https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89490
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #5)
> Adding zero bytes after each string constant makes no sense IMHO,
> since the linker will merge the constants, and so aligning the
> constants with .zero does pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89490
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #6)
> The zero bytes are added by the -fsection-anchors code. They used to align
> the next object. Now, the number of zero bytes is wrong (in cases where we
> used to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89494
--- Comment #4 from Piotr Kubaj ---
Sorry, that was for a build with GCC 6. A build with GCC 4.2.1 is done with the
following.
Configure:
/usr/bin/env CC="cc" CPP="cpp" CXX="c++" CFLAGS="-O2 -pipe -DLIBICONV_PLUG
-fno-strict-aliasing " CPPFLAG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89494
--- Comment #3 from Piotr Kubaj ---
Make is executed with:
/usr/bin/env PERL_USE_UNSAFE_INC=1
XDG_DATA_HOME=/usr/local/poudriere/ports/default/lang/gcc9-devel/work
XDG_CONFIG_HOME=/usr/local/poudriere/ports/default/lang/gcc9-devel/work
HOME=/us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89494
--- Comment #2 from Piotr Kubaj ---
I compile from FreeBSD ports tree (just change the port's Makefile not to use
external (newer) GCC, but the in-base 4.2.1), so it adds some environment
variables.
/usr/bin/env CC="g
cc6" CPP="cpp6" CXX="g++6"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86535
Piotr Kubaj changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pkubaj at anongoth dot pl
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80791
--- Comment #22 from Kewen Lin ---
As the discussion above, on Power any IV should have an extend (sign/zero) if
its width is less than the GPR width (POINTER_SIZE equivalent here). Although
we don't model this precisely on Power, in most cases i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80409
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80409
--- Comment #5 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sandra
Date: Tue Feb 26 02:33:26 2019
New Revision: 269203
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269203&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-25 Sandra Loosemore
PR c/80409
gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89487
bin cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89490
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89502
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
>
> Ever better, we can use UNSPEC_TP to handle it:
>
> movl%fs:24, %ecx
>
This is how TCB is accessed in glibc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88987
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89502
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81956
--- Comment #3 from yuta tomino ---
I'm trying gcc-8.3. This is probably fixed in 8.x.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89502
Bug ID: 89502
Summary: Error: can't encode segment `%fs' with 32-bit address
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64132
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89450
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse ---
I still think some __attribute__((exhaustive)) on an enum definition would be
useful for this sort of thing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89495
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 89495, which changed state.
Bug 89495 Summary: [9 Regression] gcc/c-family/c-format.c:1272:20: runtime
error: signed integer overflow: 214748365 * 10 cannot be represented in type
'int'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89461
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2019-02-23 2:34 p.m., redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89461
>
> --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> Oops, that should be:
>
> --- a/libstdc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89495
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 25 23:43:51 2019
New Revision: 269198
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269198&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/89495
* c-format.c (maybe_read_dollar_number): Comput
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||torvalds@linux-foundation.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89501
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 89501, which changed state.
Bug 89501 Summary: Odd lack of warning about missing initialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89501
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89501
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Yup. It's the same as 18501. We meet UNDEFINED and [0,0] resulting in [0,0]
and nothing ever causes reevaluation of the PHI. Things are working as
"expected".
My approach from 2005 would almost certa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89501
--- Comment #2 from Linus Torvalds ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I think it comes down to the same issue as PR 18501.
Very possibly the same issue in just a different guise.
NOTE! I have in the meantime verified that yes, it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89459
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
GCC 8 branched off mainline in April 2018, long before that merge; it's
necessary to test mainline (that will become GCC 9 and later), not any
existing release, to see if that merge fixed t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89501
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think it comes down to the same issue as PR 18501.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89490
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77754
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 25 22:58:45 2019
New Revision: 269197
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269197&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/77754
* gcc.c-torture/compile/pr77754-1.c: New test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89501
Bug ID: 89501
Summary: Odd lack of warning about missing initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84779
--- Comment #6 from Harald Anlauf ---
Adding the option -fno-tree-sra to -O1 (or -Os for the original case)
makes the ICE go away for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89450
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> > in switch statements, we have a huge patch:
> > https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/network:chromium/chromi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89492
--- Comment #4 from Harald Anlauf ---
Patch with slightly extended testcase posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-02/msg00218.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89500
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45819
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45819&action=edit
gcc9-pr89500.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89500
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The simplest fix might be:
--- gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c.jj2019-01-18 00:33:19.466003372 +0100
+++ gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c 2019-02-25 21:59:18.743419101 +0100
@@ -1302,6 +1302,7 @@ handle_builtin_strlen (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89496
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
This test case also segfaults with a non-instrumeted compiler:
program main
call sub(10, *10, 20)
stop 1
10 continue
end program main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89494
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89496
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
This looks pretty obvious to me, at least looking at the
-fdump-fortran-original dump. I will try to come up with
a test case.
Would it be possible to check that this also fixes the
nullpointer offset acces
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89450
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> in switch statements, we have a huge patch:
> https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/network:chromium/chromium-beta/
> chromium-non-void-return.patch?expand=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89490
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger ---
The patch should probably work, and a powerpc cross fixes the test case.
At least bootstrap and reg-test on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu is fine,
but that proves not too much.
When I look at the merge-all-constants-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89498
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |debug
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89500
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Even better testcase without any UB in it:
typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
extern size_t strlen (const char *);
extern size_t strnlen (const char *, size_t);
extern void bar (char *);
void
foo (int *a)
{
ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89492
--- Comment #3 from Harald Anlauf ---
I found another issue for uses of transfer('',['']), so here's an updated
version with a clearer error message:
Index: gcc/fortran/check.c
===
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89500
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
GCC 4.7 through 7.x emit:
sorry, unimplemented: non-trivial designated initializers not supported
here (and 4.6 and earlier didn't support C++11 enough to grok it).
That said, you're right, the skipping is im
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
--- Comment #5 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Well, before C++2a it is an extension, so outside of the C++ standard, and
> GCC has been implementing it as not allowing to skip any fields.
Not exactly. Outs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89492
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Can you please verify that your testcases work?
With the patch I get
pr34202_red.f90:8:54:
8 |write(*,*) transfer(transfer([1],[bug4()]),[1],size[1])
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89500
Bug ID: 89500
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected integer_cst,
have ssa_name in get_len, at tree.h:5653
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89499
Bug ID: 89499
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in expand_UNIQUE, at
internal-fn.c:2605
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89498
Bug ID: 89498
Summary: [8/9 Regression] ICE in AT_loc_list, at
dwarf2out.c:4871
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89492
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67650
--- Comment #33 from Vincent ---
Still in gcc 8.3.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89339
pc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89338
pc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89338
--- Comment #2 from pc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: pc
Date: Mon Feb 25 19:36:05 2019
New Revision: 269195
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269195&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[rs6000] PR89338, PR89339: Fix compat vector intrinsics for BE and 32-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89339
--- Comment #2 from pc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: pc
Date: Mon Feb 25 19:36:05 2019
New Revision: 269195
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269195&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[rs6000] PR89338, PR89339: Fix compat vector intrinsics for BE and 32-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89497
--- Comment #1 from darkkirb at darkkirb dot de ---
(In reply to darkkirb from comment #0)
> Full offending command line:
> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -m32 -L../cgi-bin -L../cups -L../filter -L../ppdc
> [...]
This happens for both 32 bit and 64 bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89497
Bug ID: 89497
Summary: [8.2 regression] ICE caused by Segmentation Fault when
compiling cups 2.2.10 with LTO flags enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89496
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70644
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> (Reduced from PR 58822)
>
> struct Base { Base(int) { } };
>
> int foo(Base*) { return 0; }
>
> struct X : virtual Base {
> X() : Base(foo(this)) { }
> };
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82501
--- Comment #19 from Andrey Drobyshev ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #17)
> > 2. What should we do with sections like .data.rel.ro, .data.rel.ro.local?
> > They suffer from this bug too, but it's not that easy to put globals there,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82501
--- Comment #18 from Andrey Drobyshev ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #16)
> Created attachment 45797 [details]
> Patch candidate
>
> Patch candidate where I made some refactoring and come up with tests.
> Works fine on x86_64, on ppc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88530
--- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina ---
Author: tnfchris
Date: Mon Feb 25 17:57:01 2019
New Revision: 269193
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269193&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
AArch64: Fix command line options canonicalization version #2. (PR
ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43210
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45818
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45818&action=edit
gcc9-pr43210.patch
Like this (untested so far).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43210
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, I'm not convinced the #c0 transformation should be done by default, but
what should and can be done is instead of emitting {42, 42, 42, , 42}; emit
like the C or C++ FEs emit {[1..100] = 42} whi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43210
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> This is definitely an area where improvement would be quite helpful -
> our performance there is abysmal.
Compiling the test on my laptop takes less than 3s!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77754
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45817
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45817&action=edit
gcc9-pr77754.patch
Seems all the ICEs went away with r266271 aka PR87229 fix. I'll test these
tests for the t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43210
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86019
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This used to be handled by peephole2, but that can't do anything with multiple
basic blocks and
(insn 12 11 13 3 (set (mem/v:BLK (scratch:DI) [0 A8])
(unspec:BLK [
(mem/v:BLK (scratch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43210
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70149
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31392
Bug 31392 depends on bug 70149, which changed state.
Bug 70149 Summary: [F08] Character pointer initialization causes ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70149
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68241
Bug 68241 depends on bug 70149, which changed state.
Bug 70149 Summary: [F08] Character pointer initialization causes ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70149
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89480
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89101
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71544
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||relliott at umn dot edu
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71412
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88256
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #7 from Ja
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89439
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71935
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89466
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89495
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89282
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89282
--- Comment #6 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Mon Feb 25 15:19:45 2019
New Revision: 269190
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269190&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-25 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/89282
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89487
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86096
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Mon Feb 25 15:14:39 2019
New Revision: 269189
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269189&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
df-scan: fix use of mw_order in df_mw_compare (PR 86096)
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89481
--- Comment #3 from Michael Veksler ---
Thanks for looking into it.
With the fix, does it behave the same way for:
- runtime evaluation of all_zeros()
- compile time evaluation such as std::integral_constant::value;
Currently (trunk 20190223
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
--- Comment #4 from Roman Perepelitsa ---
Please take a look at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446#c1.
This code compiles. Given that it contains `{.value = 0}`, one would reasonably
expect that it creates an instance of a struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[8/9 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 25 15:01:01 2019
New Revision: 269188
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269188&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89285
* g++.dg/cpp1y/constexpr-89285-2.C: New test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89496
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89496
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89496
Bug ID: 89496
Summary: [9 Regression] gcc/fortran/trans-types.c:3015:9:
runtime error: member access within null pointer of
type 'struct gfc_formal_arglist'
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89495
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89495
Bug ID: 89495
Summary: gcc/c-family/c-format.c:1272:20: runtime error: signed
integer overflow: 214748365 * 10 cannot be represented
in type 'int'
Product: gcc
Ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89494
Bug ID: 89494
Summary: Bootstrap error when using GCC 4.2.1
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89489
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
