https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63933
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78064
--- Comment #2 from Jim Wilson ---
The old configure.ac before the patch breaks this has
GCC_TARGET_TEMPLATE(HAVE_GETIPINFO)
which prevents the ifndef/endif from being added to config.in. But this
apparently only works in the gcc dir, and I don
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58710
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78064
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78073
Bug ID: 78073
Summary: inherited initializer_list constructor is not
accessible
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78033
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
>
> I may have a patch for this bug, and boy is it a REAL pain.
>
Patch posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-10/msg00156.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63736
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63736
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78039
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78056
--- Comment #11 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For example, on a system that has as support for Power9, the auto-generated
$GCC_BUILD/gcc/insn-flags.h file has
#define HAVE_vector_ne_v16qi_p (TARGET_P9_VECTOR)
When the compiler is built on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78056
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #10 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78033
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
I may have a patch for this bug, and boy is it a REAL pain.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63933
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #5 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77916
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Fixed in trunk. Planning to backport to 5 and 6 in a couple of days after
burn-in.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77823
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77910
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77916
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78032
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78003
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78055
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78057
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78068
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > time declaration really is not present in the preprocessed source file. I
> > can't seem to figure out why
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78068
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> time declaration really is not present in the preprocessed source file. I
> can't seem to figure out why it is not though.
>
> I doubt this is a GCC bug r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71947
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Oct 21 20:41:34 2016
New Revision: 241429
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241429&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
* PR tree-optimization/71947
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71947-4.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78068
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38296
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77656
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77656
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Oct 21 19:45:45 2016
New Revision: 241425
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241425&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/77656
* pt.c (convert_template_argument): Call conv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78067
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
This happens with __floattisf and __floattidf in 64bit libgcc.
But because a bsr $rsi,$rsi is used, apparently the result register is zero,
when the input is zero and not completely undefined. Thus __float
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78072
--- Comment #2 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Most likely a dup of bug 78060.
Yes, it looks like. But the reported C++ test case for 78060 has undefined
behavior due to uninitialized variables. The ICE disap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72785
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #9)
> Uh, that's a very strict interpretation. In particular, a function parameter
> can never satisfy it, whereas many users of bcp rely on inlining turning
> parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78071
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70777
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||colanderman at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72785
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Yes, it's a fairly strict interpretation, but I think it's the right one to be
using in the absence of additional language around the semantics of b_c_p.
In particular refer to c#6 in BZ38789.
Essentially
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78071
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
Dup of PR 70777? I can reproduce with gcc-6 but not with gcc-7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78072
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Most likely a dup of bug 78060.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78072
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78055
--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Rainer, please confirm the fix commited on trunk when you have time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72785
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #8)
> I've spent a goodly part of the morning pondering this BZ. While I think
> the semantics of b_c_p are under/ill defined and they will continue to cause
> problems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78072
Bug ID: 78072
Summary: ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu:
verify_gimple failed
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78071
--- Comment #2 from Chris King ---
Created attachment 39867
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39867&action=edit
suboptimal output with -Os -ffast-math
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78071
--- Comment #1 from Chris King ---
Created attachment 39866
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39866&action=edit
Expected output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78071
Bug ID: 78071
Summary: -Os -ffast-math generates pow() for 1/(x*x)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78055
--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Oct 21 18:02:32 2016
New Revision: 241422
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241422&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-21 Jerry DeLisle
PR libfortran/78055
* io
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #53 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
And presumably walking forward/backward from the equivalency point to determine
if an object is derived from or is used to derive a pointer is insufficient
because the equivalency point and casting to/from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78069
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72785
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at redhat dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78070
Bug ID: 78070
Summary: Suggestion for improvement for patch submission
criteria
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78005
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71681
--- Comment #5 from Andris Pavenis ---
Author: andris
Date: Fri Oct 21 16:22:51 2016
New Revision: 241415
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241415&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-21 Andris Pavenis
PR preprocessor/71681
* gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77984
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, but IMHO it should be (unless somebody fixes it, see PR 16166 and PR 16168
and PR 55837 and others).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71681
--- Comment #4 from Andris Pavenis ---
Author: andris
Date: Fri Oct 21 15:52:25 2016
New Revision: 241413
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241413&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-21 Andris Pavenis
PR preprocessor/71681
* fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78055
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77984
--- Comment #3 from carlosmf.pt at gmail dot com ---
I also have the same issue when using -Weffc++.
Is efcc++ deprecated?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77982
--- Comment #5 from Kostya Serebryany ---
(In reply to Pawel Sikora from comment #3)
> (In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #2)
> > Is -flto important here?
> > Does this happen with clang? (does not happen for me)
> > Does this happen if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78057
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Oct 21 15:39:25 2016
New Revision: 241411
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241411&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/78057
* config/i386/i386.c: Include fold-const-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69663
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66120
Bug 66120 depends on bug 69663, which changed state.
Bug 69663 Summary: [ARM] Implement overflow arithmetic standard names
{u,}{add,sub,mul}v4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69663
What|Removed |Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78069
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78069
Bug ID: 78069
Summary: [7 Regression] -fprofile-update=atomic warning
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78065
--- Comment #5 from Jean-Michaël Celerier ---
Okay, thanks !
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78065
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78068
Bug ID: 78068
Summary: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘time’; did
you mean ‘nice’? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78065
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This shows that the alias declaration declares some_struct in the enclosing
namespace:
template
struct foo
{
using sub = struct some_struct;
};
some_struct s;
All of EDG, GCC and Clang say that some_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78065
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |c++
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78056
--- Comment #9 from David Edelsohn ---
Any *one* of the BU_P9V_AV_P builtins will cause the failure. If those
builtins are commented out of rs6000-builtins.def (with the appropriate changes
to rs6000-c.c), bootstrap will succeed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78057
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 39863
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39863&action=edit
gcc7-i386-fold.patch
And incremental patch to add a bunch of BMI/BMI2/TBM intrinsics folding.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
Matt Godbolt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at godbolt dot org
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69566
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78067
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger ---
I think in the case of x86 longlong.h
does not define COUNT_LEADING_ZEROS_0
but nevertheless count_leading_zero
is defined to __builtin_clz and
seems to return the correct result,
but I don't know if that wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69566
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri Oct 21 12:50:56 2016
New Revision: 241403
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241403&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-21 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/69566
* resolve.c (fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78067
Bug ID: 78067
Summary: liggcc2 calls count_leading_zero with 0
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78066
Bug ID: 78066
Summary: Misleading error message about redundant
Dynamic_Predicate incorrectly mentions "Valid"
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78065
--- Comment #1 from Jean-Michaël Celerier ---
Here is the relevant bug report in clang bug tacker :
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30759
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78065
Bug ID: 78065
Summary: incorrect behavior with std::is_same with nested class
in a template class
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71627
--- Comment #4 from Senthil Kumar Selvaraj ---
Author: saaadhu
Date: Fri Oct 21 11:48:19 2016
New Revision: 241400
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241400&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR 71627 - unable to find a register to spill
Tweak find_v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78056
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
And indeed "GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.27.51.20161021" is fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77446
--- Comment #3 from Tony E Lewis ---
Great to see this will now be covered by a testcase. Thanks very much for all
work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78056
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #6)
> It builds fine for me on gcc110. Markus, what are you doing differently?
> I use recent binutils, maybe that is it?
Could be:
GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78056
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It builds fine for me on gcc110. Markus, what are you doing differently?
I use recent binutils, maybe that is it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78057
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #39855|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78064
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78064
Bug ID: 78064
Summary: unwind-c.c never users _Unwind_GetIPInfo
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78062
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78063
Bug ID: 78063
Summary: libbacktrace fails to handle cross CU
DW_AT_abstract_origin
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78062
Bug ID: 78062
Summary: sinus and cosinus fails
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78061
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78061
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
This Fortran code seems to be the results of creduce and
it generates the same compiler error.
SUBROUTINE SSYMM(C)
REAL C(LDC,*)
LOGICAL LSAME
LOGICAL UPPER
IF (LSAME) THEN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78060
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78061
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
Compon
source code
The attached Fortran code, when compiled by gfortran dated 20161021, and
compiler flag -O3, does this:
$ ../results/bin/gfortran -c -O3 bug315.f
bug315.f:190:0:
SUBROUTINE SSYMM(SIDE,UPLO,M,N,ALPHA,A,LDA,B,LDB,BETA,C,LDC)
Error: definition in block 117 does not dominate use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78060
--- Comment #1 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 39860
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39860&action=edit
C++ source code
Source code after creduce.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77986
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Now I have
>
> make[3]: Entering directory
> `/home/abuild/rguenther/obj-early-lto-debug-g/gcc/ada/tools'
> ../../gnatbind -I- -I../rts -I.
> -I/space/rguenther/src/svn/early-lto-debug/gcc/ada -o b_gnatm.a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78056
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So it seems rs6000_overloaded_builtin_p doesn't return true for
some builtin where it should? Kelvin?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78041
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #13 fr
iled by gcc dated 20161021,
and the compiler flags -O3 -std=c++98, does this:
$ ../results/bin/g++ -c -O3 -std=c++98 bug314.cc
alm_map_tools.cc: In function ‘void map2alm_pol(const std::vector&,
const T*, const T*, const T*, Alm >&, Alm >&,
Alm >&, bool) [with T = float]’:
alm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77986
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Now I have
make[3]: Entering directory
`/home/abuild/rguenther/obj-early-lto-debug-g/gcc/ada/tools'
../../gnatbind -I- -I../rts -I.
-I/space/rguenther/src/svn/early-lto-debug/gcc/ada -o b_gnatm.adb gnatmake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78041
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wdijkstr at arm dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77982
--- Comment #4 from Pawel Sikora ---
(In reply to Pawel Sikora from comment #3)
> (In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #2)
> > Is -flto important here?
> > Does this happen with clang? (does not happen for me)
> > Does this happen if you u
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
