https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24943
--- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
The problem is there isn't a fixed relationship between the stack pointer
register, %r30,
and the argument pointer register, %r29. HP didn't provide a slot in the stack
frame to
save the argumen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89688
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||86708
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86708
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49854
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
The SPE port is getting removed for GCC 9, right? So can this be closed then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87950
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89616
Michael Kashkarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fruitclover at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89692
Bug ID: 89692
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in streamer_write_chain, at
tree-streamer-out.c:506
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-val
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89693
Bug ID: 89693
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: verify_cgraph_node failed (error:
edge points to wrong declaration)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Key
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89694
Bug ID: 89694
Summary: Redundant code with optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89694
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89695
Bug ID: 89695
Summary: inappropriate copying of trivially copyable prvalue
arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79595
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
Severity|minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79618
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #2)
> Good idea.
>
> We can't do it at run-time from inside the diagnostics subsystem, as the
> line-breaking information is lost when the literal is compiled.
>
> So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78685
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82738
Bug 82738 depends on bug 68836, which changed state.
Bug 68836 Summary: GCC can't properly emit debug info for function arguments in
a back-trace when using -Og
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68836
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68836
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89569
--- Comment #3 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> Why would 3 be the expected value? Line numbers are natural numbers, not
> uint32.
Yes, you're right. if the behaviour was defined to be the same as clang, it
wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89696
Bug ID: 89696
Summary: A potential bug with read() when parsing number from
string
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79618
--- Comment #5 from Roland Illig ---
Agreed.
I myself cannot remove it from the list of trivial bugs though.
101 - 119 of 119 matches
Mail list logo