https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83206
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Roberts ---
Created attachment 42792
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42792&action=edit
/proc/cpuinfo fro rpi3 (cortex a-53) on aarch64
/proc/cpuinfo fro rpi3 (cortex a-53) on aarch64
while this i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83206
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Roberts ---
Richard, I have checked with latest snapshot (20171203) and problem persists.
I think the issue is that the CPU on the original Raspberry Pi and Pi Zero is
not detected properly by gcc.
/usr/local/gcc/bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83206
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Roberts ---
Created attachment 42791
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42791&action=edit
/proc/cpuinfo from odroid-c2 (cortex-A53) aarch64 mode
/proc/cpuinfo from odroid-c2 (cortex-A53) aarch64 mode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83286
--- Comment #5 from Alex Weslowski ---
Please note, this appears to be fixed (hopefully) in GCC 7.2.0. Either that, or
my version of GCC 6.4.0 is borked. (Or, it may be an intermittent error, I
suppose.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83206
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Roberts ---
Created attachment 42790
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42790&action=edit
/proc/cpuinfo from Raspberry Pi 3 (cortex-A53) arm mode
/proc/cpuinfo from Raspberry Pi 3 (cortex-A53) arm mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83206
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Roberts ---
Created attachment 42789
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42789&action=edit
/proc/cpuinfo from rpi b (arm1176jzf-s)
/proc/cpuinfo from rpi b (arm1176jzf-s)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83206
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Roberts ---
Created attachment 42788
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42788&action=edit
/proc/cpuinfo from odroid-xu4 big/little cortex-a15/cortex-a7
/proc/cpuinfo from odroid-xu4 big/little cortex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83206
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Roberts ---
Created attachment 42787
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42787&action=edit
/proc/cpuinfo from cortex-a7 Raspberry Pi 2b v1.1
/proc/cpuinfo from cortex-a7 Raspberry Pi 2b v1.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83286
--- Comment #4 from Alex Weslowski ---
Verbose output:
Making gp in O6.1-none-msys_nt
make[1]: Entering directory 'pari-2.9.3/O6.1-none-msys_nt'
/usr/bin/gcc -v -save-temps -c -O3 -Wall -fno-strict-aliasing
-fomit-frame-pointer-funroll-l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83286
--- Comment #3 from Alex Weslowski ---
Created attachment 42786
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42786&action=edit
Preprocessed file mpker.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83286
--- Comment #2 from Alex Weslowski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Can you read https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ and provide the preprocessed source?
Hi, will attach the mpker.i file to this bug. The zip file has also been
updated. Ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83285
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|missed-optimization |wrong-code
Target|x86_64-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83286
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83286
Bug ID: 83286
Summary: internal compiler error: Illegal instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 6.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83239
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
An ever-so-slightly slightly simplified test case (no loop) is the following:
void bar (std::vector &a, int num)
{
if (num > 0)
{
const auto sz = a.size ();
if (sz < 3)
a.assign (1,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83239
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
This libstdc++ patch helps avoid both the warning and the bogus memset. if
Jonathan isn't opposed to this kind of annotation I think there might be other
places in vector where this approach could improve the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83285
Bug ID: 83285
Summary: non-atomic stores can reorder more aggressively with
seq_cst on AArch64 than x86: missed x86 optimization?
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82646
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83273
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83284
Bug ID: 83284
Summary: bootstrap comparison failure in
libiberty/stack-limit.o
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83283
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83283
Bug ID: 83283
Summary: Casting from boolean to unsigned char to enum returns
incorrect results
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83282
Bug ID: 83282
Summary: missing comma in format changes output
Product: gcc
Version: 6.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82076
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82646
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82103
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83239
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
This (and pr80641) all feel closely related. Transforming into a trap early
means we're not likely to get these reports which would be unfortunate because
they often point to a failing of the optimizer.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81616
--- Comment #37 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Dec 4 23:59:11 2017
New Revision: 255395
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255395&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/81616
* athlon.md: Disable for generic.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80271
--- Comment #4 from Tyler Mace ---
The argument against environment variables doesn't make sense, when the
GCC_COLORS environment variables are used right within this feature.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83281
Bug ID: 83281
Summary: [8 regression]
libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-cplx-flt.c and
reduction-cplx-dbl.c fail starting with r255335
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80271
Tyler Mace changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||macetw at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81876
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83279
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to T B from comment #0)
> However, when I compiled it with GCC 5.4.0 (g++ -std=c++14 *.cpp *.h
> -lstdc++fs) everything works fine and I can copy files with a size of over
> 2.0GiB.
That's strang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61638
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Dec 4 23:08:22 2017
New Revision: 255392
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255392&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix warnings in
* include/bits/regex_compiler.tcc: Use C-style
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83273
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83280
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83273
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Dec 4 22:52:07 2017
New Revision: 255390
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255390&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/83273 - constexpr if allows non-constant condition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82123
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83280
Bug ID: 83280
Summary: gcc doesn't realize a returning value from complete
switch(enum...) does return a value
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83272
--- Comment #2 from Mason ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> I don't believe the andl is not needed after shrb, as that is an 8-bit
> operand size, it should leave the upper 56 bits of the register unmodified.
> And unsigned char
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83268
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
Works in trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83279
Bug ID: 83279
Summary: std::experimental::filesystem::copy_file can't copy
larger files than 2.0GiB
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81165
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On December 4, 2017 6:55:02 PM GMT+01:00, law at redhat dot com
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81165
>
>Jeffrey A. Law changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83278
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83278
Bug ID: 83278
Summary: missing -Wformat-overflow for an inlined
__builtin___sprintf_chk with a local buffer
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83271
--- Comment #4 from Alexey Salmin ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> At least there's a simple workaround (adding 'extern' to the definition
> where the attribute).
That's what we do, so this is really a minor bug. Still, I deci
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83273
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61638
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And you also can't use #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wcomment" to silence
it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61638
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(Changed from "enhancement" to "normal" because the current behaviour is just
bad)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61638
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2014-10-05 00:00:00 |2017-12-4
Severity|enhanceme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83271
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
At least there's a simple workaround (adding 'extern' to the definition where
the attribute).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83273
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83271
--- Comment #2 from Alexey Salmin ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> I must say I fail to see usefulness of adding the attribute to the
> definition rather than declaration though.
Here's my case. There's a const bool flag in a st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83275
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81934
--- Comment #2 from Dennis Clarke ---
So then, this is a case of "wait and see" wherein any previous release of
the gcc tarballs will just continue to fail?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69224
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Summar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83252
--- Comment #11 from Dmitry Babokin ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10)
> We can add this if needed. I think regression could be made make generic
> and add a generic new bug component. We do have some very active people
> reading
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83252
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
--- Comment #10 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83271
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
--- Comment #20 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #19)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #18)
>
> > I can confirm that the patch from comment #6 resolves the problem for me.
>
> Thanks fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82973
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83272
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82286
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Summar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83252
--- Comment #9 from Dmitry Babokin ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> I suppose one could try scripting something with -fdisable-{tree,rtl}-$dump
> and seeding the list of passes to enable/disable with -fdump-{tree,rtl}-all.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81281
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note the #c8 testcase started failing with r247578 - before that we weren't
doing that good job in evrp to optimize it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #8 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81281
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
void
foo (unsigned p, unsigned a, unsigned b)
{
unsigned q = p + 7;
if (a - (1U + __INT_MAX__) >= 2)
__builtin_unreachable ();
int d = p + b;
int c = p + a;
if (c - d != __INT_MAX__)
__built
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83246
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81165
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #10 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83275
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83274
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83262
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:03:01AM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83262
>
> --- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > Dick Henderson in clf claim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83273
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83277
Bug ID: 83277
Summary: [8 Regression] [graphite] Wrong code w/ -O2
-floop-nest-optimize
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83276
Bug ID: 83276
Summary: ICE in pre_and_rev_post_order_compute, at
cfganal.c:1050
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83275
--- Comment #2 from G. Steinmetz ---
$ cat z5.f90
program p
type t(a)
allocate (a)
end type
end
$ gfortran-8-20171203 -c z5.f90
f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
0xb6a96f crash_signal
../../gcc/toplev.c:325
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83275
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||82173
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83275
Bug ID: 83275
Summary: [PDT] ICE in get_pdt_constructor, at
fortran/resolve.c:1185 (and others)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83274
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||82173
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83274
Bug ID: 83274
Summary: [PDT] ICE in delete_root and missing error
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81281
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Even the
(T)P - (T)(P + A) -> -(T) A
transformation looks wrong, consider A being 0U+INT_MIN, and P -1U.
(int)-1U - (int)(-1U+INT_MIN) is INT_MIN without overflow, while -(int)INT_MIN
overflows. Note it do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83273
Bug ID: 83273
Summary: if constexpr does not fail with run-time conditions
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81281
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So it is indeed the
/* (T)(P + A) - (T)(P + B) -> (T)A - (T)B */
(for add (plus pointer_plus)
(simplify
(minus (convert (add @@0 @1))
(convert (add @0 @2)))
(if (element_precision (type) <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80907
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] False|[6/7 Regression] False
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83236
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Ah, thanks. Indeed, and this stuff is highly FE specific.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83236
--- Comment #5 from Zack Weinberg ---
I was just thinking that other language front-ends might want to offer
spell-checking suggestions with their own rules for which names are/aren't
appropriate to suggest in context, but maybe we can worry abou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78496
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8 Regression] Missed |[7 Regression] Missed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78496
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Dec 4 16:14:24 2017
New Revision: 255387
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255387&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimizatin/78496
* gimple-ssa-evrp-analyze.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83272
Bug ID: 83272
Summary: Unnecessary mask instruction generated
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82096
Vidya Praveen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83271
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83236
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Zack Weinberg from comment #3)
> Maybe name_reserved_for_implementation_p should be a langhook?
I'm only using it in the C/C++ frontends, and the implementation is identical
for both, so I don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68810
--- Comment #18 from David Malcolm ---
...but presumably a question here is "what is the ideal output of the compiler
for that code?", and the answer might be:
constexpr-reinterpret1.C:19:??: error: reinterpret_cast from integer to pointer
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68810
--- Comment #17 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> David, does your patchset solve this?
The v2 version of the kit
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-11/msg00880.html
doesn't affect it.
The work-in-prog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81281
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81281
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 42785
> --> https://gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83271
Bug ID: 83271
Summary: const variable previously declared "extern" results in
"weak declaration must be public" error
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81281
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42785
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42785&action=edit
gcc8-pr81281-test.patch
This was fixed by r251651 for -fsanitize=undefined. Attaching testcase in
patch form.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83270
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83270
Bug ID: 83270
Summary: [OMP 3.1] implement TASKYIELD
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
Ass
1 - 100 of 244 matches
Mail list logo
