https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83864
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Jan 18 07:54:17 2018
New Revision: 256837
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256837&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-17 Harald Anlauf
PR fortran/83864
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81443
--- Comment #11 from Joshua Kinard ---
(In reply to Joshua Kinard from comment #10)
> Created attachment 43166 [details]
> genrecog.ii temp data from failing build command
Forgot to add, this is generated from a checkout of commit id 1998c023a3e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81443
--- Comment #10 from Joshua Kinard ---
Created attachment 43166
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43166&action=edit
genrecog.ii temp data from failing build command
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81443
--- Comment #9 from Joshua Kinard ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #8)
> > FWIW, reversing PR59461 (some manual edits required) on gcc-7_1_0-release
> > compiles cleanly, which is the first time that's happened on this machine
> > unde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83787
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83787
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Jan 18 04:24:48 2018
New Revision: 256835
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256835&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/83787
compiler: pass int to makechan, call makech
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601
--- Comment #16 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Well, my understanding of how other compilers have handled bitfields would
indicate that deferring optimization of them until later is advisable.
Essentially they pretended bitfields had word precision tho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83883
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83883
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Jan 18 04:05:27 2018
New Revision: 256833
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256833&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/83883
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dse-26.c: Tighten
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601
--- Comment #15 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> I think the easiest fix is move optimize_bit_field_compare from where it is
> currently done and do it only in some late gimple pass, around
> pass_fold_builti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67935
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83922
Bug ID: 83922
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in
contains_struct_check)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83921
Bug ID: 83921
Summary: GCC rejects constexpr initialization of empty
aggregate.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78240
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83651
--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Arnd Bergmann from comment #4)
> I'd suggest sticking with the libressl test case from comment 1, and
> ignoring the kernel version until the libressl one is fully understood. It
> seems very l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83874
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Jan 18 01:04:36 2018
New Revision: 256830
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256830&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-17 Harald Anlauf
Back from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83874
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Jan 18 00:30:42 2018
New Revision: 256829
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256829&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-17 Harald Anlauf
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83874
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Jan 17 23:50:02 2018
New Revision: 256824
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256824&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-17 Harald Anlauf
PR fortran/83874
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83824
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] ICE on |[6/7 Regression] ICE on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82256
--- Comment #4 from PaX Team ---
any update on this? it seems that the window for fixing 5.x was missed but
perhaps it's still not too late for the others, especially if they get updated
for spectre anyway...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83824
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 17 23:42:36 2018
New Revision: 256823
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256823&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/83824
* parser.c (attr_chainon): New function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83920
--- Comment #1 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 43165
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43165&action=edit
assembly code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83920
Bug ID: 83920
Summary: [nvptx] bad predicate reset
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
--- Comment #12 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Another data point: go1 built with AT10.0 on willow2 does not fail on genoa,
whereas go1 built with AT 10.0 on genoa does fail.
Going to see if I can nail down which .o file is the carrier for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
--- Comment #11 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It appears that -O1 -fexpensive-optimizations is the minimal optimization to
trigger this fail. And of what -fexpensive-optimizations turns on, this piece
in ira-costs.s (find_costs_and_classes)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82461
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83875
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Kretz ---
Hmm,
what should the following print?
constexpr int native_simd_width = __builtin_target_supports("avx512f") ? 64 :
__builtin_target_supports("avx") ? 32 : __builtin_target_supports("sse") ? 16 :
__builtin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83864
--- Comment #4 from Harald Anlauf ---
Regtests on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
Obvious patch submitted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01607.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81443
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
> FWIW, reversing PR59461 (some manual edits required) on gcc-7_1_0-release
> compiles cleanly, which is the first time that's happened on this machine
> under N32. Successful builds on this machine take abo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78344
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78344
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Jan 17 21:29:59 2018
New Revision: 256821
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256821&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2018-01-17 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/78344
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83874
--- Comment #6 from Harald Anlauf ---
Patch submitted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01600.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83897
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83897
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 17 21:08:36 2018
New Revision: 256819
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256819&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/83897
* cp-gimplify.c (cp_maybe_instrument_return):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83874
--- Comment #5 from Harald Anlauf ---
Regtested without new failures on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
Will submit patch with testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83051
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Jan 17 20:40:46 2018
New Revision: 256818
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256818&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/83051
* ipa-inline.c (flatten_function): Do not o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81054
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8 Regression] ICE with |[7 Regression] ICE with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81054
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Jan 17 20:29:25 2018
New Revision: 256817
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256817&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2018-01-17 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/81054
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81054
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Jan 17 20:28:47 2018
New Revision: 256816
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256816&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2018-01-17 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/81054
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83874
--- Comment #4 from Harald Anlauf ---
The following obvious patch fixes the ICE:
Index: gcc/fortran/decl.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/decl.c (revision 256671)
+++ gcc/fortran/decl.c (wor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56069
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |9.0
--- Comment #18 from Jeffrey A. Law
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61037
scott snyder changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83919
Bug ID: 83919
Summary: [8 regression] spurious -Wignored-qualifiers warning
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57534
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think the easiest fix is move optimize_bit_field_compare from where it is
currently done and do it only in some late gimple pass, around
pass_fold_builtins/store merging or so? Dunno which exact one thoug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82825
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83651
--- Comment #4 from Arnd Bergmann ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #3)
> (In reply to Arnd Bergmann from comment #0)
>
> > If there is enough interest in addressing the slowdown, it should be
> > possible to create a version of the k
the crash (probably segfault) of gcc (GCC) 8.0.1 20180117
(experimental) (r256776).
I honestly tried to look for duplicates in Bugzilla, but it feels like not the
right moment ;-(
constexpr unsigned f (unsigned a, unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82825
--- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Wed Jan 17 19:31:43 2018
New Revision: 256813
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256813&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Guard against undefined weak symbols before Mac OS X 10.9 (PR sanitizer/82825)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I realize the warnings are happening in VRP1. EVRP and VRP1 use different
styles of analysis and it can be the case that one is better suited for
cleaning things up than the other.
But I really should hav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601
--- Comment #12 from Aldy Hernandez ---
The warning occurs in vrp1, not evrp, but for the record...
evrp dump:
tcp_chrono_set (struct tcp_sock * tp)
{
int type;
_1;
int _2;
unsigned char _3;
unsigned char _4;
:
_1 = tp_11(D)->ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70682
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |9.0
Summary|[8 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82825
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As it has been acked upstream, please just apply it to gcc trunk and after a
while ping upstream. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
What do the dumps look like? In particular evrp & vrp1?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601
--- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Further reduced testcase. Can be reproduced with -O2 -Wall.
struct tcp_sock {
int chrono_stat[3];
unsigned char chrono_type:2;
};
void tcp_chrono_set(struct tcp_sock *tp)
{
int type = 1;
if (ty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81443
--- Comment #7 from Joshua Kinard ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #6)
> Please retry with the current 7 branch, it contains additional fixes.
I did about a week ago. Tried building gcc-7-branch HEAD with both gcc-6.4.0
and gcc-5.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82303
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Thomas Garnier from comment #5)
> I didn't try the patch yet, that could be a good starting point (still need
> change in switch optimization and segment registers). What is the
> consequence of the ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82303
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Garnier ---
I didn't try the patch yet, that could be a good starting point (still need
change in switch optimization and segment registers). What is the consequence
of the change in default_binds_local_p_3? Is it suppo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81843
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83916
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82303
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Kees Cook from comment #3)
> Any progress on getting this into a GCC release?
Has anyone tried my patch at all? Does it work?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82303
Kees Cook changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kees at outflux dot net
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81067
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83917
Bug ID: 83917
Summary: [8 Regression] with -mcall-ms2sysv-xlogues, stepping
into x86 tail-call restore stub gives bad backtrace
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42575
--- Comment #17 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
As mentioned in PR, sched1 exposes this problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49678
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42575
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janis at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83287
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83287
--- Comment #7 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Wed Jan 17 18:11:49 2018
New Revision: 256809
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256809&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[C++/83287] Another overload lookup ice
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83632
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #4 from Andreas S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82964
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sch...@linux-m68k.org
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83913
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
Thanks. While I could not find why we blow up with Haswell tuning but not say
Sandybridge, the main problem is that with all those -fno-... flags we have a
few insns of the form rK = rN where rN is loop-i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72801
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 17 18:08:05 2018
New Revision: 256808
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256808&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/81843 - ICE with variadic member template.
PR c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81843
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 17 18:08:05 2018
New Revision: 256808
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256808&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/81843 - ICE with variadic member template.
PR c++/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82331
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 17 18:07:53 2018
New Revision: 256807
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256807&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82331 - ICE with variadic partial specialization of auto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82760
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 17 18:07:45 2018
New Revision: 256806
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256806&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82760 - memory corruption with aligned new.
* call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83814
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83814
--- Comment #13 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Wed Jan 17 17:51:25 2018
New Revision: 256804
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256804&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
C++: Fix crash in warn_for_memset within templates (PR c++/83814)
gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83902
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Wed Jan 17 17:51:25 2018
New Revision: 256804
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256804&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
C++: Fix crash in warn_for_memset within templates (PR c++/83814)
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81067
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 17 17:44:42 2018
New Revision: 256803
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256803&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/81067 - redundant NULL warning.
* call.c (convert_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72801
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 17 17:44:35 2018
New Revision: 256802
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256802&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/81843 - ICE with variadic member template.
PR c++/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81843
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 17 17:44:35 2018
New Revision: 256802
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256802&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/81843 - ICE with variadic member template.
PR c++/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83914
--- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Started with r256630 (so definitely mine)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61240
--- Comment #18 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #17)
> Created attachment 43162 [details]
> gcc8-pr61240.patch
>
> The C FE doesn't do this optimization anymore, but c_fully_fold does because
> the generic folding co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83651
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83651
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83914
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81360
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 43163
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43163&action=edit
gzipped C source code
The original code now seems to have broken between date 20180112 and
today, 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83914
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65578
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #1)
> Tightening the arm_arch_v6_ok test like this would fix the failure:
> ...
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> b/gcc/testsuite/lib/t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Jenner ---
I have been reading gcc-patches and keeping a list of the rs6000 changes that I
will need to port. I will go through the svn log for rs6000 as well to make
sure I haven't missed anything. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Even rs6000 changes related to IEEE long double support are potentially
relevant to powerpcspe (not anything related to binary128 in VSX,
obviously, but more generic IEEE long double chang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83121
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Wed Jan 17 16:56:56 2018
New Revision: 256801
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256801&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
lto, testsuite: Fix ICE in -Wodr (PR lto/83121)
PR lto/83121 reports a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83121
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82964
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That would be appreciated. Besides killing the non-SPE relevant stuff in
powerpcspe, I think a review of the rs6000 changes from the last year that
might be relevant to powerpcspe is desirable too. While c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83726
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69558
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |9.0
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Jenner ---
Sorry for the lack of comment from me - I only just saw this bug (I was not
receiving email from bugzilla but hopefully I have fixed this now).
I am part-way through the cleanup. I will commit what I have so
1 - 100 of 215 matches
Mail list logo
