https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82045
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #9 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org gnu.org> ---
[...]
> Here's the patch I'm testing. Only sanity-checked on aarch64-linux-gnu and
> cross sparc-sun-solaris2.11 so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82037
--- Comment #6 from Dennis Clarke ---
Well that change fails in stage 1 :
/usr/local/build/gcc-7.2.0_linux_3.16.0-4-powerpc64.003/./gcc/xgcc
-B/usr/local/build/gcc-7.2.0_linux_3.16.0-4-powerpc64.003/./gcc/
-B/usr/local/gcc7/powerpc64-unknown-li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81932
--- Comment #25 from Paul Smith ---
> (1) Find the mangled name of the vtable of tv.
> (2) Demangle the name, to be 'vtable for TreeVector::Tree'.
> (3) Skip 'vtable for ' and get 'TreeVector::Tree'.
> (4) Lookup this symbol.
Right, and this is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82068
Bug ID: 82068
Summary: wrong double to uint64_t conversion with -mieee
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81874
Paul Hua changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paul.hua.gm at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82037
--- Comment #5 from Dennis Clarke ---
ppc64$ pwd
/usr/local/build/gcc-7.2.0_linux_3.16.0-4-powerpc64.003
ppc64$ date
Fri Sep 1 03:01:16 GMT 2017
ppc64$ ../gcc-7.2.0/configure --build=powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu \
> --target=powerpc64-unknown-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82067
Bug ID: 82067
Summary: G++ has an internal compiler error in
possible_polymorphic_call_targets, at
ipa-devirt.c:1557
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.4
Statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82066
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also the documentation for the target attribute does not point to the aarch64
documentation (it does point to the arm one though):
The options supported are specific to each target; refer to x86 Function
Attr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82066
Bug ID: 82066
Summary: #pragma GCC target documentation does not say it is
implemented for aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: docum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82045
--- Comment #9 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Created attachment 42098
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42098&action=edit
first cut of fix
Here's the patch I'm testing. Only sanity-checked on aarch64-linux-gnu and
cro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82063
--- Comment #2 from jim.wilson at linaro dot org ---
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:32 PM, manu at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> This is already possible:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Option-properties.html
>
> LangEnabledBy(language, opt)
> Lan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82045
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #6)
[...]
> Ah! Thanks for debugging it. I guess the problem is that we're
> passing the new machine_mode classes through ... a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82065
Bug ID: 82065
Summary: gfortran rejects redundant use of intrinsic module
constant
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81512
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69953
--- Comment #35 from Andreas K. Huettel ---
Oops sorry, that should have been:
According to https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=629342 *not* fixed for
gcc-6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69953
Andreas K. Huettel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dilfridge at gentoo dot org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65324
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82063
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81504
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81504
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Aug 31 20:28:17 2017
New Revision: 251575
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251575&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-31 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline
2017
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82045
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jose.marchesi at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini ---
Such labels are special: they are DECL_ARTIFICIAL and are created by
create_artificial_label called by start_preparsed_function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81926
--- Comment #23 from Eric Botcazou ---
OK, I can reproduce with BUILD_CONFIG set to empty:
Comparing stages 2 and 3
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/go/parse.o differs
make[2]: *** [compare] Error 1
$ grep BUILD_CONFIG config.log
configure:699
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
Adding more details.
The GOTO_EXPR is generated for such targets in finish_return_stmt:
903 if (DECL_DESTRUCTOR_P (current_function_decl)
904 || (DECL_CONSTRUCTOR_P (current_function_decl)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82060
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82064
--- Comment #1 from Daan van Vugt ---
the
!use mod_boris
should be
!use mod_f
to work around the problem in the attachment and code below
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82064
Bug ID: 82064
Summary: [OOP] multiple incompatible definitions of extended
derived type via module use
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82063
Bug ID: 82063
Summary: issues with arguments enabled by -Wall
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82062
Bug ID: 82062
Summary: [8 regression] simple conditional expressions no
longer folded
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82047
--- Comment #7 from Louis Dionne ---
Then, I think there's another bug in GCC (or maybe just a QOI issue), since the
following code compiles (wandbox[1]):
template constexpr T v;
template constexpr T v(888);
struct S {
constexpr S()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82061
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21549
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82047
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't think it does mandate that. I think I was wrong to say (in comment 1)
that it's only a declaration. I believe it's a definition too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82061
Bug ID: 82061
Summary: -Wall documentation needs updating
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82047
Louis Dionne changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ldionne.2 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82039
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Aug 31 16:45:37 2017
New Revision: 251570
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251570&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82039 suppress -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant warning
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82051
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, zwzhangwen.zhang at huawei dot com wrote:
>volatile long long f1;
> printf ("g_121.f1=%x\n",g_121.f1);
In addition to the other points people have made about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82029
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82029
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Aug 31 15:39:04 2017
New Revision: 251567
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251567&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82029 - __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ in lambda in template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82047
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Because std::complex has a default constructor that initializes all its
members. If you replace S with a type that leaves some members uninitialized
when default-initialized, it fails:
template struct S {}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82046
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82047
--- Comment #3 from John McFarlane ---
This still happens when S has member variables. For example, if `S` is
replaced with `std::complex`, then `v>` is `{0,0}`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82055
--- Comment #2 from Will Sawyer ---
Created attachment 42096
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42096&action=edit
src and build directories with code to isolate bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80335
sgunderson at bigfoot dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sgunderson at bigfoot dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82060
Bug ID: 82060
Summary: [7/8 Regression] ICE in refs_may_alias_p_1 with
devirtualization enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54568
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81860
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
tmp$ g++ test-case3.cpp -c && nm test-case3.o
U _ZN1AIjEC1Ev
W _ZN1BC1IiEET_RK1AIjE
W _ZN1BC2IiEET_RK1AIjE
n _ZN1BC5IiEET_RK1AIjE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81860
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82057
--- Comment #1 from Sven C. Dack ---
Now with the update it looks much like it's a duplicate of 81226 and 80069. I
did a search before posting this bug, but couldn't find anything close to it.
Sorry if I'm reporting the same issue here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82045
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
>> --- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org > gnu.org> ---
> [...]
>>> Natively, I can easily reproduce the ICE with
>>>
>>> $ cc1 -fpreprocessed libgcc2.i -quiet -mcpu=v9 -o libg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82059
Bug ID: 82059
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in dump_profile, at
gimple-pretty-print.c:89
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82059
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2017-8-31
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82058
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #0)
> At r251537, with this patch:
> ...
> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/sse.md b/gcc/config/i386/sse.md
> index d61afcf..a42358d 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/i386/sse.md
> +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82058
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 42094
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42094&action=edit
workaround patch
Using this workaround patch, we have instead:
...
0 Early clobber: reject++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82054
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82058
Bug ID: 82058
Summary: ICE in process_alt_operands, at lra-constraints.c:2954
(after adding early clobber in .md)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Aug 31 11:21:40 2017
New Revision: 251560
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251560&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-31 Richard Biener
PR lto/81968
* simple-ob
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82054
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Aug 31 11:20:54 2017
New Revision: 251559
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251559&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-31 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/82054
* dwa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81709
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Anatol from comment #6)
> > I don't believe compiler needs to do all that.
>
> I might miss something, could you please share why?
>
> The check for FXSAVE can be a compile time: if compiled for Pent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
Paolo Carlini ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65324
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65324
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||max at maxbruckner dot de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82039
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65324
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82039
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Minimal testcase for the front-end bug:
template void f(void* = 0) { }
int main()
{
f();
}
loc.cc: In function 'void f(void*) [with T = int]':
loc.cc:4:10: warning: zero as null pointer constant
[-Wzero
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82057
Bug ID: 82057
Summary: ICE with -fgraphite-identity
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82039
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82056
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82049
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82056
Bug ID: 82056
Summary: Automatic array can be sized via allocatable array
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82047
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Actually I wonder if this is due to GCC implementing a solution for
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#253
The relevant rule is:
"A constexpr specifier used in an object declarati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82005
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82005
>
> --- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > On LTO tescases or on others? LT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82047
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82005
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> On LTO tescases or on others? LTO is expected to fail in weird ways
> until simple object support for mach-o is implemented.
My gfortran tests run the additional options -g -flto. The dsymutil cras
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82055
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82040
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.3
Summary|ICE with -Wbool-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82045
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org gnu.org> ---
[...]
>> Natively, I can easily reproduce the ICE with
>>
>> $ cc1 -fpreprocessed libgcc2.i -quiet -mcpu=v9 -o libgcc2.s
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82054
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82054
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Hmpf, that DW_AT_object_pointer thing is tricky ;) Ah... first generated by
#6 0x0101629a in expand_omp_taskreg (region=0x2c19ab0)
at /tmp/trunk2/gcc/omp-expand.c:1313
1313(*debug_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82055
Bug ID: 82055
Summary: segfault compiling F2003 functionality: 4.9.3, 5.3.0
and 6.3.0
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81923
--- Comment #8 from Denis Khalikov ---
Works for me.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82053
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82051
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82045
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #3)
> > --- Comment #1 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org > gnu.org> ---
> > Could you attach the .i file? Using a cross compiler, I was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82050
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82048
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82046
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82046
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I suppose fancy threading gets in the way...
[84.09%]:
# p_4 = PHI
if (p_4 == 0B)
goto ; [0.04%]
else
goto ; [99.96%]
[0.03%]:
__builtin___ubsan_handle_nonnull_arg (&*.Lubsan_data0);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82046
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82045
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org gnu.org> ---
> Could you attach the .i file? Using a cross compiler, I was able to build the
Sure, done.
> parts of libgcc that don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82054
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Reduced test-case:
class a
{
bool b ();
};
bool
a::b ()
{
#pragma omp parallel
;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82045
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82045
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 42091
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42091&action=edit
preprocessed input
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82040
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82054
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82054
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ice in add_dwarf_attr with |ice in add_dwarf_attr with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82050
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #9)
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
> >
> > --- Comment #8 from ro at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82052
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
