https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79374
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79338
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Feb 4 07:44:13 2017
New Revision: 245183
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245183&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/79338
* tree-parloops.c (gather_scala
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79374
Bug ID: 79374
Summary: missing sometimes-uninitialized warning in switch
statement
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79366
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Because =undefined only includes undefined behavior, which neither
float-divide-by-zero nor float-cast-overflow doesn't satisfy. This is all
documented.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79366
--- Comment #8 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> > Clang's ubsan diagnoses this, but ours doesn't:
> >
> > u.cc:4:25: runtime error: value -1 is outside the rang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79373
--- Comment #2 from Steven Pigeon ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I am suspecting this:
> t*=65793;
>
> overflows.
>
> Can you try with -fsanitize=undefined ?
The bug disappears with
g++ -fsanitize=undefined -O3 -std
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79373
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am suspecting this:
t*=65793;
overflows.
Can you try with -fsanitize=undefined ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79373
Bug ID: 79373
Summary: For loop optimization bug: condition ignored
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/7.0.1/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.1 20170203 (experimental
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78958
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2017-01-30, at 4:38 AM, vehre at gmx dot de wrote:
> The attached patch fixes the issue at least on x86_64-linux and the sanitizer
> does not report any further issues. Please test.
The patc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79356
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|s390x |s390x, powepc64le-linux
Hos
++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.1 20170203 (experimental) [trunk revision 245148] (GCC)
$
$ clang++ -c -std=c++14 small.cpp
$ icc -c -std=c++14 small.cpp
small.cpp(6): internal error: assertion failed at:
"shared/cfe/edgcpfe/class_d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79370
PeteVine changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79344
--- Comment #6 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Also the three remaining test failures are now understood as resulting from
an allocate (A, source = B), where A and B are allocatable arrays of a derived
type
with allocatable components, e.g. iso_varying_st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79360
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79370
Bug ID: 79370
Summary: Cortex-A7 hardware division switched on for -mcpu but
not -mtune
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79096
--- Comment #4 from physiker at toast2 dot net ---
> Could you please raise a bug in LLVM bug tracker (https://llvm.org/bugs/)?
> All changes to sanitizer runtime library should go to LLVM and after they
> fix this bug we can backport correspondin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79362
--- Comment #2 from Fabio Alemagna ---
I had looked for possible duplicates but found none, sorry about that and glad
to know it's already been fixed. Thanks for your time!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79362
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78334
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78334
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79356
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79344
--- Comment #5 from Jürgen Reuter ---
>From the full test case I posted below, all the failing unit test and all but
three failing functional tests can be traced back to allocate (A, source = B)
problems. Three tests are not yet understood: smtes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79368
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79357
--- Comment #1 from Raphael C ---
I omitted
.L_2il0floatpacket.1:
.long 0x4000,0x4000,0x,0x
.long 0x4000,0x
from the assembly. In other words it just multiplies by 2.0f.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79327
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Feb 3 22:47:35 2017
New Revision: 245173
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245173&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/79327 - wrong code at -O2 and -fprintf-return-value
g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78689
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72775
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79340
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78689
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Feb 3 22:42:37 2017
New Revision: 245172
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245172&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78689 - ICE on constructor with label
gcc/
* tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79340
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 3 22:36:29 2017
New Revision: 245171
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245171&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/79340
* tree-vect-loop.c (vectorizabl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79366
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79363
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
Status|NE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68972
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
The test really needs to be fixed at this point...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79367
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79363
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79369
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79369
Bug ID: 79369
Summary: namespace definition with qualified id
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79360
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79368
Bug ID: 79368
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE with pointer to unnamed struct
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79366
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger ---
FYI, the original problem was that libxml2 was unable to convert
a date value 1601-01-01T00:00:00.000+00:01 which should underflow
from 1601 to 1600, but we got the wrong date 1601-12-31T23:59:00.000 here
an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63264
mikulas at artax dot karlin.mff.cuni.cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.9.1 |6.3.0
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64543
mikulas at artax dot karlin.mff.cuni.cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79300
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79366
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Annex F makes it an unspecified value (i.e. each execution that occurs in
the abstract machine has to act as if it produces some definite value
representable in the resulting type, but that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79366
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Ah, I see, you mean C89:
3.2.1.3 Floating and integral
When a value of floating type is converted to integral type, the
fractional part is discarded. If the value of the integral part
cannot be represe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79366
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Clang's ubsan diagnoses this, but ours doesn't:
u.cc:4:25: runtime error: value -1 is outside the range of representable values
of type 'unsigned int'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79077
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78689
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> _ZN1XCI21WEi emitted in _ZN1XCI21WEi comdat, without _ZN1XCI11WEi alias,
> which has the argument only in GCC (bug?), e.g. as seen with -O0 saves 3
> arguments to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68972
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68664
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Component|middle-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79270
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79331
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79364
--- Comment #2 from Guillaume Knispel ---
Note: I hit that bug after cleaning some real code after a cppcheck static
analysis. The original code sometimes had "..." after references, which is
technically forbidden (but seems to work with g++, for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79366
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> It is unspecified what is the value of an out of range conversion from
> double to unsigned will be.
Actually it is not just unspecified but undefined.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79294
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12245
--- Comment #64 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Feb 3 19:44:27 2017
New Revision: 245169
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245169&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/12245 - excessive memory use
* constexpr.c (maybe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79366
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
20170203 (experimental) [trunk revision 245148] (GCC)
$
$ clang++ -c -std=c++11 small.cpp
$
$ g++-trunk -c -std=c++11 small.cpp
small.cpp: In lambda function:
small.cpp:6:5: error: Local declaration from a different function
[&] { decltype (b) c; } ();
^
D.2056
small.cpp:6:22: note: in state
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79294
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Feb 3 19:44:21 2017
New Revision: 245168
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245168&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/79294 - ICE with invalid template argument
* pt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79366
Bug ID: 79366
Summary: wrong result in cast to unsigned int
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78838
Jozef Lawrynowicz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jozef.l at somniumtech dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79364
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79365
Bug ID: 79365
Summary: tile*: incorrect result for expressions where result
of a vector compare is used as a scalar
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79327
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66145
--- Comment #31 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Feb 3 19:26:51 2017
New Revision: 245167
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245167&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/66145 ensure new ABI for ios::failure tests
PR lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79331
--- Comment #3 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> rejected with GCC 6:
>
> t.C: In function ‘int bar()’:
> t.C:5:12: error: invalid initialization of non-const reference of type ‘int
> (*&)()’ from an rvalue of t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79364
Bug ID: 79364
Summary: some variadic functions miscompiled (at least for x64
targets)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79327
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 3 19:16:39 2017
New Revision: 245166
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245166&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/79327
* gimple-ssa-sprintf.c (adjust_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65484
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65484
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Feb 3 19:08:10 2017
New Revision: 245165
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245165&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-02-03 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
2017-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65484
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Fri Feb 3 19:06:58 2017
New Revision: 245164
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245164&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-02-03 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
2017-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
--- Comment #27 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Feb 3 18:59:05 2017
New Revision: 245162
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245162&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/60936 reduce coupling between objects in libstdc++.a
Move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78862
--- Comment #2 from walt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: walt
Date: Fri Feb 3 18:46:57 2017
New Revision: 245160
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245160&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/78862
* config/tilegx/tilegx.md (tilegx_expand_prologue)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78862
--- Comment #1 from walt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: walt
Date: Fri Feb 3 18:41:57 2017
New Revision: 245159
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245159&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/78862
* config/tilegx/tilegx.md (tilegx_expand_prologue)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79363
Bug ID: 79363
Summary: [6/7 Regression] ICE with NSDMI and array
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79362
Bug ID: 79362
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault - mmap:
Cannot allocate memory
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #36 from David Edelsohn ---
The DBX_CONTIN patch should be in gcc/xcoffout.h, not in rs6000.h.
The patch originally was added 2015-02-06.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79354
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79353
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79353
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79358
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
OT, the gcc/config/s390/linux.h SIZE_TYPE definition looks weird:
(TARGET_64BIT ? "long unsigned int" : "long unsigned int")
As both strings are the same, it would be much cleaner to just say
"long unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79361
Bug ID: 79361
Summary: [5/6/7 Regression] ICE redefining a template function
as defaulted or deleted
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79358
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is a pitty glibc headers didn't use __SIZE_MAX__ if available, because that
appears to be correct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79358
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79354
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 3 17:34:56 2017
New Revision: 245157
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245157&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79354
* config/rs6000/rs6000.md (movsi_from_sf):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68858
--- Comment #1 from Casey Carter ---
This seems to be a duplicate of PR 68812.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79358
--- Comment #8 from Dominik Vogt ---
Gdb says:
(gdb) ptype __typeof__(size_t)
type = unsigned long
(gdb) ptype __typeof__(SIZE_MAX)
type = unsigned int
Two different types for unsigned 32 bit integers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79358
--- Comment #7 from Dominik Vogt ---
Or even
--
#include
#include
#define FOO(TYPE, EXPR) __typeof__(EXPR) a; __typeof__((TYPE)0 + 0) *b = &a;
void foo (void)
{
FOO(__SIZE_TYPE__, (SIZE_MAX));
}
--
So __typeof__(SIZE_MAX) is differe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79358
--- Comment #6 from Dominik Vogt ---
(In reply to Andreas Krebbel from comment #2)
> The reduced testcase fails with -m31 and -m64 but the original probably only
> with -m31 - right?!
Sorry, you're right. I was doing too many things in parallel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79358
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017, vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com wrote:
> void
> foo (void)
> {
> __typeof__((4294967295U)) a;
> __typeof__((long unsigned int)0 + 0) *b = &a;
> }
That's not a m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79360
Bug ID: 79360
Summary: [5.4/6/7 Regression] ICE with NSDMI and enum in union
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79352
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79352
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Feb 3 16:38:15 2017
New Revision: 245156
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245156&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/79352 - -fprintf-return-value doesn't handle flexible
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77333
--- Comment #17 from Martin Jambor ---
OK, so it turns out I botched my testing and the patch from the
previous commit cause PR57330 and we would need something like the
patch below (with a big fat comment why the condition is necessary, if
we go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #35 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Hmmm, I see the changes in gcc/dbxout.h may override the DBX_* changes I made
to config/rs6000/rs6000.h. I'll attempt to patch gcc/dbxout.h instead. I will
report back.
BTW David, if there's a point in t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468
--- Comment #35 from Dominik Vogt ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #34)
> > I still disagree with reverting the patch. There was plenty of time to
> > identify and fix affected backends instead of doing nothing for half five
> > month
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79358
--- Comment #4 from Dominik Vogt ---
I.e. this is a Glibc related problem? The test machine has Glibc-2.18.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79358
--- Comment #3 from Dominik Vogt ---
> The reduced testcase fails with -m31 and -m64 but the original probably only
> with -m31 - right?!
The unreduced testcase fails with -m31 and -m64. I've tried the reduced test
case only with -m64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081
--- Comment #34 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #32)
> How far are you going back in the bisection effort? You may be earlier than
> the point at which GCC on AIX generated stab strings continuation lines. At
>
1 - 100 of 171 matches
Mail list logo
