https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81709
Bug ID: 81709
Summary: __attribute__((interrupt)) should handle SSE registers
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81707
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53404
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63545
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44882
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid, wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81665
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57426
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35758
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68229
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://bugzilla.redhat.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81680
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> This bug might better be filed at sourceware.org/bugzilla
Except the demangler main sources are located in gcc rather than binutils.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68229
--- Comment #6 from Todd Allen ---
They released a patch last year:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278872
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42568
--- Comment #31 from urbanjost at comcast dot net ---
It may be of interest that the original application where this was encountered
was changed to use modules, which I have had no similar problem with on Cygwin;
but that the bug1.sh attachment st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81708
--- Comment #2 from Andy Lutomirski ---
(In reply to H. Peter Anvin from comment #1)
> Well, you can choose between "__stack_chk_guard(%rip)" and "%gs:40"... :)
Wow, I guess I didn't even consider the former. That would be option 5:
symbol(%rip
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81708
H. Peter Anvin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hpa at zytor dot com
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490
--- Comment #22 from H. Peter Anvin ---
There are other issues, too (we'd have to drop the kernel memory model,
probably replace it with the small-pic model) but %gs: addressing is one of
those.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490
--- Comment #21 from Andy Lutomirski ---
Re: the stack canary, I filed bug 81708. It seems to me that __seg_gs is
analogous and users should be able to directly specify the addressing mode.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81708
Bug ID: 81708
Summary: The x86 stack canary location should be customizable
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490
--- Comment #20 from Andy Lutomirski ---
We have issues putting modules more than 2G from the main kernel no matter
what, but I don't see what this has to do with %gs addressing.
I still think that GCC should let us directly control the addressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68229
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490
--- Comment #19 from H. Peter Anvin ---
So the Linux kernel, right now, basically does (b); we'd like to do something
more like (a).
Because the stack canary (which is a percpu variable in the Linux kernel) is
hard-coded in gcc to be %gs:0x28, m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68094
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||avr
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490
--- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #17)
> Created attachment 41920 [details]
> A binutils patch
>
With this patch:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index 587dbe61e8b..953c153a834 1006
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50360
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 41920
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41920&action=edit
A binutils patch
This binutils patch adds R_X86_64_GPREL to assembler and linker. It
supports:
.text
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81707
Bug ID: 81707
Summary: Type parameter inquiry errors
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81538
--- Comment #10 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 41919
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41919&action=edit
Somewhat reduced preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81706
Bug ID: 81706
Summary: std::sin vectorization bug
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81318
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81318
--- Comment #15 from David Binderman ---
>This is a 8 only regression. It has nothing to do with 7.2.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Richard Biener has just posted that 7.2-rc1 has been created from
revision 250819.
The small chunk of code I posted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81705
Bug ID: 81705
Summary: UBSAN: yet another false positive
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48958
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |SUSPENDED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50360
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81704
Bug ID: 81704
Summary: strncpy folding defeats strlen optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77799
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
This bug was fixed along with the related pr77671 in r248035. GCC 8.0 now
prints the following:
.c: In function ‘g’:
a.c:14:15: warning: too many arguments for format [-Wformat-extra-args]
sprintf (d, "12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81617
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81703
Bug ID: 81703
Summary: memcpy folding defeats strlen optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81617
--- Comment #3 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Aug 3 18:09:12 2017
New Revision: 250858
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250858&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/81617
libgo: change mksigtab to recognize glibc 2
ng an ICE in gcc-7 and gcc-8. Only
happens with -O2.
$ g++
g++ (GCC) 7.1.1 20170803
$ g++ -c -O2 -std=gnu++11 t.i
t.i:107:33: internal compiler error: in gimple_get_virt_method_for_vtable, at
gimple-fold.c:6442
Resource_factory_t _x;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30065
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #5)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Steven Bosscher from comment #3)
> > > Is there a test case for this PR?
> >
> > Reporter never provided
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81695
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
I hope this is what you had in mind:
--- a/gcc/fold-const.c
+++ b/gcc/fold-const.c
@@ -14106,14 +14106,17 @@ fold_indirect_ref_1 (location_t loc, tree type, tree
op0)
&& type == TREE_TYPE (op00typ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29366
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #9)
>
> Did this fix things?
No, not entirely. The whole config/cpu/sh/atomicity.h header should not be
required, but because of PR 53579, it is.
Please do not close a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29842
Bug 29842 depends on bug 30065, which changed state.
Bug 30065 Summary: Could use indexed addressing to reduce const costs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30065
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30065
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52673
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81701
Bug ID: 81701
Summary: -fstack-arrays hehavior does not match documentation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81693
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #9)
> (lldb) b main
> Breakpoint 2: where = a.out`main at pr25967-1.c:55, address =
> 0x00010f4f
> (lldb) disass -a 0x00010f4f
> a.out`main:
> 0x1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81700
Bug ID: 81700
Summary: Unresolved function type when taking address of
operator() of generic lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81693
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
(lldb) b main
Breakpoint 2: where = a.out`main at pr25967-1.c:55, address =
0x00010f4f
(lldb) disass -a 0x00010f4f
a.out`main:
0x10f4f <+0>: pushq $0x12345675 ;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81699
--- Comment #1 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On August 3, 2017 5:05:36 PM GMT+02:00, "seurer at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81699
>
>seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47495
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61968
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61203
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81693
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #7)
> > Created attachment 41917 [details]
> > A patch
> >
> > Please try this.
>
> Sorry it does not work:
>
Please compile gcc.dg/torture/pr25967-1.c with -g and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30065
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29842
Bug 29842 depends on bug 30065, which changed state.
Bug 30065 Summary: Could use indexed addressing to reduce const costs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30065
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42568
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81699
Bug ID: 81699
Summary: [8 regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/reassoc-23.c fails
starting with r250853
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67209
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81693
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Created attachment 41917 [details]
> A patch
>
> Please try this.
Sorry it does not work:
=== gcc Summary for unix/-m64 ===
# of unexpected failures14
# of unresolved testc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81698
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That seems like expand_case bug to me. We don't rely on order of edges for say
GIMPLE_COND either, but determine which one is which by EDGE_FALSE_VALUE vs.
EDGE_TRUE_VALUE. For GIMPLE_SWITCH, I think it sho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81693
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 41917
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41917&action=edit
A patch
Please try this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57271
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81621
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Aug 3 14:41:08 2017
New Revision: 250857
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250857&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/81621
* bb-reorder.c (pass_partition_blocks::exe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81693
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Just guessing, but maybe _exit doesn't like misaligned stack on MacOS. We may
need to emit some dummy pushes to keep it aligned.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81686
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The hook is specified to take an input that's in the basic source
character set ($ is also used with it). Maybe LTO should store the
complete mapping for basic source characters in the obj
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81698
Bug ID: 81698
Summary: expand_omp_sections generates unusual switch
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81679
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> If there is a concern that the attribute could be used on declarations in
> existing code that the optimization might break, then the a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81687
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81696
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=81695
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > Note the folding we do here is not safe (but I hesitated to remove all the
> > copies...). It can end up confus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81695
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, one mistake in the folding is that
if (TREE_CODE (sub) == POINTER_PLUS_EXPR
&& TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (sub, 1)) == INTEGER_CST)
{
tree op00 = TREE_OPERAND (sub, 0);
tree op01 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81693
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 41915
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41915&action=edit
Assemby for pr25967-1
> Please compile it with -g and provide stack backtrace.
This is what I have done
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81697
Slava Barinov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81695
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Note the folding we do here is not safe (but I hesitated to remove all the
> copies...). It can end up confusing data dependence analysis (read:
> wrong-code).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81695
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81695
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Note the folding we do here is not safe (but I hesitated to remove all the
copies...). It can end up confusing data dependence analysis (read:
wrong-code).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81697
Bug ID: 81697
Summary: Incorrect ASan global variables alignment on arm
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81696
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81694
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|VERIFIED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81694
--- Comment #7 from Yuan Deng ---
When compiled with O0 or O1, the program work well,
inspite of val is overflowed, the program is actually very safe, and
can not be exploited.
But when compiled with O2 or O3, the result is different. The progra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81693
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Please compile it with -g and provide stack backtrace.
Please also provide the assembly codes of fn and main.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81696
Bug ID: 81696
Summary: ICF ICE on non-local goto
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81695
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r172261. Will take a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81695
Bug ID: 81695
Summary: [5/6/7/8 Regression] internal compiler error: in
size_binop_loc, at fold-const.c:1768
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81693
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Please show gdb backtrace as well as disassemble fn/main.
The best I can do without further directive
Current executable set to './a.out' (x86_64).
(lldb) run
Process 25263 launched: './a.out' (x86
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81687
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov ---
In this particular case we are not exactly copying the region, we are only
moving (outlining) it to a separate function. We could properly remap the
label.
But in general GCC is indeed confused about ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79959
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81687
--- Comment #2 from Joachim Protze ---
Why do you classify the testcase to be invalid code? Neither OpenMP nor C
forbid the use of a label there. Is this an undocumented restriction of the
&&-extension?
Also, clang and icc accept the code despit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81694
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
GCC exploits undefined behavior throughout the compilation pipeline, if you
want a methodical workaround, you need compilation mode that makes overflow
defined (-fwrapv), and likewise for other sources of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81694
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Overflow cannot be checked after the fact. It needs to be checked before the
overflow has happened. Just like a buffet overflow should not be checked
after.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81694
Yuan Deng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|VERIFIED
--- Comment #4 from Yuan Deng ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81694
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81694
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81693
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81694
--- Comment #1 from Yuan Deng ---
Created attachment 41913
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41913&action=edit
patch for this vulnerability
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81694
Bug ID: 81694
Summary: VRP optimization may introduce buffer overflow
vulnerabilities into applications
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81687
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid, openmp
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81693
Bug ID: 81693
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr25967-*.c -O* execution test
on darwin
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81148
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Aug 3 11:52:00 2017
New Revision: 250853
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250853&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-03 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/81148
* fol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81692
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
