https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63947
Bug ID: 63947
Summary: Wrong assembly code generation
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63946
Bhasker Bamsiya changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63946
Bug ID: 63946
Summary: [Compilation error] Compilation fails giving error in
iomanip.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.6
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61790
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 18-Nov-14, at 10:15 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> As libiberty has now strtoll/strtoull functions, guess you could use
> that.
> You'll need to guard it with #ifdef HAVE_LONG_LONG,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63924
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63924
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Nov 19 03:03:45 2014
New Revision: 217749
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217749&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/63924
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_constant_expression) [PARM_DE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63945
Bug ID: 63945
Summary: Missing vectorization optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63924
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
b, 8
b:
.zero8
.typec, %object
.sizec, 4
c:
.zero4
.typed, %object
.sized, 4
d:
.zero4
.ident"GCC: (GNU) 5.0.0 20141118 (experimental)"
ldp opportunity in bar is captured, but not the one in foo. Apparently, fwprop
pass propa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63944
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Actually, I suppose the existing approach for strings could be used if
desired - split the struct into a series of component references to a
SAVE_EXPR of the nonconstant struct initializer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63944
Bug ID: 63944
Summary: [DR#413] Partial overriding of nonconstant
struct/union initializers with designated initializers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43622
--- Comment #23 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> __float128 is still missing a specialization of numeric_limits.
Fully supporting an extended type (whether floating-point, or one li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63943
Bug ID: 63943
Summary: -Wmaybe-uninitialized pragma mishandled in inlined
function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63937
jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63937
--- Comment #7 from jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jgreenhalgh
Date: Tue Nov 18 22:45:21 2014
New Revision: 217742
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217742&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[Patch] PR target/63937 TARGET_USE_BY_PIECES_INFRAST
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63941
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63813
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Nov 18 22:15:42 2014
New Revision: 217741
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217741&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/63813
* c-ubsan.c (ubsan_maybe_instrument_reference_o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61042
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Nov 18 22:13:16 2014
New Revision: 217740
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217740&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/61042
* gcc.c-torture/compile/pr61042.c: New
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63940
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63895
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63895
Vladimir Makarov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63940
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Nov 18 21:14:49 2014
New Revision: 217738
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217738&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/63940
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_binary_expression): Don't ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62304
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43622
--- Comment #22 from Marc Glisse ---
__float128 is still missing a specialization of numeric_limits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43622
--- Comment #21 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Tue Nov 18 20:20:53 2014
New Revision: 217735
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217735&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-18 Marc Glisse
PR libstdc++/43622
gcc/cp/
* rtti.c (em
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 63925, which changed state.
Bug 63925 Summary: ICE with C++14 constexpr when trying to constexprify std::min
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63925
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63925
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|jason at red
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63940
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
This looks bogus (from cxx_eval_binary_expression):
if (lhs == orig_lhs && rhs == orig_rhs)
return t;
Just because both operands are self-evaluating doesn't mean we can return the
unfolded expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63939
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63939
--- Comment #1 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
This is the diff of the output from the c-c++-common/asan/global-overflow-1.c
-O0 execution test on linux and darwin...
--- pass2014-11-18 14:11:05.0 -0500
+++ fail2014-11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63925
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Nov 18 19:09:55 2014
New Revision: 217731
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217731&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/63925
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_increment_expression): Use PO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927
Kostya Serebryany changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eugeni.stepanov at gmail dot
com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63920
--- Comment #1 from Mitsuru Kariya ---
Sorry, the last link was mistaken.
The right link is below.
http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/v1HhsIs8d2LrmUk9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
See: http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/ELF/ppc64/PPC-elf64abi-1.9.html#STACK
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63942
Bug ID: 63942
Summary: [5.0 Regression] constexpr conflicts with previous
declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #4)
> Why can't we use frame pointers on PPC?
You don't need to use the frame pointer. The ABI says the stack frame always
contains a reference to the previous
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63941
Bug ID: 63941
Summary: ICE on valid code at -O3 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63940
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63940
--- Comment #1 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 34030
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34030&action=edit
preprocessed source for testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927
--- Comment #4 from Kostya Serebryany ---
Why can't we use frame pointers on PPC?
So far I have not seen any implementation of unwinder not based on FPs
that was fast enough for ASan.
ASan unwinds the stack on every malloc/free and thus it is v
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dje at gcc dot gnu.org
Created attachment 34029
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34029&action=edit
Full compiler error output
/tmp/20141118/powerpc-ibm-aix7.1.0.0/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/regex_compiler.h:
424:3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63934
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63843
Alex Velenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Alex.Velenko at arm dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63764
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > I'd think it's reasonable to subscript a non-lvalue vector (including e.g.
> > the return value of a function with vector return ty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63874
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Sounds like this might be confusion between weak definitions and weak
references. If we have a weak reference to the object, we cannot convert it
into a pc-relative expression, since that would mean we co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63939
Bug ID: 63939
Summary: [5 Regression] Massive asan failures (356) on
x86_64-apple-darwin14
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63934
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=63936
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63879
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63937
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62167
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch, wrong-code
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63934
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Nov 18 17:07:24 2014
New Revision: 217729
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217729&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/63934
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_call_expression): Check DECL_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63937
jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63764
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #9)
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > So, shall we convert_vector_to_pointer_for_subscript add something like
> > if (!lvalue_p (*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63520
--- Comment #11 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Hmm, the reduced testcase for comment 6 looks almost identical to
the decNumber.i testcase.
trippels@gcc2-power8 gcc % cat coverage.ii
int a;
void
fn1 ()
{
int b = 2;
for (; a;)
while (b >= 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63764
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > Maybe build_array_ref needs to ensure that references to elements of
> > non-lvalue vectors don't become lvalues? (This would be di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63937
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Caused by r216996.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63937
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin14 |x86_64-apple-darwin14,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59843
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If this is fixed even on the trunk (#c6 mentions just 4.9), then it is fine to
close this IMHO.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63520
--- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #9)
> Maybe dup of PR63879.
PR63879 segfaults here:
in tree_nop_conversion_p (outer_type=0x3fffaf4c3720, inner_type=0x3fffaf2807e0)
at ../../gcc/gcc/tree.c:1168
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59843
--- Comment #11 from Alan Lawrence ---
As I understand it, This is fixed in both 4.9 and 5.0 branch. Is there any more
we want to do or can it now be closed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61529
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63938
Bug ID: 63938
Summary: OpenMP atomic update does not protect access to
automatic array
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63764
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #7)
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> What folds away the VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR, when? c-typeck.c:lvalue_p does not
> consider VIEW_CONVE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63520
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Maybe dup of PR63879.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63520
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> That backtrace is not related to what happened at all, the thing is just
> that cc1plus ICEd and the gcc driver decided (incorrectly) to emit backtrace
> fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60258
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63870
--- Comment #1 from Alan Lawrence ---
Same problem on AArch64, although the error messages are a little different
(and varied) - this is following r217440 which provides some improvement in
some cases:
$ /work/alalaw01/sbuild/install/bin/aarch64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58930
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ja.gcc.bugzilla at aptsketch
dot c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60882
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63520
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #6)
> I gave the patch a quick try. Unfortunately I get stack overflows in stage2.
>
> ../../gcc/gcc/coverage.c:208:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation faul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63937
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-apple-darwin14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57594
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63915
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63520
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
I gave the patch a quick try. Unfortunately I get stack overflows in stage2.
../../gcc/gcc/coverage.c:208:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
read_counts_file (void)
^
xg++: internal compi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55942
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Nov 18 16:02:58 2014
New Revision: 217719
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217719&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-18 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/55942
* g++.dg/cpp0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55942
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63936
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34026
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34026&action=edit
tarball of preprocessed file that ICEs
I'm attaching the preprocessed file that ICEs.
It just need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61411
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55942
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
Recently fixed, I'm adding the testcase and closing the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63937
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63864
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 34025
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34025&action=edit
candidate patch for DOM
Ok, so I have a patch to teach DOM to do more memory CSE but for this testcase
what re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63937
Bug ID: 63937
Summary: [5 Regression] Compiling a very simple fortran code
fails.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63764
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> does. The difference is when
> handling the (type) saijplus16 cast in build_c_cast.
> In the ppc case and fn3 case, the type is the sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63936
--- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmmm... aarch64-none-elf builds succesfully
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63936
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63749
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63520
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Created attachment 34023 [details]
> gcc5-pr63520.patch
>
> Untested fix. Though, I'm really curious why this doesn't fail already with
> GCC 4.9.
It doe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63936
Bug ID: 63936
Summary: ICE: libstdc++-v3/include/chrono:725:66: internal
compiler error: in adjust_temp_type, at
cp/constexpr.c:1020
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63935
Bug ID: 63935
Summary: internal compiler error: output_operand: invalid
expression as operand
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61790
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63718
--- Comment #12 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> reproduced with r217718
Sorry, wrong PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63934
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
reproduced with r217718
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63718
--- Comment #11 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
reproduced with r217718
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62132
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The #c3 change is preapproved, please post the patch to gcc-patches though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62304
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63551
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63790
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Interesting that IPA-ICF doesn't catch the opportunity on x86_64 ... Martin?
IPA-ICF is badly broken on darwin.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63866
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63566
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216386&root=gcc&view=rev worked around this,
Martin, are you going to work on the right fix (so that both functions can use
local regparm ABI in this case)?
1 - 100 of 204 matches
Mail list logo
