https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka ---
Actually it seems that the tester was used to test the change and it was
applied at
Nov 7, 2012 03:02 UTC
(Values: Base: 164.gzip: 1269, 175.vpr: 1245, 176.gcc: 1627, 181.mcf: 868,
186.crafty: 2219, 197.pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka ---
Note that the eon performance is low even on frescobaldi tester (that is
pre-bulldozer). The regression is in range:
Oct 18, 2012 23:47 UTC
(Values: Base: 164.gzip: 1202, 175.vpr: 1247, 176.gcc: 1677, 181.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Another option is not to add -mdynamic-no-pic for clang and other compilers
that don't support -mno-dynamic-no-pic.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65644
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Richard G. ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #8)
>
> Looking closer, you are *not* using the Solaris assembler (/usr/ccs/bin/as):
Good call, Rainer. GCC is in fact using /usr/sfw/bin/gas, whi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
x86_64-darwin doesn't add -mdynamic-no-pic, so it is indeed not needed to add
-mno-dynamic-no-pic for it. I've been wondering about that, but then checked
that gcc supports -mno-dynamic-no-pic even there.
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65690
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
This variant of testcase also fails with GCC 4.8
void foo (const T);
struct S { T s; };
int
main ()
{
if (__alignof__ (struct S) < 16 || __alignof__ (const T) < 16)
__builtin_abort ();
return 0;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65690
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Jason,
I think I need a help on this one. I am not able to get canonical types right
in all cases.
Also I added the following sanity check that seems to trigger in the testuiste
Index: ../../gcc/stor-layout.c
=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65648
--- Comment #7 from Terry Guo ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Thus fixed, still would be nice to have a testcase in the testsuite. Terry
> or other ARM folks, can you please help with that?
> See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65690
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
This is better version of the patch that at least seems to survive early stages
of bootstrap ;)
Index: tree.c
===
--- tree.c (revision 221909
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35212|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65690
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 35248
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35248&action=edit
Patch I am testing.
Someting like this may work. I think we only want to change element type. I
also noticed the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65690
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
I see, C++ has special code for building qualified array types.
I would say that build_cplus_array_type should have a path where it is building
a variant and go via build_distinct_type_copy only adjusting the a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65690
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
We are constructing:
(gdb) p debug_tree (t)
unit size
align 64 symtab 0 alias set -1 canonical type 0x76b02a80
precision 64
pointer_to_this >
BLK
size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63191
--- Comment #7 from Steven Bosscher ---
(In reply to Steven Bosscher from comment #6)
> Now let's see if I can come up with a more reasonable test case...
Like so:
- 8< -
typedef int X;
struct Z {
Z(const X* x1, X x2, X x3) :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
--- Comment #17 from Jack Howarth ---
Can you revert r221891?
]: Entering directory
> '/sw/src/fink.build/gcc5-5.0.0-1/darwin_objdir/libiberty'
> if [ x"-fno-common -mno-dynamic-no-pic" != x ]; then \
> gcc -c -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -g -I.
> -I../../gcc-5-20150407/libiberty/../include -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings
> -Wc++-compat -Wstri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63191
--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher ---
(In reply to woodfin from comment #5)
> You could try adding a non-static function that returns an address inside Zs.
>
> const Z* getzs() {
> return &Zs[0];
> }
Yes, that does the trick:
PID USER
!= x ]; then \
gcc -c -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -g -I. -I../../gcc-5-20150407/libiberty/../include
-W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wc++-compat -Wstrict-prototypes -pedantic
-fno-common -mno-dynamic-no-pic ../../gcc-5-20150407/libiberty/regex.c -o
pic/regex.o; \
else true; fi
clang: error: unknown argumen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55470
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fche at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4 from H.J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52982
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65540
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65540
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Apr 7 21:02:12 2015
New Revision: 221910
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221910&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/65540
* calls.c (initialize_argument_information): When p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63191
--- Comment #5 from woodfin at intersystems dot com ---
You could try adding a non-static function that returns an address inside Zs.
const Z* getzs() {
return &Zs[0];
}
I'd think that would force it to actually perform the initialization if t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65657
--- Comment #4 from Senthil Kumar Selvaraj ---
Doesn't appear to be a missed clobber in the md file, as *.expand shows in insn
7 - r22 is in the clobbered registers list. Later passes assume r22 is unused
after insn 6 (reg:R22 QI is marked as REG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65657
Senthil Kumar Selvaraj changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||senthil_kumar.selvaraj@atme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63191
--- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher ---
How is one to reproduce this bug with GCC5? I've tried:
$ ./xg++ --version
xg++ (GCC) 5.0.0 20150407 (experimental) [trunk revision 221906]
Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65689
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64*-*-*
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56743
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65684
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59016
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65634
--- Comment #3 from Tom Honermann ---
Confirmed fixed with r221861. I'll leave the bug open though since comment 2
is requesting additional followup.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65636
--- Comment #3 from Tom Honermann ---
Confirmed fixed with r221861. I'll leave the bug open though since comment 2
is requesting additional followup.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65635
Tom Honermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|VERIFIED
--- Comment #3 from Tom Honerma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65635
Tom Honermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63731
--- Comment #35 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Tue Apr 7 18:09:28 2015
New Revision: 221906
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221906&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/63731
libgo: Build and install libnetgo.a
libnetgo.a pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63731
--- Comment #36 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Lynn added a new facility. Some notes on docs:
As far as documentation, I tried to find some documentation on build tags in
general and netgo specifically because it seems like this should be documented
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65690
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65690
Bug ID: 65690
Summary: [5 Regression] typedef alignment lost since r219705
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65338
iverbin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #49 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Richi, see c#45. Basically the regression is "gone" for the testcase as-is...
But it's pretty easy to twiddle it slightly and show the regression. It's also
important to note this is e500 code, so you ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65689
--- Comment #1 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Problem stems from parse_input_constraint (in stmt.c):
if (reg_class_for_constraint (cn) != NO_REGS
|| insn_extra_address_constraint (cn))
*allows_reg = true;
else if (insn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65689
Bug ID: 65689
Summary: [AArch64] S constraint fails for inline asm at -O0
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65685
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65688
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65642
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65688
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52982
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65688
Bug ID: 65688
Summary: xbomb 2.2a segfault, infinite loop at -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65684
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Vogt ---
OK, I agree that the behavior is Standard conforming...
Thanks for the clarification!
Still, the error message issued is not really helpful if one is unfamiliar with
the Standard. Maybe it could be improv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65684
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65648
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65614
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65678
--- Comment #7 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Tue Apr 7 15:01:07 2015
New Revision: 221901
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221901&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-07 Vladimir Makarov
PR target/65678
* lra-remat.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65654
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65648
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62258
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
doko, this fails for me with 4.8.1, and 4.7.4 and 4.8.0
There are no changes between 4.8.1 and 4.8.2 that could have affected this.
Are you sure it's a regression?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65676
Kirill Yukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65678
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65680
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8/4.9/5 Regression] ICE |[4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
--- Comment #13 from Rainer Emrich ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> Ok, the ld invocation still looks correct. For some reason we don't see the
> debug output from lto-wrapper or the linker plugin. Ah - it looks for '-v',
> s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47748
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62205
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65678
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 7 14:35:18 2015
New Revision: 221900
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221900&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/65678
* valtrack.c (debug_lowpart_subreg): New function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
--- Comment #12 from Rainer Emrich ---
Created attachment 35245
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35245&action=edit
yet another more verbose reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65680
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 7 14:34:06 2015
New Revision: 221899
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221899&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/65680
* expr.c (get_inner_reference): Handle bit_off
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65644
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Daniel Richard G. ---
> Reopening due to lack of resolution.
>
> If system patches should resolve the issue, then I am open to trying any that
> are appropriate; if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65648
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65540
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
--- Comment #7 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Tue Apr 7 14:10:43 2015
New Revision: 221897
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221897&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/65548
* gfortran.dg/allocate_with_source_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65670
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Per discussion on gcc-patches, powerpc64le-linux-gnu shares the
baseline_symbols.txt file with powerpc64-linux-gnu, and there's no current
reason for them to diverge. So nothing to do on that front.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64909
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 7 13:40:24 2015
New Revision: 221895
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221895&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-07 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2015-04-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65660
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 7 13:40:24 2015
New Revision: 221895
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221895&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-07 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2015-04-0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63917
--- Comment #12 from Yvan Roux ---
Author: yroux
Date: Tue Apr 7 13:24:05 2015
New Revision: 221894
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221894&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2015-04-07 Yvan Roux
Backport from trunk r217062, r217646, r2186
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65687
Bug ID: 65687
Summary: Inconsistent behavior for
__attribute__((__deprecated__)) between C and C++.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, the ld invocation still looks correct. For some reason we don't see the
debug output from lto-wrapper or the linker plugin. Ah - it looks for '-v',
so can you try with -Wl,-debug -Wl,-v?
Debugging th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
--- Comment #10 from Rainer Emrich ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> Unfortunately -Wl,-debug is missing ;)
Ok, I uploaded a version including -Wl,-debug
>
> It would be interesting to see the lto-wrapper invocation (is there s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65686
Bug ID: 65686
Summary: incorrect warning maybe-uninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
--- Comment #9 from Rainer Emrich ---
Created attachment 35244
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35244&action=edit
reproducer with temporaries and verbose gcc output including -Wl,-debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #48 from Richard Biener ---
On ppc64 we generate
.L2:
lfd 6,8(10)
lfd 7,16(10)
lfd 8,24(10)
lfd 9,32(10)
lfd 10,40(10)
lfd 11,48(10)
lfd 12,56(10)
lfdu 0,64(10)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65676
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Following patch:
--cut here--
Index: config/i386/i386.c
===
--- config/i386/i386.c (revision 221888)
+++ config/i386/i386.c (working copy)
@@ -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65684
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Vogt ---
This is motivated by this post on Stack Overflow:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/29489388/fortran-end-of-record-error-when-saving-a-variable/29490374#29490374
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65685
Bug ID: 65685
Summary: Reducing alignment with alignas should be rejected
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65684
Bug ID: 65684
Summary: Wrong error message when writing to a string
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64236
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64987
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47748
--- Comment #1 from yuta tomino ---
It seems fixed with gcc-4.7.2, 4.8.1, 4.9.2 and 5-20150405.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
3
fprintf.o 2
195 905fe68a PREVAILING_DEF_IRONLY main_test
233 905fe68a RESOLVED_EXEC __iob_func
fprintf-lib.o 1
263 905f8622 RESOLVED_IR inside_main
main.o 3
172 905f8490 PREVAILING_DEF main
179 905f8490 PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62205
--- Comment #3 from yuta tomino ---
It seems fixed with gcc-5-20150405.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65683
Bug ID: 65683
Summary: [5 regression] access types across "limited with"
breaks restriction of No_Elaboration_Code
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65550
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
Priority|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65489
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65489
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Apr 7 10:24:19 2015
New Revision: 221892
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221892&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR 65489: Accept VSTRUCT constants in arm_legitimate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
--- Comment #20 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Also crashes with 4.8.
markus@x4 tmp % < tcp_client.ii
template struct __and_;
template class function;
template class _Base_manager {
protected:
static _Functor *_M_get_pointer(int) {}
};
templ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65489
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
A posted patch was approved but not yet checked in.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65489
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Ping? If TARGET_LEGITIMATE_CONSTANT_P is at fault isn't this a latent issue
also present on branches?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Target Milestone|5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65549
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
Gone latent with inliner heuristic changes, -fno-inline -flto-partition=max is
now required to reproduce the ICE (with -O -g, of course).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 7 09:57:46 2015
New Revision: 221891
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221891&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65351
config/
* picflag.m4: Append -mno-dynamic-no-pic
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
