https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71918
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71927
Micha³ Miros³aw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #38926|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71927
--- Comment #2 from Micha³ Miros³aw ---
gcc 4.9.3 generates the same code.
$ gcc-4.9 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc-4.9
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.9/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71927
Micha³ Miros³aw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #38925|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71927
Bug ID: 71927
Summary: stack alignment prologue not optimized out when no
local variables remain
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: misse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |tree-optimization
--- Comment #3 from Marc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66795
--- Comment #2 from Andy Lutomirski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> The code below is invalid as __builtin_frame_address is only for reading
> from the current frame.
If this code is invalid, then what exactly is valid code tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71926
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71926
Bug ID: 71926
Summary: wrong -Wparentheses warning
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64143
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Component|o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64142
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
C++17 changes the rules about elide-copies and actually forces to do it rather
than just allowing it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71493
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71493
--- Comment #6 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue Jul 19 03:39:34 2016
New Revision: 238455
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238455&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-07-18 Michael Meissner
Back port from mainlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71493
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Tue Jul 19 03:31:48 2016
New Revision: 238454
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238454&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-07-18 Michael Meissner
PR target/71493
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67243
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67243
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71925
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71925
Bug ID: 71925
Summary: poor -Wvla phrasing in C99 mode and later,
documentation misleading
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70977
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70824
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aleksandergajewski at gmail
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71924
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Returning [the address of] a compound literal, or any indirectly referenced
object (such as those in comment #1), suffers from the same limitation.
Compiling the program with -O2 (but not -O1) does produce th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71890
--- Comment #2 from wgkun at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I don't think this is a valid thing to do with setjmp and longjmp.
>
> Why are you not using makecontext/setcontext/getcontext/swapcontext instead?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921
--- Comment #2 from Arjan van de Ven ---
I tried with <= and it doesn't seem all to eager to be vectorized that way
either; fast-math works either way
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71924
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I expect we also miss:
void* foo1 (void)
{
char a [4];
char *b = a;
return b;
}
void* foo2 (void)
{
char *b = (char[4]){0, 0, 0, 0};
return b;
}
Basically we don't do any flow analysis for this wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71924
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71924
Bug ID: 71924
Summary: missing -Wreturn-local-addr returning alloca result
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
Tim Haines changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thaines.astro at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71922
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
If anything this might be a binutils bug and not a GCC bug based on your
description and should be reported there (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ )
instead of here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71922
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
More to the point GCC just outputs:
.globl FUNC
.type FUNC, @gnu_indirect_function
.set FUNC, __resolve_FUNC
How did you configure GCC?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71922
--- Comment #6 from dimitry ---
ok one correction - this is objdump of the .so file, not the object file. What
I expected to see here is branch to ptl (which uses result of ARM_IRELATIVE
reloc) This does not seem to be the case. (the reloc itself
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71922
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
What is gcc producing wrong then? Because if you are part of the bionic team
you should understand how relocs work. If it is a wrong relocation then
binutils might be causing the issue rather thanot gcc. Plea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71922
--- Comment #4 from dimitry ---
(I am from the bionic team)
I do not have access to arm ld-linux.so.
The problem here is that code generated by gcc is incorrect for arm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71922
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70977
--- Comment #10 from Romain Geissler ---
This is actually a dup of #70824 which was just fixed in trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71923
Bug ID: 71923
Summary: Two consecutive "rep ret" instruction in assembly
output of recursive function
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71922
--- Comment #2 from dimitry ---
The test is failing at runtime. which was the reason I started looking at
objdump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71922
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm*-*
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71922
Bug ID: 71922
Summary: arm: ifuncs are broken in for arm (gcc generates
incorrect code in object file)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |libstdc++
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71493
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 38924
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38924&action=edit
Proposed patch to fix the problem
I'm testing this patch right now. The patch applies to both the trunk and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921
Bug ID: 71921
Summary: missed vectorization optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71919
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71920
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71920
Bug ID: 71920
Summary: request to backport commit trunk@234239 to gcc 4.9 and
5
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70869
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jul 18 18:45:18 2016
New Revision: 238444
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238444&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70869
PR c++/71054
* cp-gimplify.c (cp_gen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71054
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jul 18 18:45:18 2016
New Revision: 238444
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238444&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70869
PR c++/71054
* cp-gimplify.c (cp_gene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71835
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jul 18 18:44:51 2016
New Revision: 238443
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238443&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71835
* call.c (build_op_call_1): Use convert_like_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71828
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jul 18 18:43:19 2016
New Revision: 238442
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238442&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71828
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_constant_expression)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71826
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jul 18 18:42:24 2016
New Revision: 238441
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238441&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71826
* pt.c (tsubst_baselink): Only set BASELINK_O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71822
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jul 18 18:40:12 2016
New Revision: 238440
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238440&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71822
* cp-gimplify.c (cp_gimplify_expr) : Recursiv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71734
Bill Seurer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at linux dot
vnet.ibm.com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71919
Bug ID: 71919
Summary: Redefinition of user-defined conversions (via typedef)
shouldn't compile
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71855
--- Comment #2 from Ben Woodard ---
This is about as simple of a reproducer as I have been able to come up with:
#define _GNU_SOURCE
#include
#include
#include
void
m4_error (int status, int errnum, const char *format, ...)
{
va_list args;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71871
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jul 18 17:44:48 2016
New Revision: 238439
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238439&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71871
* typeck.c (build_x_conditional_expr): Revert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71899
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #2)
> I dislike the #ifdef parts.
I'm sorry for my misleading proposal. My extended proposal is not suggesting to
add this macro. I was using this macro solely fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71906
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 38923
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38923&action=edit
gcc7-pr71906-wip.patch
Untested WIP patch, that should fix the vara, varb and vare cases at -O0, for
optimized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71463
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6)
> I didn't know that GCC considers attribute warn_unused_result part of the
> function type. When you say that most of these attributes apply to the
> function type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71912
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71899
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71769
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71918
--- Comment #9 from jordyruiz at hotmail dot fr ---
Alright then, thanks for the troubleshooting guys. Will be more careful when
sharing libraries on different machines.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69515
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70584
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70095
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55576
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill ---
Looking at the standard again, I notice
When the name of a member template specialization appears after . or -> in a
postfix-expression or after a nested-name-specifier in a qualified-id, and the
object exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71918
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to jordyruiz from comment #6)
> > Also this is most likely GMP not compiled for generic but a specific CPU and
> > you don't have a compatible CPU.
> >
> > Did you compile GMP yourself or did you g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71918
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71918
--- Comment #6 from jordyruiz at hotmail dot fr ---
> Also this is most likely GMP not compiled for generic but a specific CPU and
> you don't have a compatible CPU.
>
> Did you compile GMP yourself or did you get it from a distro? If you got it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71703
Tom changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tom.k.cook at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from To
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71918
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> (In reply to jordyruiz from comment #2)
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have managed to output a cvc4_operand_visitor.ii file, but it's 77182
> > lines long, I'm afraid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71918
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also this is most likely GMP not compiled for generic but a specific CPU and
you don't have a compatible CPU.
Did you compile GMP yourself or did you get it from a distro? If you got it
from a distro, you s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71918
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to jordyruiz from comment #2)
> Hi,
>
> I have managed to output a cvc4_operand_visitor.ii file, but it's 77182
> lines long, I'm afraid this may not be what you're looking for.
>
> I use an Intel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71918
--- Comment #2 from jordyruiz at hotmail dot fr ---
Hi,
I have managed to output a cvc4_operand_visitor.ii file, but it's 77182 lines
long, I'm afraid this may not be what you're looking for.
I use an Intel Core 2 Duo CPU E6850 @ 3.00GHz.
I ran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71910
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
Created attachment 38922
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38922&action=edit
preprocessed testcase
I can also reproduce this on 5.4 and trunk with a cross-compiler configured
with --ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71092
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71918
Bug ID: 71918
Summary: Internal compiler error: Illegal instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71918
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71906
--- Comment #3 from Jan Kratochvil ---
Could you attach here the ICC .s file if you have it handy? Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71734
--- Comment #5 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Mon Jul 18 14:30:20 2016
New Revision: 238435
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238435&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2016-07-18 Yuri Rumyantsev
PR tree-optimization/7173
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71906
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71917
Matthew Fortune changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthew.fortune at imgtec dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71916
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71917
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
The failures are obviously caused by
2016-07-13 Matthew Fortune
* java/lang/reflect/natVMProxy.cc (unbox): Use ffi_arg for
integer return types smaller than a word.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71793
--- Comment #4 from DB ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Well, if you look at the out-of-line copies of the function then he is
> correct.
> But the inline copy in main() does not have this constraint and is still
> mishandled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71917
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71917
Bug ID: 71917
Summary: [7 regression] libjava.jar/ReturnProxyTest.jar etc.
FAIL
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71916
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71793
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to DB from comment #2)
> Thanks Richard! About this -
>
> > RTL expansion expands x as register copy for some reason
>
> - is this person's explanation about this originating in the ABI accurate?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71916
Bug ID: 71916
Summary: gcc ICE at -O3 on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in
"maybe_record_trace_start"
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71634
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71634
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Jul 18 13:01:12 2016
New Revision: 238431
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238431&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR rtl-optimization/71634
Backported from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71634
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Jul 18 12:59:10 2016
New Revision: 238430
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238430&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR rtl-optimization/71634
Backported from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71634
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Jul 18 12:57:25 2016
New Revision: 238429
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238429&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR rtl-optimization/71634
Backported from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59833
--- Comment #9 from Aurelien Jarno ---
(In reply to ramana.radhakrishnan from comment #8)
> On 14/07/16 12:15, aurelien at aurel32 dot net wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59833
> >
> > --- Comment #7 from Aurelien Jarno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71903
--- Comment #5 from Carlos Rafael ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #3)
> No worries. As the reporter you should be able to resolve it as "invalid".
Ok! Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66867
--- Comment #11 from dhowells at redhat dot com ---
I applied the patch to the Fedora cross-gcc-6.1.1 rpm with one minor fixup.
Using the example code I added in bug 70825 I now see:
:
0: ba 2a 00 00 00 mov$0x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71906
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71912
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71912
--- Comment #2 from drepper.fsp+rhbz at gmail dot com ---
If it is accepted that this code should work (as I also expect) then this bug
should also be marked as a regression to 5.x. 6.1 at least is broken, I don't
know when it stopped working.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71216
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
