https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84033
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84033
Bug ID: 84033
Summary: powerpc64le -moptimize-swaps bad code with vec_vbpermq
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83211
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||rx*-*-* arm*-*-*
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68239
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84032
Bug ID: 84032
Summary: ICE in optimize_sc, at modulo-sched.c:1064
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68239
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Jan 25 02:24:45 2018
New Revision: 257039
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257039&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR other/68239
* mmap.c (backtrace_free_locked): Do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81550
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81550
--- Comment #9 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Thu Jan 25 01:09:19 2018
New Revision: 257038
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257038&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc/testsuite]
2018-01-24 Michael Meissner
PR target/81
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84031
Bug ID: 84031
Summary: structured binding unpacks nameless padding bitfields
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83950
--- Comment #3 from Sunil Pandey ---
I shouldn't say it's bug, sorry about that. Just application build regression
from GCC 7 to GCC 8. Looks like creduce reduced this test case too much in this
case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82846
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #6 from David Malcol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82846
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Jan 25 00:45:51 2018
New Revision: 257037
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257037&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix jit.dg/test-alignment* (PR jit/82846)
These testcases jit-compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83926
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It is first V2DI in the RTL, which exists just fine (but there is no
such divide insn); then when it is split to two DImode divides, it
just generates div:DI etc., which does not exist for -m32.
So we e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
--- Comment #19 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Wed Jan 24 23:36:29 2018
New Revision: 257032
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257032&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix m68k-linux-gnu libgcc build for ColdFire (PR target/68467).
PR tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52153
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83999
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com from comment #3)
> OK for trunk?
Ok, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83926
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
But I assume that's your transcription error. In the test case the arguments
are vector long long.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83926
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
That looks completely invalid, the args should be vector long long, not long
long.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83994
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83994
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Jan 24 21:57:16 2018
New Revision: 257031
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257031&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/83994
* i386.c (get_probe_interval): Move to earl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83743
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83990
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82846
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83948
--- Comment #7 from Bill Long ---
Thanks - very helpful information. I'll try to find out what version of gcc
was used to build their library.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84024
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83055
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83926
--- Comment #4 from Will Schmidt ---
I'm having a moment of doubt on the validity of the testcases involved here.
vector long long a = vec_div(long long b, long long c);
Any chance that is invalid for -m32 ? I don't see a whole lot of vec_div
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83948
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Note that I got a
Internal Error: stash_internal_unit(): Stack Size Exceeded
when using mismatched gfortran 7.2.0 and omp_lib.mod.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84030
Bug ID: 84030
Summary: Name lookup in presence of namespace
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83948
--- Comment #5 from Bill Long ---
I tried on my Mac laptop (gcc version 6.3.0) and it also works there. Evidently
not a representative test. The differences I see between that environment and
the original customer's is that they are running 7.2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84010
--- Comment #6 from Richard Henderson ---
For better rematerialization, I wonder if it wouldn't be better
to represent this as
(set (reg:P tmp)
(const:P (unspec [(symbol_ref "xxx")] UNSPEC_TLSIE)))
prior to reload, and split to sethi+add+l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83948
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> What happens with 16 threads?
% gfc -fopenmp pr83948.f90
% setenv OMP_NUM_THREADS 16
% ./a.out
Table element number = 995 Same pole re-projecting area source:
Beginnng of new record:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83948
--- Comment #3 from Bill Long ---
What happens with 16 threads?
cc
Target: powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../../gcc-7-branch/configure
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++ --with-cpu=power7
--disable-multilib --with-long-double-128
--prefix=/home/willschm/gcc/install/gcc-7-branch --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.2.1 2018
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83999
--- Comment #3 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Jakub,
I have made the changes to the types of the dtype elements that you
suggested. It led to a cast being needed in
trans-intrinsic.c(gfc_conv_intrinsic_rank) but, apart from tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84014
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Wed Jan 24 19:45:55 2018
New Revision: 257029
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257029&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-24 Vladimir Makarov
PR target/84014
* ir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83906
--- Comment #13 from Pedro Alves ---
Fix is now in GDB's master, 8.1, and 8.0 branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83845
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
FWIW, I now have patches that fix all the big-endian SVE failures. Hope to
post them later this week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83889
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83979
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601
--- Comment #20 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 43233
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43233&action=edit
WIP that fixes PR, but causes other regressions
I am attaching a proof of concept hack that fixes this PR by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84029
Bug ID: 84029
Summary: Partially inline strcmp
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82207
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
n Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 03:38:10PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82207
>
> --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84014
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Thank you for reporting. The problem occurs when only one subreg (obj) of
register (allocno) is used in a function. I'll work on a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83990
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84028
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84028
Bug ID: 84028
Summary: [nvptx] nested-function-1.f90 hangs at -O1
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82968
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82007
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Should I backport this to 7?
IMO yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83948
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368
--- Comment #19 from James Clarke ---
Thanks for the fix; is this a candidate for backporting to the gcc-7 branch? If
not we can just carry it in Debian, but it would be nicer to have it upstream.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83906
--- Comment #12 from Pedro Alves ---
GDB fix posted here:
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-01/msg00482.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83939
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83692
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Seems like in C++17 the condition in
if (m_x.value() != 1)
throw 0;
gets evaluated to 1 instead of 0, so we try to evaluate the "throw 0" but that
can't be evaluated to a constant value. Maybe some b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83980
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83823
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83990
--- Comment #3 from Tony E Lewis ---
Just to be clear...
I don't think it's _necessarily_ a problem that the warning is being triggered
in this particular context (because I'm not in a position to judge that). The
core problem I wish to highligh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84027
Bug ID: 84027
Summary: new-expression does not accept an
attribute-specifier-seq
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82514
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Further reduced:
template void i(h) { }
template void n() {
[] {
struct p { };
i(p{});
};
}
auto f = n<1>;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83977
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 24 16:28:47 2018
New Revision: 257023
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257023&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/83977
* tree.c (free_lang_data_in_decl): Don
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83979
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Wed Jan 24 16:22:30 2018
New Revision: 257021
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257021&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix use of boolean_true/false_node (PR 83979)
r255913 c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83889
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Wed Jan 24 16:22:40 2018
New Revision: 257022
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257022&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Remove explicit dg-do runs from gcc.dg/vect (PR 83889)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81535
--- Comment #9 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Just an FYI that the output of this test case changed a bit somewhere in the
range r256987 to r257017:
Now it gets this:
FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/pr79439.c scan-assembler-times \\mbl g\\M 1 (foun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84016
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
Thanks! -flto makes differnce even for single file benchmarks (because of
thrown away type info and extra info from linker). So perhaps that is reason
why it did not reproduce?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84010
--- Comment #5 from James Clarke ---
My patch seems to work for this case:
sethi %tie_hi22(tcg_ctx), %g2
...
add %g2, %tie_lo10(tcg_ctx), %g1
ldx [%l7 + %g1], %g1, %tie_ldx(tcg_ctx)
stx %g2, [%fp+178
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83976
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84007
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84006
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82207
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:53:40AM +, guez at lmd dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82207
>
> --- Comment #8 from Lionel GUEZ ---
> It does not seem completely true that gfo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83990
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84016
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84016
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> mgrid also on AMD Fam10:
> https://gcc.opensuse.org/gcc-old/SPEC/CFP/sb-megrez-head-64/recent.html
Interesting about this regression is that mgrid is a single so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83796
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82249
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82249
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jan 24 15:20:53 2018
New Revision: 257018
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257018&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82249 - wrong mismatched pack length error.
* pt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84008
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84016
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
mgrid also on AMD Fam10:
https://gcc.opensuse.org/gcc-old/SPEC/CFP/sb-megrez-head-64/recent.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84026
Bug ID: 84026
Summary: invalid 'unnamed scoped enum is not allowed' when
scoped enum has a full qualified-id
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84016
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
>
> H.J. Lu changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83993
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at redhat dot com
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
--- Comment #21 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
(In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #19)
> I was copied, presumably because the problem occurred in var-tracking.
>
> I've tried to duplicate the problem on gcc112. I bootstrapped the trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84023
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I think that's probably spurious:
>
> void
> set ()
> {
> a=nan("");
> }
> ...
> float a = move (1);
> if (!__builtin_constant_p (a))
> __builtin_abort ();
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84016
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Version|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83589
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84025
Bug ID: 84025
Summary: [nvptx] Don't generate branch-around-nothing
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #4)
> > The question is why run-time relocations aren't allowed.
>
> Probably added to save binary space? An optimization would be to
I don't think so:
text da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83589
--- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Jan 24 13:52:12 2018
New Revision: 257016
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257016&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx, PR83589] Workaround for branch-around-nothing JIT bug
2018-01-24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84019
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2018
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Jan 24 13:52:12 2018
New Revision: 257016
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257016&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx, PR83589] Workaround for branch-around-nothing JIT bug
2018-01-24 T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83992
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Corresponding C testcase would be something like:
static inline void
foo (void)
{
int j;
while (1)
for (j = 0; j < 0x7fff; ++j)
;
}
int
main ()
{
foo ();
}
at -O2 -g {,-fno-var-tracking-a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84024
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
>
> --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
This patch works on the testcase:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-switch-conversion.c b/gcc/tree-switch-conversion.c
index c2538908340..a1e85407bf3 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-switch-conversion.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-switch-conversion.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83992
--- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
In this case the problem happens before the assembler. The bad location
information shows up in reemit_insn_block_notes in gcc/final.c. As the first
insn in the block has no location, reemit_insn_block_n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84011
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Somehow switch-conversion doesn't transform the switch with -f{PIE,PIC}.
> Without
> we get
>
> phy_modes (phy_interface_t interface)
> {
> const char * _1;
> co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84019
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
