https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68263
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #0)
> Misaligned load/store are only handled for AVX, not SSE.
This is because only AVX supports instructions with unaligned memory operands,
and we have to provide a way to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68267
Bug ID: 68267
Summary: over-aligning with alignas() doesn't work
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67996
--- Comment #4 from Kim Gräsman ---
FWIW, it turns out that GCC warns, too:
$ g++ -Iinclude -I/ssd/code/poco/CppUnit/include
-I/ssd/code/poco/CppUnit/WinTestRunner/include
-I/ssd/code/poco/Foundation/include -I/ssd/code/poco/XML/include
-I/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68117
--- Comment #16 from Joost VandeVondele
---
Just another valgrind trace below. The bug is very sensitive, I have now a
non-lto case and it is a relatively small file that causes a crash. However,
just moving the file to a different directory is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68251
--- Comment #8 from Joost VandeVondele
---
Created attachment 36671
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36671&action=edit
reduced testcase
thanks, the issue is fixed indeed. Attached is the reduced testcase, about 1000
lines re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68266
Bug ID: 68266
Summary: pointers to arrays of excessive size not diagnosed
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68231
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67927
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67913
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67913
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Nov 10 02:23:34 2015
New Revision: 230081
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230081&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67913 - new expression with negative size not diagnosed
PR c++/6792
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67927
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Nov 10 02:23:34 2015
New Revision: 230081
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230081&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67913 - new expression with negative size not diagnosed
PR c++/6792
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68265
Bug ID: 68265
Summary: Arbitrary syntactic nonsense silently accepted after
'int (*){}' until the next close brace
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68261
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note glibc does provide a memcpy which is optimized for each target via ifuncs.
What version of glibc are you running.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57845
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Version|4.9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57845
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Nov 10 00:49:05 2015
New Revision: 230077
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230077&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/57845
* config/sparc/sparc.c (sparc_functio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57845
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Nov 10 00:47:28 2015
New Revision: 230076
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230076&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/57845
* config/sparc/sparc.c (sparc_functio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57845
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Tue Nov 10 00:45:03 2015
New Revision: 230074
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230074&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/57845
* config/sparc/sparc.c (sparc_functio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68264
Bug ID: 68264
Summary: tree-call-cdce wrongly uses ordered comparisons
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68259
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68259
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Nov 9 22:42:14 2015
New Revision: 230057
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230057&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/68259
* tree.h (reverse_storage_order_fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68259
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Nov 9 22:40:44 2015
New Revision: 230056
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230056&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/68259
* tree.h (reverse_storage_order_fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68263
Bug ID: 68263
Summary: Vector "*mov_internal" fails to handle
misaligned load/store from reload
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68262
Bug ID: 68262
Summary: Ill-formed function pointer declaration acts as
multi-line comment until ;
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68261
Bug ID: 68261
Summary: GCC needs to use optimized version of memcpy
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68259
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|sanitizer |middle-end
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68259
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68259
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r229965 aka Merge of the scalar-storage-order branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44348
--- Comment #11 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
As a side note, with a slightly modified example b from comment 3 and
$ gfortran --version
GNU Fortran (SUSE Linux) 5.2.1 20151008 [gcc-5-branch revision 228597]
$ cat pr44348_c3b_modified.f90
FUNCTI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68259
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68260
Dmitry Vyukov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dvyukov at google dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68260
Bug ID: 68260
Summary: false positive with tsan
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66494
--- Comment #4 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Indeed it is.
And prefix specs recursive and non_recursive are not relevant here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68225
--- Comment #5 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
$ cat yy0.f90
program p
type t
integer, allocatable :: a(:)
end type
type(t) :: x
x = t()
print *, allocated(x%a), x%a
end
$ gfortran -g -O0 -Wall -fcheck=all yy0.f90
$ a.out
F
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68225
--- Comment #4 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
>
> Am I correct to understand that this error is bogus for Fortran 2008 (at
> least)?
That feature is new in F2008 :
A structure constructor can omit the value for an allocatable component.
Further
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57854
Nach changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nachms+gcc at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 from N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66728
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66728
--- Comment #11 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mrs
Date: Mon Nov 9 18:27:43 2015
New Revision: 230039
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230039&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/66728
* dwarf2out.c (get_full_len): Retur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68259
Bug ID: 68259
Summary: [6 Regression][UBSAN] ICE tree check: expected
record_type or union_type or qual_union_type or
array_type, have reference_type in
reverse_sto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68258
Bug ID: 68258
Summary: core 879 Missing built-in comparison operators for
pointer types not supported
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68257
Bug ID: 68257
Summary: Reject empty abi_tag attribute on inline namespace
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68107
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
The same seems to apply for the C++ FE as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68107
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68129
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Mon Nov 9 15:53:26 2015
New Revision: 230029
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230029&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] PR target/68129: Define TARGET_SUPPORTS_WIDE_INT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67192
--- Comment #24 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Mon Nov 9 15:35:10 2015
New Revision: 230024
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230024&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR debug/67192] Further fix C loops' back-jump location
gcc/c/Chang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67192
--- Comment #23 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Mon Nov 9 15:31:32 2015
New Revision: 230023
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230023&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR debug/67192] Fix C loops' back-jump location
gcc/c/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67811
--- Comment #2 from Richard Henderson ---
copy_bbs fails to duplicate the eh regions included within
the requested region. This no doubt causes all sorts of
bad follow-on effects, heretofore unobserved.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68248
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 9 14:47:09 2015
New Revision: 230021
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230021&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-09 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/68248
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68256
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67295
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry for getting back late on this. I'll try to give more detailed steps to
reproduce this.
I take my clean checkout of trunk from svn and do:
1) $ svn up -r226900
This is the revision before
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68068
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67811
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68256
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68256
Bug ID: 68256
Summary: [6 regression] switching constant pools to rodata
sections causes go bootstrap failure.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56118
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Cost model still rejects the original testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68255
Bug ID: 68255
Summary: cgo-generated constructor not being called
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68234
--- Comment #4 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #3)
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015, jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68234
> >
> > Jiong Wang changed:
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56118
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 9 12:59:17 2015
New Revision: 230020
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230020&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-09 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/56118
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68253
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
The leak has gone, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68251
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Nov 9 12:32:28 2015
New Revision: 230018
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230018&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/68251
* tree-core.h (REF_REVERSE_STORAGE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68253
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Nov 9 12:31:50 2015
New Revision: 230017
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230017&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/68253
* fold-const.c (fold_truth_andor_1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68251
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68251
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Nov 9 12:14:07 2015
New Revision: 230015
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230015&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/68251
* tree-core.h (REF_REVERSE_STORAGE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68251
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |rejects-valid
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68249
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68250
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
And that's PR66949, but that's an ICE, not wrong-code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68250
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63669
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #5 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68254
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67749
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68254
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66716
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67749
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Mon Nov 9 11:40:17 2015
New Revision: 230014
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230014&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RTL-ifcvt] PR rtl-optimization/67749: Do not emit separat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68254
Bug ID: 68254
Summary: [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE: in lra_set_insn_recog_data,
at lra.c:954 with -O -fPIC and "X" asm input @ aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49526
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=67141
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68253
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68253
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Nov 9 10:45:00 2015
New Revision: 230011
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230011&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/68253
* fold-const.c (fold_truth_andor_1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65447
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66326
--- Comment #5 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Mon Nov 9 10:12:34 2015
New Revision: 230008
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230008&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libcilkrts/
2015-11-09 Igor Zamyatin
PR target/66326
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68234
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015, jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68234
>
> Jiong Wang changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68251
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68238
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68253
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68234
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|tree-vrp pass need to be|tree-vrp pass need to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68251
--- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele
---
Created attachment 36667
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36667&action=edit
partially reduced testcase
I attach a partially reduced testcase, reduction will continue for a while.
g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68240
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Starting iteration 95064
Value numbering iftmp.1_2 stmt = iftmp.1_2 = PHI <1(3), 0(4)>
Setting value number of iftmp.1_2 to iftmp.0_1 (changed)
Starting iteration 95065
Value numbering iftmp.1_2 stmt = iftmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68240
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68252
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
(with { tree utype = unsigned_type_for (TREE_TYPE (@0)); }
(convert (lshift (convert:utype @0) @2
maybe?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68189
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #6)
> Started with r208165 (on x86_64-linux with -O3).
This also only exposed the bug I believe.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68248
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68249
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68250
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66768
--- Comment #11 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Mon Nov 9 09:18:16 2015
New Revision: 229997
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229997&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-opt/66768
* tree-ssa-address.c (create_mem_ref_raw): U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68251
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44856
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68252
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
--enable-lto --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20151109 (experimental) [trunk revision 229981] (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68253
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|regression |middle-end
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68253
Bug ID: 68253
Summary: Valgrind: Conditional jump or move depends on
uninitialised value in fold-const.c:5587
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68251
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
