https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952
--- Comment #38 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Author: manu
Date: Thu May 21 06:49:38 2015
New Revision: 223470
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223470&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2015-05-21 Manuel López-Ibáñez
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66233
Bug ID: 66233
Summary: internal compiler error: in expand_fix, at
optabs.c:5358
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66215
--- Comment #5 from Dominik Vogt ---
Wouldn't the correct and easy to identify place be right after the first
NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66230
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66180
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
I can reproduce these now, too. Indeed it is a bug - there is template
instantiated with anonymous namespace parameter that makes it also anonymous.
Sadly my fix for the false positives of type_in_anonymous_na
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66079
--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 35583
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35583&action=edit
Further advanced patch
This version fixes non-character allocatable scalar functions. Now, only
allocatable chara
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66232
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
We can add patterns to support
(call (mem:QI (zero_extend:DI (mem/u/c:SI (const:SI (unspec:SI [
(symbol_ref:SI ("bar") [flags 0x41] )
] UNSPEC_GOTPCREL)) [1 S4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66232
Bug ID: 66232
Summary: -fPIC -fno-plt -mx32 fails to generate indirect branch
via GOT
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61033
Michael Collison changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|michael.collison at linaro dot org |mkuvyrkov at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66225
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66225
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Wed May 20 23:55:08 2015
New Revision: 223464
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223464&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgcc/66225
* config/rs6000/morestack.S: Remove ".abiver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66231
Bug ID: 66231
Summary: -Werror=zero-as-null-pointer-constant - errors on
-isystem function default values of NULL
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66212
--- Comment #3 from Andri Yngvason ---
This is the libgcc that I built. I put it there. However, it is entirely within
the realm of possibility that it may have been stripped on it's way there via
dpkg. I'll try copying it there directly. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66230
Bug ID: 66230
Summary: Using optimizations causes program to segfault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63810
--- Comment #25 from Lawrence Velázquez ---
(In reply to m...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #22)
> Though I approved it on list, you should feel free to update with the review
> points others have and post that version if you wish.
Re-roll posted:
ht
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66225
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed May 20 21:39:40 2015
New Revision: 223463
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223463&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 66225 fix
Modified:
branches/ibm/ieee-submit/libgcc/config/r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39478
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #6 from Manuel Lóp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66229
Dehao Chen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dehao at google dot com
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66229
Bug ID: 66229
Summary: LTO fails with -fauto-profile on mcf
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66228
Bug ID: 66228
Summary: Compiling simple program with -flto -O1 causes mad
behaviour
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66226
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #18 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #16)
>
> Also arguments of emit_move_insn must have the same integer modes.
>
> if (reg_overlap_mentioned_p (operands[1], operands[2]))
> std::swap (operands[0],
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66225
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
The proposed patch allows the big endian powerpc build to build and install.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66212
--- Comment #2 from Jim Wilson ---
libgcc should be built with debug info by default, but the one in /lib is
probably stripped. Try setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH to point at the gcc-5.1
libraries that you built, instead of using the default ones provi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66227
Bug ID: 66227
Summary: [OOP] EXTENDS_TYPE_OF n returns wrong result for
polymorphic variable allocated to extended type
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66226
Bug ID: 66226
Summary: Incorrect code generation ppc, later assignment causes
calling argument corruption
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66216
--- Comment #2 from James Almer ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> And now it gives an ICE on trunk, so it's regressed from rejects-valid to
> ice-on-valid-code:
>
> a.cc:1:7: internal compiler error: canonical types differ for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66225
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 35580
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35580&action=edit
Proposed patch to fix the problem
I just wrote this patch, and I'm starting a bootstrap build with it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66225
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66225
Bug ID: 66225
Summary: libgcc/config/rs6000/morecore.S will not build on
systems with an older assembler
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #20 from Douglas Mencken ---
I'm lost. “Vanilla” 5.1.0 configured without --disable-checking went thru
stage2 w/o any issue...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65730
jcmvbkbc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65730
--- Comment #2 from jcmvbkbc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jcmvbkbc
Date: Wed May 20 18:56:14 2015
New Revision: 223452
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223452&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR target/65730
2015-05-20 Max Filippov
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66078
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66078
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed May 20 17:11:03 2015
New Revision: 223449
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223449&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/66078
* include/bits/stl_iterator.h (__make_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66145
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66224
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc*-*-*
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66224
Bug ID: 66224
Summary: PowerPC _GLIBCXX_READ_MEM_BARRIER too weak
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66220
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39478
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Frey ---
I don't know if it is possible for GCC to know, but it feels like it should
know. If one type needs to instantiate another type, this goes on until either
everything worked or GCC stops to instantiate a sub-typ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66223
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39478
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Daniel Frey from comment #3)
> instead. I'd still like to see GCC to hint at the loop when trying to
> complete types where the completion of A requires a completed B and the
> completion o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66220
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks.
I ran into a variant of this whilst testing -Wmisleading-indentation on the
linux kernel, where a preprocessor macro conditionalizes the "if/else"; here's
the test case I reduced it to:
/* This vari
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66222
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Douglas Mencken from comment #18)
> > try without --disable-checking
> Okay, doing it now.
>
> Meanwhile. Why ``sizeof (hashval_t) * CHAR_BIT'' cannot be checked at
> configure time, not at bui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66223
Bug ID: 66223
Summary: Diagnostic of pure virtual function call broken,
including __cxa_pure_virtual
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #18 from Douglas Mencken ---
> try without --disable-checking
Okay, doing it now.
Meanwhile. Why ``sizeof (hashval_t) * CHAR_BIT'' cannot be checked at configure
time, not at buildtime nor runtime?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66222
--- Comment #1 from Tong Liu ---
//av.h
/*av.h
*
*Copyright (c) 1991-1999, Larry Wall
*
*You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
*License or the Artistic License, as specified in the README file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66222
Bug ID: 66222
Summary: gcc error: invalid use of '__builtin_va_arg_pack ()'
at -O2 and up & pass at noopt
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39478
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Frey ---
Just a reminder that the error message is basically still the same with GCC 4.9
and does not help to understand the cause of the error. Especially real-world
cases are therefore extremely hard to understand!
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66217
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
--- Comment #38 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Wed May 20 14:56:47 2015
New Revision: 223445
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223445&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
2015-05-19 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
Bug 64928 depends on bug 66209, which changed state.
Bug 66209 Summary: Out of memory when compiling with --coverage and
optimizations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66209
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66146
--- Comment #12 from Rich Felker ---
Jakub, this is not the place to discuss the pros and cons of musl or other
particular implementations; libstdc++ needs to support many which do not have
the glibc-specific semantics you want. In particular the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66209
Nick Wellnhofer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928
Nick Wellnhofer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wellnhofer at aevum dot de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66146
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Thanks, Martin. So maybe something like this:
>
> --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/mutex
> +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/mutex
> @@ -726,7 +738,17 @@ _GLIBCX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66146
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66146
Rich Felker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugdal at aerifal dot cx
--- Comment #9 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66078
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Ping? I think this is now the only thing preventing me from throwing the
switch to default C++14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66215
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> IMHO the nops should go immediately before the first real instruction in the
> function. The point of not emitting it earlier is so that the nops are
> already
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66180
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
If I change foo1.cpp from comment5 to:
#include
namespace first{
class A {
int i;
};
}
using namespace first;
class G {
std::unique_ptr foo() const;
};
std::unique_ptr G::foo() const { return std:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66221
Bug ID: 66221
Summary: [CHKP, 6 regression] lto1: error: type variant has
different TYPE_ARG_TYPES
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66146
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
NetBSD 5 and DragonFly BSD fail the test too. I'm going to make libstdc++
assume pthread_once is not exception-aware unless specifically told otherwise
for targets where we know it works, such as x86-linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66215
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56926
--- Comment #11 from asmwarrior ---
Today, I did the same test as in comment 6 with a more recent gcc
5.1(http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw-w64/files/Toolchains%20targetting%20Win32/Personal%20Builds/dongsheng-daily/5.x/gcc-5-win32_5.1.1-2015
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65835
tprince at computer dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66220
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||52144
--- Comment #29 from chr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66220
Bug ID: 66220
Summary: -Wmisleading-indentation false/inconsistent warning
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62216
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52144
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66214
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66211
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps just guard this particular match.pd pattern with GIMPLE guard for now
(until the delayed C++ folding is committed)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66219
Bug ID: 66219
Summary: The gcc generated section start/stop pointers become
undefined when option -flto is used
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66218
Bug ID: 66218
Summary: [c++-concepts] "inconsistent deduction for ‘auto’"
with a partial-concept-id in a deduction constraint
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52742
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.1
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66211
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
Vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66216
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59884
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52144
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||59884
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66217
Bug ID: 66217
Summary: PowerPC rotate/shift/mask instructions not optimal
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #53 from Bill Schmidt ---
I'm not a fan of a tree-level unroller. It's impossible to make good decisions
about unroll factors that early. But your second approach sounds quite
promising to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66215
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66216
Bug ID: 66216
Summary: Defaulted Operators and contructors not working with
aligned attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66215
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Following testcase is wrongly compiled event with -O2 optimization level.
>
> $ cat o2-test-case.c
> static int a;
>
> int t(int tt)
> {
> switch (tt)
> {
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66215
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Following testcase is wrongly compiled event with -O2 optimization level.
$ cat o2-test-case.c
static int a;
int t(int tt)
{
switch (tt)
{
case 1: return a;
}
return 0;
}
$ ./xgcc -B. -mhotpatc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66215
Bug ID: 66215
Summary: [4.8/4.9/5/6 Regression] Wrong after label NOP
emission for -mhotpatch
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38265
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #28 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 20 May 2015, gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
>
> --- Comment #27 from Chung-Kil Hur ---
> (In reply to Chung-Kil Hur from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 35575
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35575&action=edit
Lightweight __throw_out_of_range_fmt for non-verbose builds
This is what I had in mind.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 20 May 2015, dougmencken at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
>
> --- Comment #14 from Douglas Mencken ---
> sizeof(hashval_t) = 4, CHAR_BIT = 8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66213
--- Comment #2 from zh__ ---
Yep, sorry. My bad.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66212
--- Comment #1 from Andri Yngvason ---
I've now compiled the same toolchain for i686 and I have the same issue there,
so I assume that I'm doing something wrong. It's hard to pin down what I'm
doing wrong though. Everything seems to be linked cor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #27 from Chung-Kil Hur ---
(In reply to Chung-Kil Hur from comment #26)
> Thanks for the detailed explanations.
>
> > The C standard only guarantees that you can convert a pointer to uintptr_t
> > and back, it doesn't guarantee that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66214
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.1.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66214
Bug ID: 66214
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE verify_type failed with -O0 -g via
gen_type_die_with_usage's dwarf2out.c:20250
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #17 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Thanks a lot guys for working on this! I'm really glad you're doing this :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #26 from Chung-Kil Hur ---
Thanks for the detailed explanations.
> The C standard only guarantees that you can convert a pointer to uintptr_t
> and back, it doesn't guarantee that you can convert a modified uintptr_t
> back to
> a po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66213
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
