https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89298
Bug ID: 89298
Summary: Address-Sanitizer false positive for
global-buffer-overflow?
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88147
--- Comment #23 from Martin Liška ---
>
> The purpose of the check is impose a limit on the size of the jumps that
> occur within the location_t representation, so that if there's a big jump in
> line numbers, we start a linemap, where big is ">
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88147
--- Comment #24 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #22)
> Should be fixed by r268789.
Nice, thanks for test and cooperation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89298
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81983
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89298
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is not clear how that can compile, because both
unsigned int g_var =0;
and
extern unsigned int g_var =0;
are g_var definitions, so if that is in multiple TUs, linker should fail to
link that.
In the other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87689
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87689
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On February 12, 2019 9:40:46 AM GMT+01:00, "tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87689
>
>Thomas Koenig changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89286
MarkEggleston changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45657|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89299
Bug ID: 89299
Summary: __attribute__ cleanup does not accept template
function
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89286
MarkEggleston changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45659|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89286
--- Comment #8 from MarkEggleston ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #5)
> Patch should go to the fort...@gcc.gnu.org and gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org
> mailing lists for review.
will do.
>
> From a quick look at the patch it does s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38959
Peter Cordes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot ca
--- Comment #3 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38959
--- Comment #4 from Peter Cordes ---
The __builtin_ia32_rdpmc being a pure function bug I mentioned in my previous
comment is already reported and fixed (in gcc9 only): bug 87550
It was present since at least gcc 5.0
https://software.intel.com/e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89253
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 12 09:29:39 2019
New Revision: 268790
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268790&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-12 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/89253
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89298
--- Comment #3 from Keerecles ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> It is not clear how that can compile, because both
> unsigned int g_var =0;
> and
> extern unsigned int g_var =0;
> are g_var definitions, so if that is in multiple T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89290
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> then the ix86_rewrite_tls_address splitter rewrites this into:
> (insn 12 6 10 2 (set (mem/c:TI (const:DI (unspec:DI [
> (symbol_ref:DI ("s"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67128
--- Comment #4 from Дилян Палаузов ---
If an impossible combination is requested, then ./configure shall fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89300
Bug ID: 89300
Summary: C++ requires statement does not fail silently for
const void *
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89290
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
This address should be valid:
(const:DI (plus:DI (unspec:DI [
(symbol_ref:DI ("s") [flags 0x2a] )
] UNSPEC_NTPOFF)
(const_int 8 [0x8])))
and there is code that allows this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89290
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> This address should be valid:
>
> (const:DI (plus:DI (unspec:DI [
> (symbol_ref:DI ("s") [flags 0x2a] s>)
> ] UNSPEC_NTPOFF)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89301
Bug ID: 89301
Summary: [concepts] requires clause on a template alias is
ignored
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89290
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 45664
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45664&action=edit
Untested patch
Kind of a proposed patch that fixes the testcase. More or less shot in the
dark, as this is not re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89300
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89299
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That attribute doesn't really make sense in C++, because you have destructors
anyway, so I would think that making it work with C++ templates is very low
priority.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89302
Bug ID: 89302
Summary: libgomp.c-c++-common/for-11.c fails when offloaded to
HSA
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89299
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89299
--- Comment #3 from paradox_ptr at protonmail dot ch ---
> Well you didn't instantiate it. 'cu' is not a function, it's a template.
Sure. There is not enough information for the compiler to deduce the type
without <>.
> IMHO it's completely unne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89301
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
Bug ID: 89303
Summary: memory leak with shared_ptr and
enable_shared_from_this
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Duret-Lutz ---
Created attachment 45665
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45665&action=edit
preprocessed source
Here is the preprocessed source.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89304
Bug ID: 89304
Summary: Compiler runs indefinitely
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88777
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Feb 12 11:25:11 2019
New Revision: 268791
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268791&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/88777
* cgraphunit.c (analyze_functions): Clear RE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87689
--- Comment #15 from Alan Modra ---
I've regression tested the patch on powerpc64le-linux, and of course verified
that it fixes the testcase. I'm also fairly certain the patch intent is
correct in the narrow sense of it correcting gfc_get_functi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45666
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45666&action=edit
gcc9-pr89285-wip.patch
Non-working WIP.
I've tried this, thinking that we don't really need to duplicate decl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89304
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89304
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This will work, because there's no conversion needed from tuple to
tuple const, so the expected overload is more speclialized:
const auto t = std::make_tuple(args...);
f(t);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45667
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45667&action=edit
gcc9-pr89285-wip.patch
Updated patch to address 1). For 2), I guess we need to handle e.g.
CLEANUP_STMT, IF_S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89304
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
With -ftemplate-depth=50 it fails in about 5 seconds.
-ftemplate-depth=100 takes 18s
-ftemplate-depth=200 takes 1m27s
So there's something quadratic in the nested tuple instantiations which means
that reac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88818
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88818
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
The attached code does something similar:
$ ~/gcc/results/bin/gcc -c -O2 -flto -fvtable-verify=std -std=gnu++11 bug504.cc
during GIMPLE pass: ealias
bug504.cc: In function
‘_GLOBAL__sub_I.00099__ZSt27__rep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89305
Bug ID: 89305
Summary: CWG DR 253 is not implemented
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
--- Comment #9 from Nicolas Koenig ---
Sorry for the late reply, there was a sad incidence with my laptop and ice
cream :D
(In reply to Damian Rouson from comment #8)
> (In reply to Nicolas Koenig from comment #7)
>
> > I actually opted to use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
Nicolas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45535|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38959
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
Nicolas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45536|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88876
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Feb 12 13:46:41 2019
New Revision: 268795
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268795&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Revert a hunk from r261322 (PR lto/88876).
2019-02-12 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88876
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|redi at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Component|libstdc+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81983
--- Comment #7 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue Feb 12 14:00:59 2019
New Revision: 268796
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268796&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[libbacktrace] Handle bsearch with NULL base in dwarf_lookup_pc
The call t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81983
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45671
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45671&action=edit
gcc9-pr89285-wip.patch
Updated version that handles the above mentioned C++ stmt trees.
That said, there are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89242
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
I've got a patch candidate for it, testing now..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89306
Bug ID: 89306
Summary: [8/9 regression] Hash based IPA summaries are too slow
and consume up to 80% of IPA optimization time.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |rtl-optimization
Version|unk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89306
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89297
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89233
--- Comment #3 from iii at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: iii
Date: Tue Feb 12 14:51:39 2019
New Revision: 268798
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268798&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
S/390: Reject invalid Q/R/S/T addresses after LRA
The following ins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Duret-Lutz ---
I mentioned in my first comment that I had also cases that threw bad_weak_ptr.
I've been able to reproduce those as follows:
% cat badwptr.cc
#include
class blob final: public std::enable_shared_fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 45672
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45672&action=edit
Reduced testcase
This (partially) reduced version fails with 8.2.1 or trunk when -O1 is used.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89277
rdapp at linux dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdapp at linux dot ibm.com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> GIMPLE at -O1 looks OK-ish - release on all paths:
But release decrements the weak_count, and only calls _M_destroy() if the count
reaches zero.
The attachme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> > GIMPLE at -O1 looks OK-ish - release on all paths:
>
> But release decrements the weak_count, and only calls
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> > GIMPLE at -O1 looks OK-ish - release on all paths:
>
> But release decrements the weak_count, and only call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89305
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45666|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89307
Bug ID: 89307
Summary: -fprofile-generate binary may be too slow in
multithreaded environment due to cache-line conflicts
on counters
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88993
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
There is no reliable way. The limit may not be fixed, or can be different for
different directives or format strings. A test case like the one in the Red
Hat bug #441945 linked at comment #2 might tell you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89308
Bug ID: 89308
Summary: The sanitizers do no longer work on GCC 8 with newer
kernels
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89308
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc*-*-*
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89290
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89299
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89308
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89309
Bug ID: 89309
Summary: bogus -Wattributes ‘copy’ attribute ignored on a
declaration of a different kind than referenced symbol
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89309
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89308
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, which exact changes (e.g. upstream svn revisions) we are talking about
here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89296
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88993
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89230
--- Comment #5 from lavr at ncbi dot nlm.nih.gov ---
Thank you Martin, for giving me the idea of where the problem might be stemming
from! It does look like *printf() is not recognized by GCC as not modifying
the local memory. But in your exampl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89230
--- Comment #6 from lavr at ncbi dot nlm.nih.gov ---
That said, any function call within the outer "if()" but before the inner
"if()" would cause the warning, even if that call does not accept any pointers
(and thus cannot alias with local "s").
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89283
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Component|rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89310
Bug ID: 89310
Summary: Poor code generation returning float field from a
struct
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89311
Bug ID: 89311
Summary: Brace initialization needlessly invokes destructor
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89310
--- Comment #1 from Peter Bergner ---
Before combine, we have the following rtl:
(insn # # # 2 (set (reg/v:DI 122 [ argD.2825 ])
(reg:DI 3 3 [ argD.2825 ])) "struct.i":8:1# {*movdi_internal64}
(expr_list:REG_DEAD (reg:DI 3 3 [ argD.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89312
Bug ID: 89312
Summary: snprintf warning is unparsable and not confusing
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89313
Bug ID: 89313
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in process_alt_operands, at
lra-constraints.c:2962
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89314
Bug ID: 89314
Summary: ICE in wide_int_to_tree_1, at tree.c:1561
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89315
Bug ID: 89315
Summary: Cannot convert to std::initializer_list - fails with
gcc9 works with gcc8
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89310
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89316
Bug ID: 89316
Summary: ICE in gen_reg_rtx, at emit-rtl.c:1155
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89317
Bug ID: 89317
Summary: Ineffective code from std::copy
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713
--- Comment #54 from Chris Elrod ---
I commented elsewhere, but I built trunk a few days ago with H.J.Lu's patches
(attached here) and Thomas Koenig's inlining patches.
With these patches, g++ and all versions of the Fortran code produced excelle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89316
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 212 matches
Mail list logo
