https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #12 from Martin Lišk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90369
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90340
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Fredrik Hederstierna from comment #9)
> I did the test suggested, the results was as follows
>
> A. gcc-8.2.0
> B. gcc-9.1.0
> C. gcc-9.1.0 -fno-jump-tables
> D. gcc-9.1.0 patched "max_ratio_for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90372
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90373
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is a dup of bug 82885 or at least very much related to it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90373
Bug ID: 90373
Summary: Better alias analysis based on libc functions with
arguments which cannot alias
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90373
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
Bug ID: 90374
Summary: Fortran 2018: Support d0.d, e0.d, es0.d, en0.d, g0.d
and ew.d e0 edit descriptors for output
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57193
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at mengyan1223 dot wang
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90332
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329
--- Comment #20 from Tomas Kalibera ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #19)
> I don't see how -fno-optimize-sibling-calls helps in a systematic way.
> It might obfuscate a specific example enough to make it work, but...?
There is o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57193
--- Comment #19 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #18)
> It's back in GCC 9.1.0 and trunk:
>
> https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/KrrZW7
Wrong link. Should be:
https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/bxAeCR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Trunk:
tree PRE : 23.45 ( 58%) 0.18 ( 60%) 23.93 ( 58%)
17811 kB ( 29%)
`- tree tail merge : 0.03 ( 0%) 0.00 ( 0%) 0.02 ( 0%)
197 kB ( 0%)
`
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88238
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45109|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89037
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Tue May 7 08:49:05 2019
New Revision: 270936
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270936&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix output_constructor_bitfield handling of wide bitfiel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89037
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90369
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 7 08:52:33 2019
New Revision: 270937
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270937&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-07 Richard Biener
PR lto/90369
* lto-wrappe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 46310
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46310&action=edit
untested patch
So on it's own that doesn't help, after changing this --param
sccvn-max-alias-queries-per-acce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90375
Bug ID: 90375
Summary: Environment variables not listed in ENVIRONMENT
section of man page
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90369
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.0
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90364
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46311
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46311&action=edit
powf.simdclone dumps
So I focused first on powf simdclones and the number shrinks from 189 to 4..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82856
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #7)
> Author: tkoenig
> Date: Thu Nov 16 20:24:00 2017
> New Revision: 254845
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254845&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> 2017-11-16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #7)
> No, this is not a problem in the stack slot sharing algorithm, but rather in
> the input. As presented to expand, and only showing the important parts,
> and reo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82885
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david.bolvansky at gmail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90373
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90369
--- Comment #4 from krux ---
The code was automatically reduced, hence the empty linker script.
Looks promising, seems like you found the cause.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90376
Bug ID: 90376
Summary: spurious -Warray-bounds on memset() of several
struct's subobjects
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90376
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90361
--- Comment #4 from Viktor Ostashevskyi ---
Bisected to:
commit c6e37a9f5734bfe731b042993f77cb41b5a566c5
Author: redi
Date: Sun Jan 6 22:34:29 2019 +
PR libstdc++/86756 add std::filesystem::path to libstdc++.so
Move the C++17 st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46312
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46312&action=edit
gcc10-pr90348.patch
Untested patch that implements what was written in #c5. I agree that without
further chang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 7 11:17:00 2019
New Revision: 270940
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270940&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-07 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/90316
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-05-07 5:29 a.m., redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Dave, are you aware of anybody testing ia64-hpux?
> Should it be deprecated if nobody is maintaining it?
I don't have or access to a ia6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84402
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
May I please ping this? I would like to finish the hast table sanitization
patch in this stage1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87845
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
May I please ping this? I would like to finish the hast table sanitization
patch in this stage1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90377
Bug ID: 90377
Summary: [10 Regression] New -Wstringop-overflow with -O3 since
r270852
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90377
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2019-5-7
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90364
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
So the problem is that without a profile tree-vectorizer does a vectorization
in 1162 functions, while with PGO only 49 functions are vectorized.
Can you please Richi take a look? I can provide vectorizer dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90364
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Created attachment 46312 [details]
> gcc10-pr90348.patch
>
> Untested patch that implements what was written in #c5. I agree that
> without further changes to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90345
--- Comment #4 from Ivan Sorokin ---
Making points-to analysis aware of SESE regions will definitely help here and
is a nice thing to have.
There is one more option. In my reduced test case the body of 'push_back' is
unavailable, but when it is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88879
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
ping?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90364
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> So the problem is that without a profile tree-vectorizer does a
> vectorization in 1162 functions, while with PGO only 49 functions are
> vectorized.
> Can you pl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue May 7 13:03:19 2019
New Revision: 270944
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270944&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-07 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/90316
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> > Created attachment 46312 [details]
> > gcc10-pr90348.patch
> >
> > Untested patch that implements what was wri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
--- Comment #12 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> before that region. If we can say for:
> for (...)
> {
> unsigned char v[10];
> unsigned char *p = foo (v);
> *p = 1;
> unsigned c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90332
--- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This still fails (just on power 9) even with the above change. On all the
other powerpc64 targets it comes up as unsupported.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #11 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #10)
> On 2019-05-07 5:29 a.m., redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > Dave, are you aware of anybody testing ia64-hpux?
> > Should it be deprecated if nobody is maintai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87845
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #0)
> Can please anybody familiar with cselib help me here?
Don't think that's me (not really familiar with it), but I agree
the code looks dubious. cse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> > > Created attachment 46312 [details]
> > > gcc10-pr90348.patc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #12)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> > before that region. If we can say for:
> > for (...)
> > {
> > unsigned char v[10];
> > unsig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90332
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
I don't see a vec_initv16qiv8qi on power either, so that might be it - there's
no
effective target for building a vector from halves (and I wonder how
code-generation fares here).
So an option is to simply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Educating people about -fstack-reuse is also a possibility, thus leave the
issue to workarounds like that, experimenting with full rewrites that are
obviously not back-portable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90378
Bug ID: 90378
Summary: [9 regression] -Os -flto miscompiles 454.calculix
after r266385 on Arm
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90263
--- Comment #20 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #19)
> Created attachment 46265 [details]
> Patch candidate v2
>
> Update patch that should be fine. Tests on x86_64 work except:
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/mempcp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90379
Bug ID: 90379
Summary: Gcc 9.1 fails "make check" on linux due to missing
MacOS-specific header file
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #12 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-05-07 9:32 a.m., bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
>
> --- Comment #11 from The Written Word com> ---
> (In reply to dav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78666
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81933
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
Bug ID: 90380
Summary: gcov issue: gets stuck (infinite loop?) while
analyzing coverage on Fortran project
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #1 from Victor ---
Sorry,
the command to launch the docker container has an extra `gcov` at the end.
To correctly launch the container, please use this command:
$ docker run --rm -ti fempar/fempar:gnu-8.3.0_gcov-issue
Best,
Víctor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89612
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #14 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #10)
> I don't know the status of Jim Wilson who is listed as ia64 maintainer.
We reached out to Jim Wilson in 2016 and got a reply back. He no longer has
access to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #13 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #12)
> It might help to compile stage1 with -O2 or -Os. This might reduce offset
> and get a newer version
> of gcc to build. gcc-8.3.0 seems to have built okay on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61990
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Confirmed, I see following back-trace:
#0 0x0044f9d4 in handle_cycle (count=, edges=...) at
/usr/src/debug/gcc8-8.3.1+r269200-1.1.x86_64/obj-x86_64-suse-linux/prev-x86_64-suse-linux/libstdc++-v3/incl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 90376, which changed state.
Bug 90376 Summary: spurious -Warray-bounds on memset() of several struct's
subobjects
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90376
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90376
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #18 from Than McIntosh ---
I tested the most recent commit (270944). That cuts the compile time on the
larger example in half, but still at around 1200 seconds. I took another
profile (will attach an SVG image from 'pprof web').
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #19 from Than McIntosh ---
Created attachment 46313
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46313&action=edit
SVG graph from profiling run
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90372
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87145
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48101
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue May 7 15:46:05 2019
New Revision: 270960
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270960&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/85965 delay static assertions until types are complete
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85965
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue May 7 15:46:05 2019
New Revision: 270960
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270960&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/85965 delay static assertions until types are complete
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89629
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue May 7 15:45:59 2019
New Revision: 270959
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270959&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/89629 fix _Hash_bytes for lengths > INT_MAX
Backport from m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90105
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue May 7 15:46:32 2019
New Revision: 270965
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270965&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90105 make forward_list::sort stable
While testing the fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89102
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue May 7 15:46:44 2019
New Revision: 270968
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270968&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/89102 fix common_type<> and common_type specializations
Thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85965
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90165
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90165
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue May 7 15:46:36 2019
New Revision: 270966
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270966&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90165 constrain variant(T&&) constructor
Backport from main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88740
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue May 7 15:46:40 2019
New Revision: 270967
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270967&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/88740 Print assertion messages to stderr
Backport from main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90105
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Also fixed for 8.4 now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89424
--- Comment #2 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kelvin
Date: Tue May 7 16:22:21 2019
New Revision: 270969
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270969&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog:
2019-05-07 Kelvin Nilsen
Backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88857
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue May 7 16:23:19 2019
New Revision: 270970
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270970&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/88857 - ICE with value-initialization of argument in te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89214
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue May 7 16:25:26 2019
New Revision: 270971
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270971&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89214 - ICE when initializing aggregates with bases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89511
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue May 7 16:26:38 2019
New Revision: 270972
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270972&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89511 - ICE with using-declaration and unscoped enumera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89705
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue May 7 16:28:11 2019
New Revision: 270973
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270973&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89705 - ICE with reference binding with conversion funct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89876
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue May 7 16:29:39 2019
New Revision: 270974
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270974&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89876 - ICE with deprecated conversion.
* call.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89705
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89511
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89876
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88857
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89214
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63651
--- Comment #22 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #21)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #20)
> > (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #18)
> > > For the record with darwin15 I had to add
> > >
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90377
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> What kind of obfuscator did this go through?
Most likely used creduce to reduce the failure. NOTE sometimes creduce reduced
are reduced into invalid/undefined cod
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
