https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67446
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
According to the source, it assumes the input to the sha1_process_block is
aligned correctly. It might be a bug in ld passing an incorrect aligned block
to that function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67446
Bug ID: 67446
Summary: libiberty sha1.c:324 sanitizer runtime error: load of
misaligned address 0x62f00011847e for type 'const
sha1_uint32', which requires 4 byte alignment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63336
Balaji V. Iyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bviyer at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510
--- Comment #12 from Chen Gang ---
The patch passes "make check". I guess, it should be OK.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56568
--- Comment #5 from David Krauss ---
(In reply to fuzzyTew from comment #4)
The original testcase is invalid. initializer_list is special in that it
behaves like a reference, so adding && doesn't make a difference.
I'm working on an ISO proposa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56568
--- Comment #4 from fuzzyTew at gmail dot com ---
I'm not as experienced in the details. I think perhaps my example is invalid
as you state but the original testcase is not (see &&).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56568
--- Comment #3 from fuzzyTew at gmail dot com ---
The definition of initializer_list is that the array backing it contains copies
of the listed values and has the same lifetime as the list itself.
If the return value is bound into the object assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62097
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64089
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34392
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||20585
--- Comment #2 from Dominiq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67445
Bug ID: 67445
Summary: New warning: returning std::initializer_list bound to
temporary
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56568
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56568
fuzzyTew at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fuzzyTew at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45170
Bug 45170 depends on bug 51976, which changed state.
Bug 51976 Summary: [F2003] Support deferred-length character components of
derived types (allocatable string length)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51976
What|Remo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56138
Bug 56138 depends on bug 51976, which changed state.
Bug 51976 Summary: [F2003] Support deferred-length character components of
derived types (allocatable string length)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51976
What|Remo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51976
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.0
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64089
--- Comment #10 from David Malcolm ---
FWIW, homebrew has a formula for building libgccjit on OS X:
https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew/blob/master/Library/Formula/gcc.rb
Currently it applies this patch:
diff --git a/gcc/jit/Make-lang.in b/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64777
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336
Bug 37336 depends on bug 43849, which changed state.
Bug 43849 Summary: Add _gfortran_finalize function to close down the library
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43849
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43849
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43849
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> IMHO, no there isn't a real use case for exporting the cleanup() function.
Does it mean that this PR could be closed? FIXED or WONTFIX?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43849
--- Comment #8 from Janne Blomqvist ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #7)
> > So, to summarize: we already have a finalization function, cleanup().
> > Should we export it? I am not so sure, unless we have a real use case.
>
> C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66902
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Sep 3 19:05:15 2015
New Revision: 227466
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227466&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/66902
* src/c++11/debug.cc (_S_debug_message
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67435
--- Comment #8 from Yann Collet ---
Thanks for the link.
It's a very good read, and indeed, completely in line with my recent
experience.
Recommended solution seems to be the same : "-falign-loops=32"
The article also mentions that the issue is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64089
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #8)
> So anyways... for some reason I also had to add
> "-Wl,-undefined,dynamic_lookup" due to the "environ" symbol being missing,
> which makes no sense to me, because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63758
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38812
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #6)
> There's also some places where environ is used as an extern variable in
> libiberty that would need similar fixes; specifically in pex-unix.c and
> xmalloc.c.
..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67438
--- Comment #6 from Mikhail Maltsev ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #5)
> For the case above, why is a_14 = ~_13 not sunk to the edge
> 3->4 and b_18 = ~_17 to the edge 3->5? (yes, this creates
> additional BBs) This would reduc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66516
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Sep 3 16:23:11 2015
New Revision: 227458
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227458&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog
2015-09-03 Martin Sebor
PR c/66516
* doc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67444
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66291
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58175
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
*** Bug 66291 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336
Bug 37336 depends on bug 66291, which changed state.
Bug 66291 Summary: [OOP] Incorrect compile time warning for final procedure in
gfortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66291
What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66291
--- Comment #2 from Casey Webster ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> Confirmed from 4.9 up to trunk (6.0). Note that I did not try the patch (it
> should be submitted to fort...@gcc.gnu.org and gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org with
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62258
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43849
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||37336
--- Comment #7 from Dominiq
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66291
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62258
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Sep 3 16:02:07 2015
New Revision: 227456
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227456&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport fix for PR libstdc++/62258 from mainline
2015-04-27 Dmitry Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66998
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67374
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66855
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66998
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Sep 3 15:10:52 2015
New Revision: 227455
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227455&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Make std::experimental::not_fn SFINAE-friendly.
PR libstdc++/669
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67374
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Sep 3 15:10:42 2015
New Revision: 227454
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227454&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport libstdc++/67374 fix from mainline
2015-08-27 Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62258
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Sep 3 15:10:25 2015
New Revision: 227451
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227451&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport fix for PR libstdc++/62258 from mainline
2015-04-27 Dmitry Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66855
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Sep 3 15:10:32 2015
New Revision: 227452
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227452&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport PR libstdc++/66855 fix from mainline
2015-07-13 Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578
--- Comment #24 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Fredrik Hederstierna from comment #23)
> Thanks for your patch, I tried it out, and it solves the small example fine,
> the code now is similar to GCC 4.8 for this particular example.
>
> Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62039
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66998
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Sep 3 14:36:03 2015
New Revision: 227448
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227448&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Make std::experimental::not_fn SFINAE-friendly.
PR libstdc++/669
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62039
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Sep 3 14:35:43 2015
New Revision: 227447
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227447&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add concept checks to std::next and std::prev.
PR libstdc++/6203
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67444
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63758
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #5)
> Ping ?
>
> The patch works for us, and fixes a problem that a customer was having, so
> we would really like to see it checked in.
If I don't hear anything by the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67439
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67439
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
-mrestrict-it was introduced in 4.9 but it's enabled by default for
-march=armv8-a -mthumb. So, while -mrestrict-it did not exist for 4.8, this is
a regression from 4.8 as far as compiling with -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67439
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67444
Bug ID: 67444
Summary: RHS of overloaded assignment not finalized
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63758
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67439
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.9.4, 5.2.1, 6.0
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67434
--- Comment #2 from sthlm58 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> (In reply to Michal Kucharski from comment #0)
> > std::chrono::duration benchmark( )
> > {
> > std::random_device rd;
> >
> > std::chrono::dura
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65637
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67439
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65637
--- Comment #13 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu Sep 3 11:01:14 2015
New Revision: 227437
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227437&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix inner loop phi in expand_omp_for_static_chunk
2015-09-03
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65637
--- Comment #14 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu Sep 3 11:01:22 2015
New Revision: 227438
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227438&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Handle 2 preds for fin_bb in expand_omp_for_static_chunk
2015-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65637
--- Comment #12 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu Sep 3 11:01:05 2015
New Revision: 227436
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227436&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix gcc_assert in expand_omp_for_static_chunk
2015-09-03 Tom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67442
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Assert triggers through
/space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk2/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr49911.C:8:22:
internal compiler error: in wide_int_to_tree, at tree.c:1398^M
0xf49a69 wide_int_to_tree(tree_node*,
ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67421
--- Comment #4 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2)
> cc1 is invoked like this for a 32-bit-default configuration:
>
> $ cc1 -quiet wide-shift-64.c -mcpu=v9 -O2 -fdump-rtl-combine -o
> wide-shift-64.s
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59192
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67351
--- Comment #9 from naveenh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: naveenh
Date: Thu Sep 3 10:20:03 2015
New Revision: 227432
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227432&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-09-03 Naveen H.S
PR middle-end/67351
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67440
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67442
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Bootstrap finished with that assert and the fix (c,c++,fortran only, expanding
that now). I'm going to commit the varasm.c change if testing is fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66468
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66468
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Mikhail Maltsev from comment #14)
> Another reproducer:
>
> $ cat genmodes.cc
> inline char *strchr(const char *, int) __asm("strchr");
> inline char *strchr(const char *, int)
> {
> return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67439
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alan.lawrence at arm dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66705
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67442
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
/space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk2/gcc/genmatch.c:4640:1: internal compiler
error:in wide_int_to_tree, at tree.c:1398
}
^
0x12cfa95 wide_int_to_tree(tree_node*,
generic_wide_int > const&)
/space/rguen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66705
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Sep 3 09:25:35 2015
New Revision: 227431
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227431&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-09-03 Richard Biener
PR ipa/66705
* tree-ssa-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66705
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Sep 3 09:24:51 2015
New Revision: 227430
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227430&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-09-03 Richard Biener
PR ipa/66705
* tree-ssa-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67441
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
The unroller should at least set MEM_OFFSET_KNOWN_P to false.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67441
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Hum - it's a bug that the unroller leaves the same MEM_EXPRs because now the
later load/store does not seem to alias one with an adjusted MEM, like for
for (i = 0; i < SIZE; i++)
{
x[i] = x[i] + 1.0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67421
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #36275|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67421
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jiong Wang ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
>> Created attachment 36275 [details]
>> wide-shift-64.c.219r.combine
>>
>> The new gcc.dg/wide-shift-64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61960
--- Comment #5 from Geert Jan Bex ---
Dear,
Sorry, this is too long ago, I've lost the context of this.
I guess it is okay to consider the issue solved.
Thanks, best regards, -gjb-
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:28 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67442
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67442
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, truncation also should work, thus
gcc_assert (prec <= pcst.get_precision ());
(trying to see how far bootstrap goes with that)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67337
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67442
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
I wonder how many bugs of this kind we have lurking in the tree... It works
fine when type has the same signedness as pcst of course, but as we don't
know pcst sign we can't check for that case... The only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67442
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
That is,
tree
wide_int_to_tree (tree type, const wide_int_ref &pcst)
{
...
unsigned int prec = TYPE_PRECISION (type);
signop sgn = TYPE_SIGN (type);
...
wide_int cst = wide_int::from (pcst, prec, sgn)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67337
--- Comment #3 from Bastien Noverraz ---
The proposed fix work for Synthese on a Debian 8 with GCC 4.9.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67442
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67442
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67442
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67443
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.3
Summary|[5 regression] D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67438
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015, miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67438
>
> Mikhail Maltsev changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67443
Bug ID: 67443
Summary: DSE removes required store instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67435
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Yann Collet from comment #6)
> The issue seems in fact related to _instruction alignment_.
> More precisely, to alignment of some critical loop.
>
> That's basically why adding some code i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67442
Bug ID: 67442
Summary: GCC 5.2.0 on x86_64 creates invalid address on
specific array index calculation through pointer
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
96 matches
Mail list logo
