https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80399
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Related case (but I know it goes down a different path) is:
struct ss
{
int aa;
int s;
};
int
f(int a, struct ss *rn, int i)
{
return rn[i-1].s == a;
}
Which shows up in SPEC INT.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80406
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80399
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80100
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Vittorio Zecca from comment #7)
> Looking at the diff file, where is the change in line 2744?
> "int count = INTVAL (XEXP (op0, 1));"
>
> Old and new look the same to me.
Whitespace fix, space
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80349
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 12 06:12:26 2017
New Revision: 246865
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246865&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/80349
* fold-const.c (fold_binary_loc) : Conv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80100
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Author: jakub
> Date: Tue Apr 11 17:21:51 2017
> New Revision: 246851
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246851&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> PR middle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80403
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80405
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80404
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80294
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] ICE with |[5/6 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80361
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77857
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77857
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Wed Apr 12 04:26:15 2017
New Revision: 246864
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246864&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/77857
cmd/go: generate vendor paths for -I arg on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80406
Bug ID: 80406
Summary: Reduced false positive test case for -Warray-bounds
with -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80382
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80388
--- Comment #4 from Glenn Hyland ---
Thanks. I'm already at the latest gFortran release for my platform "Ubuntu
16.04.2 LTS". Not prepared at this stage to go to a development version of
Ubuntu that would include a newer compiler version.
I'm ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80405
Bug ID: 80405
Summary: UBSAN: compile time crash with "type mismatch in shift
expression" error
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80404
Bug ID: 80404
Summary: UBSAN: compile time crash with "non-trivial conversion
at assignment" error
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80403
Bug ID: 80403
Summary: UBSAN: compile time crash with "type mismatch in
binary expression" message in / and % expr
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80388
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80352
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #2)
> Thank you for the report. I'll investigate the problem. A few hours ago
> I've committed an additional patch. It might solve the problem. I'll check
> i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80402
Bug ID: 80402
Summary: Missed optimization on x86/x86_64
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80265
--- Comment #17 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #16)
> (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #13)
> > it seems better than abusing __builtin_constant_p, which is getting
> > contradictory requirements from its various
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80352
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Thank you for the report. I'll investigate the problem. A few hours ago I've
committed an additional patch. It might solve the problem. I'll check it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80388
--- Comment #2 from Glenn Hyland ---
Sorry - hit return too early. Example code below (example.f90) generates ICE at
varasm.c:4986 ...
program example
integer, parameter :: r8 = selected_real_kind(14,30)
type test
real (r8) :: computation_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80401
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80361
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to janus from comment #12)
> Created attachment 41179 [details]
> reduced test case
>
> I managed to boil down the test case to a more compact form, see the
> attached file.
>
> Note that it does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77671
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80315
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Backports still needed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80376
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Backports still needed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80376
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Apr 11 21:37:16 2017
New Revision: 246859
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246859&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-11 Bill Schmidt
PR target/80376
PR target/80
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80315
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Tue Apr 11 21:37:16 2017
New Revision: 246859
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246859&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-11 Bill Schmidt
PR target/80376
PR target/80
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80098
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 41180
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41180&action=edit
Proposed patch to fix the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80294
--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 11 21:07:32 2017
New Revision: 246858
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246858&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/80294 - ICE with constexpr and inheritance.
* con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80382
--- Comment #9 from Peter Bergner ---
It seems you can call creduce multiple times and see some reduction. Here's a
reduced test case:
bergner@pike:~/gcc/BUGS/PR80382$ cat bug.ii
namespace a {
typedef enum {} b;
template struct g {
c d;
g(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80401
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
That transformation will definitely degrade performance...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80315
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80265
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #13)
> it seems better than abusing __builtin_constant_p, which is getting
> contradictory requirements from its various uses:
> - constexpr (forces very early lowering)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80401
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc*-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80265
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Pedro Alves from comment #6)
> Hmm. I'd argue that __builtin_constant_p (s) should return true in that case,
> since we're in a constexpr?
No, the compiler is right; the address of the local a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80401
Bug ID: 80401
Summary: [7 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/dimode_off.c and
gcc.target/powerpc/pr79038-1.c fail starting with
r246764
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80370
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80370
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 11 20:51:16 2017
New Revision: 246857
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246857&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/80370
* decl.c (cp_finish_decomp): If processing_te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80361
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #13 from janus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70478
--- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Tue Apr 11 19:39:59 2017
New Revision: 246854
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246854&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-11 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/70478
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80400
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80361
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80400
Bug ID: 80400
Summary: missing -Wattributes on a invalid attribute packed on
a typedef
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80397
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80399
Bug ID: 80399
Summary: Premature optimization with unsigned
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80349
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 41178
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41178&action=edit
gcc7-pr80349.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80398
Bug ID: 80398
Summary: missing -Wattributes on a misplaced attribute packed
in an enum definition
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80392
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80385
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] Segfault |[5/6 Regression] Segfault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80394
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed on the trunk so far, backports queued. Thanks for the report.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80100
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80100
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 11 17:21:51 2017
New Revision: 246851
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246851&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/80100
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_binary_oper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80385
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 11 17:19:56 2017
New Revision: 246850
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246850&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/80385
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_unary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80394
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 11 17:15:47 2017
New Revision: 246849
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246849&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgomp/80394
* omp-low.c (scan_omp_task): Don't optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80352
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Thomas, it seems from your description the problem really exists. I tried to
reproduce the problem with the test you provided but I've failed. I used
today trunk.
Could you provide more info (may be -m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80397
Bug ID: 80397
Summary: missing -Wformat-overflow with arguments of enum types
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80212
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80212
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Apr 11 16:38:19 2017
New Revision: 246848
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246848&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add function part to a same comdat group (PR ipa/80212).
2017-04-11 Mart
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80364
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80212
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Apr 11 16:37:31 2017
New Revision: 246847
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246847&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Do not create a constprop clone for calls_comdat_local nodes (PR ipa/80212
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80364
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Apr 11 16:35:34 2017
New Revision: 246846
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246846&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/80364 - sanitizer detects signed integer overflow in
gimple-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80381
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
I was looking at generated code (with -mtune=intel):
vpbroadcastd%edi, %zmm0 # 9 *avx512f_vec_dup_gprv16si/2
[length = 6]
movl%edi, %edi # 12*zero_extendsidi2/4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80082
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Tue Apr 11 15:26:20 2017
New Revision: 246844
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246844&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR80082: LDRD erronously used for 64bit load on ARMv7-R
2017
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80354
--- Comment #5 from Stephan Bergmann ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> The warning does just what it's designed to do: point out the potential
> unhandled truncation.
But it is unusable in practice if there is no reliable way to s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80389
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80389
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Tue Apr 11 14:57:41 2017
New Revision: 246843
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246843&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR 80389 - if architecture and cpu mismatch, don't print an ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80389
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rearnsha at gcc dot
gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80387
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80100
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80387
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This code isn't strictly ice-on-invalid, it's just completely crazy and no
compiler will ever handle it, because it asks for std::index_sequence<0, 1, 2,
3, ..., 18446744073709551614>.
We could add a stati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80389
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, if there is a conflict between options, the backend should choose after
warning the more important from those unless it wants to error, and then
continue, so either change -march=armv8-a to something else
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80389
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80387
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
PR 80396 requests such a builtin.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80396
Bug ID: 80396
Summary: New builtin to make std::make_integer_sequence
efficient and scalable
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhanceme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80359
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #4)
> Given how late in stage4 we are, I think rejecting TMR without trying to
> rewrite them into a regular MEM_REF is probably the best thing to do.
Agreed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80359
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80395
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80374
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 11 13:44:24 2017
New Revision: 246840
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246840&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-04-11 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/80374
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69953
--- Comment #27 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 41176
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41176&action=edit
Patch I am testing
Hi,
I am testing the attached patch. This is but subtle issue, but I hope that it
works right
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77333
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77333
--- Comment #25 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Apr 11 13:31:16 2017
New Revision: 246839
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246839&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 77333] Fixup fntypes of gimple calls of clones
2017-04-11 Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77333
--- Comment #24 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Apr 11 13:23:48 2017
New Revision: 246838
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246838&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 77333] Fixup fntypes of gimple calls of clones
2017-04-11 Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80395
Bug ID: 80395
Summary: verify_gimple fails with Error: invalid reference
prefix with -O3 -finline-functions
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80394
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 41174
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41174&action=edit
gcc7-pr80394.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79718
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79719
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79718
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
*** Bug 79719 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80389
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70878
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0
Known to fail|7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70878
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Apr 11 13:08:08 2017
New Revision: 246837
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246837&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Do not instrument register variables in object-size sanitizer (PR
sanitize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80394
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80394
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80387
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reverting that change is not an option. I might be able to add some sanity
checking to reject invalid cases.
What we really want is a builtin to generate the pack expansion.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80386
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Yea, the fold call there is puzzling. Even a change in r67189 (old one!) had:
- /* Don't fold a COMPONENT_EXPR: if the operand was a CONSTRUCTOR (the
- only time it will fold), it can cause problems wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80394
Bug ID: 80394
Summary: Empty OpenMP task is wrongly removed when optimizing
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
