https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85030
Bug ID: 85030
Summary: internal compiler error: Floating point exception
(validate_subreg())
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85029
Bug ID: 85029
Summary: -fsanitize=undefined internal compiler error: in
maybe_optimize_ubsan_ptr_ifn, at sanopt.c:493
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
/gcc/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/8.0.1/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.1 20180321 (experimental
20180321 (experimental) [trunk revision 258722] (GCC)
$
$ g++tk tmp.cpp
tmp.cpp:3:18: internal compiler error: in instantiate_type, at cp/class.c:8062
int t = A::A ? : 0;
^
0x6f4360 instantiate_type(tree_node*, tree_node*, int)
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/cp/class.c:8062
0x6cffea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70870
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77941
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84942
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85026
Bug ID: 85026
Summary: [7 Regression] Error: branch out of range on
arm-linux-gnueabihf
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84943
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81311
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Mar 22 03:53:19 2018
New Revision: 258755
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258755&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/81311 - wrong C++17 overload resolution.
* call.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82967
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85025
Bug ID: 85025
Summary: libgcc/config/i386/shadow-stack-unwind.h is wrong
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922
--- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:44:25AM +, w.clodius at icloud dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #12 from William Clodius ---
> FWIW I was told on comp.lang.fortran that the code is erroneous because of
>
> "The e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85024
--- Comment #2 from Aaron M. Ucko ---
Great, thanks! FTR, I'm fine without a backport here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922
--- Comment #12 from William Clodius ---
FWIW I was told on comp.lang.fortran that the code is erroneous because of
"The error message doesn't make much sense to me, but I think Note 12.2
in section 12.4.3.1 contains a clue to what's going on.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85024
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84269
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
Another one, from https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82967#c1
#include
void test (float pf, float inff)
{
assert (pf == inff);
}
: In function 'test':
:5:3: warning: implicit declaration of f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82967
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65428
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85024
Bug ID: 85024
Summary: applyRelocations not implemented for alpha-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84956
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #2)
> Created attachment 43722 [details]
> Tentative patch
Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64, no issues found.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71965
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||deferred
Assignee|aoliva at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922
--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch submitted.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84999
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8 Regression] ICE in |[7 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
--- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> Joseph, any suggestions? You mentioned that older versions of glibc
> didn't provide 16-byte alignment in i386 malloc; mayb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84642
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Wed Mar 21 22:08:19 2018
New Revision: 258748
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258748&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c++/84610,84642] recover from implicit template parms gracefully
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71965
--- Comment #9 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Wed Mar 21 22:08:34 2018
New Revision: 258749
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258749&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c++/71965] silence multi-dim array init sorry without tf_error
We
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84610
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Wed Mar 21 22:08:19 2018
New Revision: 258748
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258748&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c++/84610,84642] recover from implicit template parms gracefully
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84997
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018, antoshkka at gmail dot com wrote:
> unsigned test02(unsigned lhs) {
> return lhs + 2.0; // No signed overflow
> }
If lhs is UINT_MAX or UINT_MAX - 1, the conversion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84997
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > That would need -fno-trapping-math, because if the addition results in a
> > double value larger than INT_MAX, under Annex F the c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84999
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 21 21:48:47 2018
New Revision: 258747
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258747&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/84999
* c-typeck.c (build_binary_op): If c_common_typ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
--- Comment #24 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #23)
> This regtested fine on BE for me with no regressions. My LE
> bootstrap/regtest is still running.
My LE bootstrap and regtesting were clean too. Just waiting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84972
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] ICE: |[6/7 Regression] ICE: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84972
--- Comment #9 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Mar 21 21:19:03 2018
New Revision: 258746
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258746&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2018-03-21 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/84972
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 01:23:32PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 08:11:29PM +, w.clodius at icloud dot com wrote:
> > --- Comment #6 from William Clodius ---
> > My version of gfortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 08:15:57PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> >subroutine copy_byte_data(data, copy)
> >1
> > Error: Shape mismatch in argument 'data'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84957
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84957
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Wed Mar 21 21:12:41 2018
New Revision: 258745
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258745&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-21 Thomas Koenig
Harald Anlauf
PR fortran/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84961
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8 Regression] ICE error: |[7 Regression] ICE error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84982
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84960
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84811
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84960
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 21 20:53:16 2018
New Revision: 258744
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258744&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/84960
* tree-cfg.c (remove_bb): Don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84811
--- Comment #26 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Wed Mar 21 20:52:15 2018
New Revision: 258743
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258743&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
poly_span_traits fixes (PR 84811)
This patch fixes inc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84957
--- Comment #3 from Harald Anlauf ---
Patch posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2018-03/msg00117.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
>> So GCC's definition of max_align_t is not consistent with malloc in Solaris
>
> Oh, I'm ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 08:11:29PM +, w.clodius at icloud dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #6 from William Clodius ---
> My version of gfortran, 7.1, doesn’t give the first message, which is correct.
> The sec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84982
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 21 20:20:40 2018
New Revision: 258742
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258742&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/84982
* gimple-ssa-store-merging.c (i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84961
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 21 20:19:33 2018
New Revision: 258741
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258741&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84961
* cp-tree.h (genericize_compound_lvalue): Dec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> My version of gfortran gives
>
> gfcx -c a.f90
> a.f90:4:38:
>
>module subroutine copy_byte_data(data, copy)
> 1
> a.f90:12:31:
>
>subroutine copy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922
--- Comment #6 from William Clodius ---
My version of gfortran, 7.1, doesn’t give the first message, which is correct.
The second message is incorrect. Either the clashing procedures should not be
compared further, or the comparison of the shapes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922
--- Comment #5 from William Clodius ---
The code is definitely invalid, but the misleading error message did result in
significant time lost by assuming the message was correct as to the problem.
Note several other attempts to fix the problem res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85008
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Wed Mar 21 19:22:10 2018
New Revision: 258738
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258738&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c++/85008] ICE looking for clone
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84912
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85008
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84912
--- Comment #4 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #3)
> + bool nonvoid = TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (fndecl)) != void_type_node;
Cut and pasted too much, please ignore the unneeded line above.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84912
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
The following patch changes the ICE to an error:
[bergner@makalu-lp1 PR84912]$ cat divde.i
long
div_de (long a, long b)
{
return __builtin_divde (a, b);
}
[bergner@makalu-lp1 PR84912]$
/home/bergner/gcc/bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61754
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
I suspect __attribute__((deprecated)) doesn't work quite the way you would like
in C++ either. It only happens to do what you expect (i.e., not trigger a
warning) in the case in comment #0 but not in others,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789
--- Comment #23 from Peter Bergner ---
Created attachment 43728
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43728&action=edit
Backport of trunk patch to GCC 7
Kaushik, can you verify the attached backported patch fixes the ICE on GCC 7?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32770
Bug 32770 depends on bug 84615, which changed state.
Bug 84615 Summary: [8 Regression] Executable Segfault for some tests compiled
with -m32 after r256284
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84615
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84615
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84995
--- Comment #2 from Дилян Палаузов ---
gcc-ar always uses the latest plugin:
$ cat t.c
#include
int main() {
printf("Z\n");
}
$ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc-6.4.1 -flto t.c -C -o t.o
$ strace gcc-ar rc t.a t.o prints:
stat("/usr/local/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84615
--- Comment #20 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Wed Mar 21 18:46:44 2018
New Revision: 258736
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258736&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 84615 Regressions due to type mismatch with character functions
Since
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54551
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47389
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84994
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.0 |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84994
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84994
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Wed Mar 21 18:21:39 2018
New Revision: 258731
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258731&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
C++: show private field accessor hints with -g and optimization (PR c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84926
Дилян Палаузов changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84912
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61754
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5)
> Would the solution described in bug 79078 comment 14 do what you're looking
> for?
Yes, that sounds plausible. But I'm just wondering: Don't you consider the
cur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61754
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Would the solution described in bug 79078 comment 14 do what you're looking
for?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70410
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WORKSFORME |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51982
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Yes, the only two calls in the resulting machine code are both to unicode_eq.
Splitting the ranges (and then assigning volatile regs to the first half)
hurts if it doesn't end up helping shrink-wrapping
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81311
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84826
--- Comment #9 from sudi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-03/msg01120.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83497
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84288
--- Comment #8 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Wed Mar 21 17:39:16 2018
New Revision: 258727
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258727&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Enable jit on Solaris: soname option and EXTRA_GCC_LIBS (PR jit/84288)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51982
--- Comment #4 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #3)
> The function lookup_unicode should be shrink-wrapped to not create a stack
> frame if unicode_eq is not called, which is the common case
>
> if (!PyUnicode_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61754
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> I find the [[deprecated]] behavior for the test cases here reasonable and
> useful: the struct type is declared deprecated and so its subsequent uses
> are diagno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82989
--- Comment #22 from sudi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sudi
Date: Wed Mar 21 17:14:48 2018
New Revision: 258723
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258723&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] Fix test pr82989.c for big endian and mthumb
The test pr82
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84882
sudi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84968
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79078
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think that would work well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79078
--- Comment #14 from Martin Sebor ---
For non-member functions that are part of a class API I would like to see about
getting the following to work for types (as it already does for functions):
1) define a class with no attribute
2) define the A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83660
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c.jj 2018-03-15 08:36:26.526776571 +0100
+++ gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000-c.c2018-03-21 17:10:04.340935624 +0100
@@ -6649,6 +6649,14 @@ altivec_resolve_overloaded_built
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85020
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Can reproduce. The best thing would be to place some strategic asserts in
dwarf2out.c that trigger when we output "relocations" during early dwarf out.
I'll see to that tomorrow.
Note there are some relate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84782
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
They don't look like duplicates to me. PR 70431 involves a union, no SFINAE,
and a completely different error message.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84222
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84804
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Wed Mar 21 15:58:00 2018
New Revision: 258722
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258722&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c++/84804] ICE with default arg, template friend & lambda
https://g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84804
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84782
Raphael Kubo da Costa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||raphael.kubo.da.costa@intel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85020
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85022
Vegard Nossum changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |inline-asm
--- Comment #1 from Vegard No
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83660
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
I think the issue is that gimplify_cleanup_point_expr when walking the
body_sequence to look for WCE stmts doesn't traverse GIMPLE_BIND sub-stmts.
Or it is not supposed to do that and the GENERIC is at faul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85023
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85018
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61754
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85023
Bug ID: 85023
Summary: [8 regression] many ICE failures with asan test cases
starting with r258664
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
1 - 100 of 192 matches
Mail list logo
