 from Matthias Kretz ---
Regarding gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-pre-30.c
I'd argue that for `bar`, GCC may assume b == 0, because otherwise f would be
read both via int and float pointer, which is UB. So bar can be optimized to
`foo` shows
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88854
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Kretz ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #5)
> Yeah, we do not perform this kind of "flow-sensitive" TBAA. So
> when trying to DSE *a = x; we only look at
>
> int x = *a;
> *b = 1;
> *a =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88795
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85949
--- Comment #2 from Jonny Grant ---
Many thanks Martin. Your change is a big improvement.
I ran on Godbolt.org
g++ (GCC-Explorer-Build) 9.0.0 20190114 (experimental)
The carat is now at the end of the attributes - is there a way to get the cara
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
Okey, I really believe there's some ABI incompatibility between libsanitizer
and glibc. Maybe here:
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux_libcdep.cc#L266
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86736
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Hmm, I can no longer reproduce -g0 vs -g on x86_64-linux. Ians testresults
> now
> list
>
> FAIL: g++.dg/asan/pr62017.C -O2 -flto (internal compiler error)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88860
Bug ID: 88860
Summary: Clarify gcc online manual 6.38 Attribute Syntax
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85949
Jonny Grant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86736
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
62017 would seem to suggest that we've generated bad code for the stage#3
tree_fits_shwi_p function (which would be a separate issue) but maybe the tree
shouldn't be null anyway.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85949
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86736
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #5)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> > Hmm, I can no longer reproduce -g0 vs -g on x86_64-linux. Ians testresults
> > now
> > list
> >
> > FAIL: g++.dg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88810
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 12:39:13PM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88810
>
> Thomas Koenig changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88855
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88855
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 15 15:37:29 2019
New Revision: 267939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267939&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-15 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/88855
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88857
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
With the modified testcase the ICE started with r173679:
$ ./cc1plus.173678 -quiet ~/k.C -std=c++0x
k.C: In function ‘void g()’:
k.C:11:7: error: invalid initialization of reference of type ‘const Foo&’ from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88859
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #1 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86736
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> > > Hmm, I can no longer reproduce -g0 vs -g on x86_64-linux. Ians
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88859
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Is r267938 a bisection result?
No.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88861
Bug ID: 88861
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in calc_dfs_tree, at
dominance.c:458
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88861
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.2.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88862
Bug ID: 88862
Summary: ICE in extract_affine, at graphite-sese-to-poly.c:313
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88862
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88863
Bug ID: 88863
Summary: ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2305
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86736
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #5)
> > > = pr78651 is:
> > >
> > > $ /XC/9.4/usr/bin/lldb --
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88862
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88861
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
That means we have unreachable blocks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88046
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 15 16:06:42 2019
New Revision: 267940
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267940&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-15 Richard Biener
PR debug/88046
* dwarf2ou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88046
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
