apper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150603 (experimental) [trunk revision 224056] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -Os small.c; ./a.out
: ../gcc-trunk/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150603 (experimental) [trunk revision 224056] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 -c small.c
$ gcc-trunk -Os -g -c small.c
$ gcc-4.9.2 -O2 -g -c small.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66396
--- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Interesting case.
I know nothing about graphite, but I guess the case is fixed in patch for
PR47653 by skipping graphite transofromation on loops in specific forms. The
skip mechanism is kind of nu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66396
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
BTW, it happens on ilp32 platforms I think.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66368
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
FYI, PR65787 only changes behavior for powerpc64le, so it's odd that you would
see any differences with or without those changes. The two patched routines
are never called for big endian.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66411
Bug ID: 66411
Summary: False positive in array bound check in a for loop
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65337
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
> /home/snoonan/Development/ec2-packages/gcc-multilib/src/gcc-build/prev-gcc/gnat1
>
> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> [Switching to process 16017]
> 0x00c354ed in ei_edge (i=..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66410
--- Comment #1 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 35694
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35694&action=edit
reduced test case
Here is a part of .reload for this test case which shows what is going on:
Choosi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66410
Bug ID: 66410
Summary: [SH] ICE: in assign_by_spills, at lra-assigns.c:1428
with -mlra
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66358
--- Comment #10 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #8)
> Ah, right. If it fixes the problem, then I think it's the only option we
> have for the release branch.
It can be used as a last resort. It depends on whether v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64181
--- Comment #3 from Mikhail Maltsev ---
A sligtly modified testcase (no templates, no lambdas, inconsistent behavior in
single invocation).
struct Raiser
{
virtual void raise() __attribute__((noinline))
{
throw 1;
}
};
struc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65337
--- Comment #9 from Steven Noonan ---
Sure.
$ gdb --args
/home/snoonan/Development/ec2-packages/gcc-multilib/src/gcc-build/./prev-gcc/xgcc
-B/home/snoonan/Development/ec2-packages/gcc-multilib/src/gcc-build/./prev-gcc/
-B/usr/x86_64-unknown-linu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65337
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
[...]
> raised STORAGE_ERROR : stack overflow or erroneous memory access
> /build/gcc-multilib/src/gcc-5-20150602/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Make-lang.in:119:
> recipe for target 'ada/comperr.o' failed
>
> Ideas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66133
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65680
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65984
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65597
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65450
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65504
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65427
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for 4.9.3 now, backporting to 4.8 is much harder, as the code changed
significantly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65368
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66251
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
On 4.8 branch as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64634
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64634
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 3 21:33:22 2015
New Revision: 224102
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224102&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2015-02-18 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66133
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 3 21:36:26 2015
New Revision: 224105
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224105&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2015-05-13 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65680
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 3 21:35:25 2015
New Revision: 224104
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224104&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2015-04-07 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65368
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 3 21:34:36 2015
New Revision: 224103
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224103&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2015-03-10 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44282
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jun 3 21:09:25 2015
New Revision: 224101
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224101&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/44282
* mangle.c (mangle_decl): Always SET_IDENTIFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66377
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 11:21:35AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
> > Does removing the code regress module size in the case
> > of modules with equiv used in modules used in modules etc?
>
> I do not know. I d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66409
Bug ID: 66409
Summary: Reporting ambiguous interface when overloading
assignment with polymorphic array
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65719
--- Comment #4 from Louis Dionne ---
I added Jason to the CC list since he's the one who committed r213641. Jason,
any clue about how to fix this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66130
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66130
--- Comment #12 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Jun 3 19:23:20 2015
New Revision: 224099
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224099&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-03 Manuel López-Ibáñez
Paolo Carlini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65719
--- Comment #3 from Louis Dionne ---
This bug is a real, real pain. I'm willing to help fixing it and/or to provide
test cases, but it'll take me forever if someone on your side does not assist,
since I don't know the GCC code base. I've looked a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66377
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 06:43:40AM +, fxcoudert at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> Is this code old, or a regression introduced by the recent
> module-equivalence patch (to reduce the module sizes)?
It is old cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65942
--- Comment #14 from Avi Kivity ---
Please consider backporting this to 5.2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66275
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Peter Cordes from comment #0)
> I wrote it in that ugly way initially because I was basically porting my ASM
> code to intrinsics. BTW, the results were terrible. gcc generates
> ridiculously ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66275
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.2
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66369
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66377
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 03:34:09PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66377
>
> --- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > Is this code old, or a regr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66190
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66190
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Jun 3 16:54:24 2015
New Revision: 224096
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224096&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/66190
* cp-gimplify.c (struct cp_genericiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66408
Bug ID: 66408
Summary: deferred-length character & overloaded assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66341
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66275
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Jun 3 15:46:41 2015
New Revision: 224094
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224094&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66275
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_functio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66133
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 3 15:35:03 2015
New Revision: 224093
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224093&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2015-05-13 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65984
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 3 15:33:59 2015
New Revision: 224092
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224092&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2015-05-04 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66377
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Is this code old, or a regression introduced by the recent
> module-equivalence patch (to reduce the module sizes)?
It is at least as old as 4.3.1 and I am wondering if the code is valid!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65680
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 3 15:32:52 2015
New Revision: 224091
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224091&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2015-04-07 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65597
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 3 15:31:46 2015
New Revision: 224090
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224090&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2015-03-30 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64634
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 3 15:25:15 2015
New Revision: 224084
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224084&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2015-02-18 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65504
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 3 15:30:58 2015
New Revision: 224089
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224089&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-03 Jakub Jelinek
Backported from mainline
201
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65450
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 3 15:27:43 2015
New Revision: 224087
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224087&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2015-03-18 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65427
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 3 15:26:56 2015
New Revision: 224086
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224086&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2015-03-16 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65368
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 3 15:26:15 2015
New Revision: 224085
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224085&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2015-03-10 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66394
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Reduced test case:
$ cat color.ii
template void CvtColorLoop(int, int, const Cvt &);
enum { R2Y, G2Y, B2Y };
struct RGB2Gray {
RGB2Gray(int, int, int coeffs) {
const int coeffs0[]{G2Y, B2Y};
coeffs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66251
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66407
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65611
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from H.J.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30044
ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32394
--- Comment #2 from Kenneth Zadeck ---
yeh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66405
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66405
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Creduce came up with:
template struct A;
template struct enable_if;
template struct B;
template using and_c = A>;
template using Constructible = int;
template struct common_tuple {
template <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66407
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66407
Bug ID: 66407
Summary: libgomp.c/examples-4/e.53.5.c etc. FAIL with PIE
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66272
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|4.8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66123
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66123
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 3 13:50:11 2015
New Revision: 224081
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224081&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-03 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66272
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 3 13:50:11 2015
New Revision: 224081
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224081&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-03 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65518
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65518
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 3 13:50:11 2015
New Revision: 224081
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224081&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-03 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62031
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 3 13:50:11 2015
New Revision: 224081
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224081&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-03 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66251
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 3 13:50:11 2015
New Revision: 224081
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224081&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-03 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66405
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 35692
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35692&action=edit
unreduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66406
Bug ID: 66406
Summary: go.test/test/nilptr.go FAILs with PIE
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66406
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66405
Bug ID: 66405
Summary: [5/6 Regression] ICE: in tsubst, at cp/pt.c:11984
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66366
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66404
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66404
Bug ID: 66404
Summary: gcc.target/i386/pad-10.c etc. FAIL with PIE
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66403
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66403
Bug ID: 66403
Summary: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-self.c FAILs with PIE
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66402
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66402
Bug ID: 66402
Summary: gcc.dg/uninit-19.c FAILs with PIE
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66401
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66401
Bug ID: 66401
Summary: g++.dg/ubsan/vla-1.C FAILs with PIE
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66385
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66400
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66400
Bug ID: 66400
Summary: g++.dg/stackprotectexplicit2.C FAILs with PIE
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66399
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66399
Bug ID: 66399
Summary: g++.dg/abi/anon4.C FAILs with PIE
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66303
--- Comment #10 from Dominik Vogt ---
Just a short update before the bank holiday weekend in Germany. The problem is
caused by missing cfi directives in the Glibc sources. We'll open a Glibc bug
report and provide a patch next week.
Gdb has so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66398
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66398
Bug ID: 66398
Summary: g++.dg/abi/anon1.C FAILs with PIE
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66386
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66385
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
*** Bug 66386 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66368
--- Comment #6 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
I think you've said the problem only occurs when using -fstack-protector-strong
and when building with glibc-2.21.
Have you tried using gdb to see where the segv actually occurs?
>gdb go
.
>r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66396
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
on x86_64 with -m32 btw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66397
--- Comment #3 from Franz Sirl ---
Yeah, I feared so :-(. This is a bit unfortunate though, as for our code base
we compile with -Werror=array-bounds, now when I add -fsanitize=undefined I
need to downgrade the error to a warning again. Another s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66396
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
