https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner from comment #4)
> Hi
>
> I have a similar problem with GCC 9.1.0, GCC 7.2.0 works fine.
> (I also had problems with GCC 8.1.0 but I did not check that this is
> actually
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82625
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slandden at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90403
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #6 from Victor ---
Thanks for your quick responses Martin!
Please, let us know any advance on this.
Best regards,
Víctor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90401
--- Comment #2 from Feng Xue ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Huh. IPA-CP dump difference:
>
> @@ -26,6 +26,8 @@
> Unknown VR
> callsite int caller(int, int&)/2 -> int callee(int&)/1 :
> param 0: UNKNO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #7 from Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de ---
Out of curiosity I tried to have a look at the debug output:
It seems to me that it gets stuck in the circuit detection of a source line
that just contains an "end module"-statement.
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46320
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46320&action=edit
Dot of basic blocks at p4est_triangulation.f90':688
Note that p4est_triangulation.f90':688 source line contains
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90404
Bug ID: 90404
Summary: No warning on attempts to modify a const
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #9 from Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> Created attachment 46320 [details]
> Dot of basic blocks at p4est_triangulation.f90':688
>
> Note that p4est_triangulation.f90':688 source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner from comment #7)
> Out of curiosity I tried to have a look at the debug output:
>
> It seems to me that it gets stuck in the circuit detection of a source line
> that jus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90383
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
struct alignas(8) A { constexpr A (bool x) : a(x) {} A () = delete; bool a; };
struct B { A b; };
constexpr bool
foo ()
{
B w{A (true)};
w.b = A (true);
return w.b.a;
}
static_assert (foo (), "");
Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
I've got a patch that I've been testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90405
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90402
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90405
Bug ID: 90405
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in thumb_find_work_register, at
config/arm/arm.c:7701
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90395
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #12 from Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de ---
Btw. in our gcc 7.2 coverage (which works fine), I often see about 800 branches
at an "end module" statement...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90326
--- Comment #3 from Alex Smith ---
Still reproduces on 9.1.1-1.fc30.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90394
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90382
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90383
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90406
Bug ID: 90406
Summary: OpenMP default(none) + if(variable) - difference with
clang
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90377
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
Thanks. The unreduced file does not reproduce for me. But anyway, we warn for
things like
int a[1];
void f(int n){
for(int i=0;i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90406
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90406
--- Comment #2 from Roman Lebedev ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> That is again a clang bug. if clause is on the parallel (after all, it is
> not a combined/composite construct in this case), so the expression in the
> clause i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90385
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89221
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Thu May 9 09:51:59 2019
New Revision: 271028
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271028&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR89221] Continue to default to '--disable-frame-pointer' for x86 G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90382
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
Oh my, let's immediately remove that little tweak, I have no idea how it could
have caused a regression but isn't worth the trouble. Maybe another time...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90364
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> (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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88963
Bug 88963 depends on bug 90395, which changed state.
Bug 90395 Summary: [10 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed (error: BB 2
cannot throw but has an EH edge)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90395
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90395
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu May 9 10:09:30 2019
New Revision: 271031
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271031&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-09 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/90395
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90395
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|9.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90382
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu May 9 10:18:23 2019
New Revision: 271032
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271032&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2019-05-09 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/90382
R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90382
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90382
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90379
--- Comment #8 from Marius Maraloi ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #7)
> Created attachment 46317 [details]
> Don't provide test_text for wrap fixes.
>
> The problem here is that the version I applied still had "test_text" set to
> a n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90407
Bug ID: 90407
Summary: Compilation error of a C function generated from
Simulink
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90405
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90402
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
All are similar, the VN in if-conversion removes a PHI - this is something we
cannot really deal with when doing peeling. In all cases this is a missed
optimization on the non-if-converted body of course.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90404
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90405
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90407
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90408
Bug ID: 90408
Summary: >= -O2 suddenly generates code
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90409
Bug ID: 90409
Summary: std::move[_backward] could be more optimized for deque
iterators
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90364
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
6.22% 80774 wrf_r_peak.pgo __module_mp_wsm5_MOD_nislfv_rain_plm
5.50% 71494 wrf_r_peak.pgo __module_mp_wsm5_MOD_wsm52d
vs.
4.04% 49253 wrf_r_peak.std__module_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90364
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56113
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #35
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82625
--- Comment #8 from Shawn Landden ---
Included in gcc 9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #10 from Christophe Lyon ---
And some regressions in g++ too:
g++.dg/compat/eh/unexpected1 cp_compat_x_tst.o-cp_compat_y_tst.o execute
g++.dg/cpp0x/lambda/lambda-eh2.C -std=gnu++14 execution test
g++.dg/cpp0x/nullptr35.C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90326
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90410
Bug ID: 90410
Summary: [feature request] -fdiagnostics-show-template-tree
should expand mismatched reference parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Is something in libstdc++ miscompiled or something in the tests?
Like, can you try those tests against libstdc++ built with that change
reverted, but test with gcc with that revision in?
If it is in libstdc+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89673
--- Comment #2 from Yibiao Yang ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Confirmed, again an empty label, thus we generate not precise results.
I am not sure whether this is really a bug or only default behavior of gcov.
Since these tw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90404
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #6)
> I've noticed that the new test store_merging_29.c fails on
> arm-none-eabi --with-cpu cortex-a9
> FAIL: gcc.dg/store_merging_29.c scan-tree-dump store-merging "
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90404
--- Comment #3 from David Brown ---
Yes, false positives are always a risk with warnings. We already have a
warning here that would catch pretty much any case, but with a big risk of
false positives - "-Wcast-qual". My hope is for a warning wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #22 from Than McIntosh ---
Apologies for the delayed response (busy with other bugs yesterday).
Testcase: hard to share the original... it has hundreds if not
thousands of imported packages (it's an auto-generated Go file), and
I'd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89673
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Yibiao Yang from comment #2)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > Confirmed, again an empty label, thus we generate not precise results.
>
> I am not sure whether this is really a bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #23 from Than McIntosh ---
Created attachment 46326
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46326&action=edit
dump from -fdump-statistics-stats
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46327
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46327&action=edit
gcc10-pr88709-test.patch
Untested patch for the testsuite (well, I've tested it on x86_64-linux,
together with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90411
Bug ID: 90411
Summary: Colored diagnostics can omit characters
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #9 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #6)
> > I've noticed that the new test store_merging_29.c fails on
> > arm-none-eabi --with-cpu cortex-a9
> > FAIL: g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In this and many other testcases it wants to ask is STRICT_ALIGNMENT non-zero?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316
--- Comment #24 from Than McIntosh ---
Did another run with the patch from comment 21. For the offending routine I
get:
phi-translate cache statistics: size 2097143, 1171808 elements, 0.465610
collisions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89673
--- Comment #4 from Yibiao Yang ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> (In reply to Yibiao Yang from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > > Confirmed, again an empty label, thus we generate not precise results.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90412
Bug ID: 90412
Summary: g++ suggest did you mean for namespace
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90409
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #13 from Victor ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> Created attachment 46320 [details]
> Dot of basic blocks at 6191':688
>
> Note that p4est_triangulation.f90':688 source line contains enormous number
> of basic block (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90394
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90394
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #4)
> Martin -- r270660 is Vlad's change :-) I committed it for him.
Heh, got it ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Victor from comment #13)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> > Created attachment 46320 [details]
> > Dot of basic blocks at 6191':688
> >
> > Note that p4est_triangulation.f90':688 s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #16 from Victor ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #14)
> (In reply to Victor from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> > > Created attachment 46320 [details]
> > > Dot of basic blocks at 6191':688
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
>
> this is weird, line 688 is an "end module" statement.
I see. Can you please use -fdump-tree-original and attach the dump file it
generates?
#include
struct X {
X(X const&) = delete;
};
using Map = std::unordered_map;
void copy_func(Map) {}
void map_error(Map& m) {
copy_func(m);
}
The 9.1 error is as follows (note that the line copy_func(m) appears nowhere in
this trace, despite being the proximal cause of offense):
In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90413
--- Comment #1 from Barry Revzin ---
clang also doesn't do this well: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41819
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90414
Bug ID: 90414
Summary: [Feature] Implementing HWASAN (and eventually MTE)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90405
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu May 9 16:00:23 2019
New Revision: 271036
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271036&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/90405 fix regression for thumb1 with -mtpcs-leaf-fra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90405
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Are you sure about the bisection btw? I've just reverted those changes,
rebuilt cc1plus and rebuilt libstdc++ with that, but get still the same
failures.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88709
--- Comment #11 from Richard Earnshaw ---
And in the testcase that prompted Ramana's original patch it clearly wanted to
ask something else.
We can't have it both ways.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89249
--- Comment #6 from Liviu Ionescu ---
I upgraded my mingw to 5.0.4 and I can no longer reproduce the problem, so I
suggest we close this ticket for now and reopen if necessary.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90415
Bug ID: 90415
Summary: std::is_copy_constructible> is
incomplete
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90405
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu May 9 16:35:56 2019
New Revision: 271037
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271037&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/90405 New test.
This time really add the test.
gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, seems it is libgcc_s.so.1 rather than libstdc++. Bisecting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The only difference the patch makes that matters for those tests is in
unwind-dw2.c, where in _Unwind_Resume_or_Rethrow function there is:
- _20 = _Unwind_RaiseException (exc_4(D));
+ _20 = _Unwind_RaiseEx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90416
Bug ID: 90416
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in dump_generic_node at
tree-pretty-print.c:1383 since r271006
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90416
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Same happens for e.g. Haswell:
$ ./xgcc -B. /tmp/ice.f90 -c -O3 -ffast-math -fdump-tree-vect-details
-march=haswell
during GIMPLE pass: vect
dump file: ice.f90.158t.vect
/tmp/ice.f90:9:0:
9 | subroutine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90351
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu May 9 17:40:30 2019
New Revision: 271038
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271038&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-09 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/9035
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90416
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329
--- Comment #24 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu May 9 17:40:30 2019
New Revision: 271038
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271038&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-05-09 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/903
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88238
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth ---
> However, 64-bit testing on Solaris 10/x86 only works with gld since ld doesn't
> support -z relax=transtls. What's worse, due to some packagaing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88238
--- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 46329
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46329&action=edit
Use __tls_get_addr indirectly on 64-bit Solaris/x86
This patch addresses the execution failures on 64-bit Solaris
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380
--- Comment #18 from Victor ---
Created attachment 46330
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46330&action=edit
-fdump-tree-original?
Martin,
this is the first time I use this flag. Is the attached file the one you are
asking fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46332
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46332&action=edit
gcc10-pr59813-aarch64.patch
Untested fix. The problem is that after adding sp addition back to the
caller's s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88879
--- Comment #10 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Thu May 9 18:13:28 2019
New Revision: 271039
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271039&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
sel-sched: allow negative insn priority (PR 88879)
PR rtl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88238
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46309|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88879
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] ICE in|[9 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88152
Matthias Kretz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
