https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77398
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77398
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77398
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, patch
--- Comment #1 from Tom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77398
Bug ID: 77398
Summary: first argument to va_arg not of type va_list error
hidden by other error
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77324
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Eric, I think the condition should be "!strict" rather than
> "reload_in_progress". I'm not certain about that, but I think the patch
> might fail if reload needs to iterate over insns more than once.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68352
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68352
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68528
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.5
Summary|Wrong constant fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68720
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68972
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |testsuite
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69788
--- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #5)
> On 2016-08-28, at 6:54 PM, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > Does the failure reproduce with 4.9?
>
> It's not present in 4.9.4:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59967
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||26163
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65208
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65274
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77324
--- Comment #9 from Alan Modra ---
Eric, I think the condition should be "!strict" rather than
"reload_in_progress". I'm not certain about that, but I think the patch might
fail if reload needs to iterate over insns more than once. For example,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69788
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2016-08-28, at 6:54 PM, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Does the failure reproduce with 4.9?
It's not present in 4.9.4:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-08/msg01665.html
--
Joh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77318
--- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries ---
In extract_affine_chrec we have:
...
unsigned pos = sese_loop_depth (s->scop_info->region, get_chrec_loop (e)) -
1;
isl_aff *loop = isl_aff_set_coefficient_si
(isl_aff_zero_on_domain (ls), isl_dim_in,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69788
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71506
--- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #8)
> (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #6)
> > > Hmm, at r225942 I read:
> >
> > Patch applies cleanly to 5 branch a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77034
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Sun Aug 28 22:02:07 2016
New Revision: 239811
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239811&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-08-28 Tom de Vries
PR testsuite/77034
Backported f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65325
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #10 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65328
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
Would be interesting to rerun this again to see if this has been improved.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359
--- Comment #19 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
Tested GCC-6.2, still same behavior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67014
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71917
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|ebotcazou at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63346
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77270
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77270
--- Comment #11 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sun Aug 28 16:30:32 2016
New Revision: 239810
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239810&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2016-08-23 Venkataramanan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70341
--- Comment #7 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
Tested with GCC 6.2 and still same behaviour.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71911
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I use the administrator user and administrator permissions in Windows host,
> so, normally I use the same permission map to root permissions in Cygwin
> host.
Please double check the permissions of the ALI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77397
Bug ID: 77397
Summary: function initializing global static variables not
optimized again fully
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77396
Bug ID: 77396
Summary: address sanitizer crashes if all static global
variables are optimized
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71911
--- Comment #2 from 鍾 ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #1)
> How was the compiler configured? Which permissions have the ALI files?
使用内建 specs。
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-cygwin/5.4.0/lto-wrapper.exe
目
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71506
--- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #7)
> (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #6)
> > Hmm, at r225942 I read:
>
> Patch applies cleanly to 5 branch and fixes ICEs for original and minimal
> test-cases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77324
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77324
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sun Aug 28 08:50:09 2016
New Revision: 239807
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239807&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/77324
* config/sparc/sparc.c (sparc_legitima
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77395
Bug ID: 77395
Summary: std::is_constructible is false for type constructible
via implicit conversion operator affecting std::tuple
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50818
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70955
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70955
--- Comment #27 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Sun Aug 28 07:41:52 2016
New Revision: 239806
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239806&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport "Tag {ms,sysv}_va_list_type_node with '{ms,sysv}_abi va_list'
att
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68854
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77324
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I expect you'll find that sparc_legitimate_address_p when non-strict is
> rejecting the output of sparc_legitimize_reload_address, or you have a
> constraint that is rejecting the same.
Thanks for the hint
42 matches
Mail list logo
