https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117749
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117747
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-11-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117745
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |15.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117764
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
But the inlining argument basically says CDDCE shouldn't handle
__builtin_unreachable control stmts optimistically given a use could appear
only after inlining ... doesn't this then imply WONTFIX?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117738
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117756
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117753
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |15.0
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117751
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117768
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[15.0 regression] ICE in|[15 regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115825
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||15.0
Summary|[12/13/14/15 R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115825
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d1cf0d7a0f27fdd55302785f19f07d1c3f162ba5
commit r15-5646-gd1cf0d7a0f27fdd55302785f19f07d1c3f162ba5
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
--- Comment #11 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #9)
> The shortened reproducer fails for me at runtime not only on 15-trunk, but
> on 14-branch too, and with same backtrace, so if we have a regression,
> it should be on 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117768
Bug ID: 117768
Summary: [15.0 regression] ICE in diagnostic_impl (?)
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117767
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-apple-darwin|powerpc*-*-*
--- Comment #10 from Andre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117767
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117767
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 59693
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59693&action=edit
Reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117767
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117767
--- Comment #6 from Sergey Fedorov ---
Created attachment 59692
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59692&action=edit
Preprocessed source with --save-temps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117766
--- Comment #13 from Tom Lane ---
After further experimentation, it seems to me that:
* There was a behavioral change between gcc 9.3.1 and the later releases I
tested. Specifically, in 9.3.1 a -march switch does not override the
platform-sele
stdc++-v3/include/powerpc-apple-darwin10'
'-isystem'
'/opt/local/var/macports/build/_opt_PPCSnowLeopardPorts_lang_gcc-powerpc/libgcc-powerpc/work/build/prev-powerpc-apple-darwin10/libstdc++-v3/include'
'-isystem'
'/opt/local/var/macports/build/_opt_PPCSnowLeopar
/_opt_PPCSnowLeopardPorts_lang_gcc-powerpc/libgcc-powerpc/work/gcc-15-20241124/configure
--prefix=/opt/local --build=powerpc-apple-darwin10
--enable-languages=c,c++,objc,obj-c++,lto,fortran,jit
--libdir=/opt/local/lib/libgcc --includedir=/opt/local/include/gcc
--infodir=/opt/local/share/info --mandir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117767
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |tree-optimization
--- Comment #3 from A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117767
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, ice-on-valid-code
Target Miles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117767
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-11-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117767
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Can you attach the preprocessed source?.
20241124 snapshot fails on Darwin PowerPC on:
```
:info:build during GIMPLE pass: vect
:info:build
/opt/local/var/macports/build/_opt_PPCSnowLeopardPorts_lang_gcc-powerpc/libgcc-powerpc/work/gcc-15-20241124/gcc/bb-reorder.cc:
In function 'basic_block_def* copy_bb(basic_block, edge, basic_block
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117766
--- Comment #12 from Tom Lane ---
This does seem like there is some confusion between arm32 and aarch64.
Specifically, having +nofp and not +fp makes sense on the aarch64 side. It
doesn't make sense for arm32, but nonetheless that's how it's a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117766
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|documentation |
--- Comment #11 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117562
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ba4cf2e296d8d5950c3d356fa6b6efcad00d0189
commit r15-5639-gba4cf2e296d8d5950c3d356fa6b6efcad00d0189
Author: liuhongt
Date: Thu Nov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117766
--- Comment #10 from Tom Lane ---
Well, I simplified the report a bit compared to the real use-case. What we
actually want to use is "-march=armv8-a+crc" so as to compile hardware CRC
instructions (that will be used only if a runtime check veri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117766
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't see why you are using armv8-a with aarch32. Many recent armv8-a/armv9-a
cores don't even include an A32/T32 env.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117766
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also the ARM ARM says the following here about fp/simd on A32/T32:
E1.3.10 Implications of not including Advanced SIMD and floating-point support
"Exceptionally, for implementation targeting specialized mark
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117766
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
The difference between your netbsd built compiler and the fedora one is that
the fedora one is built with "--with-fpu=vfpv3-d16"
If anything you should be sending a bug report first to netbsd since that is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117766
--- Comment #6 from Tom Lane ---
Further info: I dug up an ancient Fedora 30 ARM32 system, and it does not
exhibit this behavior:
$ touch foo.c
$ gcc -c -march=armv8-a foo.c
[fine]
$ gcc -c -march=armv8-a -mfloat-abi=hard foo.c
[also fine]
Thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117766
--- Comment #5 from Tom Lane ---
As far as that goes: I don't think there are any armv8-a machines without an
FPU, either. The v8a spec technically allows it in 32-bit but not 64-bit mode;
but desultory searching doesn't find any examples.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117766
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Tom Lane from comment #3)
> The simd method does work to stop the error:
>
> $ gcc -c -march=armv8-a+simd foo.c
>
> but I suspect it licenses the compiler to emit more than I want it to.
For
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117766
--- Comment #3 from Tom Lane ---
No go on fpu=auto, at least on the NetBSD platform:
$ gcc -c -march=armv8-a -mfpu=auto foo.c
cc1: error: '-mfloat-abi=hard': selected processor lacks an FPU
The simd method does work to stop the error:
$ gcc -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117766
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Otherwise try -march=armv8-a+simd as simd and fp for armv8-a are linked.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117766
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Does -mfpu=auto work ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117766
Bug ID: 117766
Summary: Confusion over whether ARM32 -march=armv8-a implies
floating point support
Product: gcc
Version: 10.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117547
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 59691
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59691&action=edit
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117765
--- Comment #5 from kargls at comcast dot net ---
On 11/24/24 13:51, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117765
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> In the test case dg-error there is a miss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117765
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
In the test case dg-error there is a missing space at the end of the quote
before the brace } Fixing and tested here. It fixes one test failure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117765
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #2)
> In the test case dg-error there is a missing space at the end of the before
> the brace } Fixing and tested here. It fixes one test failure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117765
--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
In the test case dg-error there is a missing space at the end of the before the
brace } Fixing and tested here. It fixes one test failure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36503
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36503
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1ff69000b50e8ac184e925af71e794e7c3d5d2a6
commit r15-5635-g1ff69000b50e8ac184e925af71e794e7c3d5d2a6
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Sun N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115489
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
*** Bug 117748 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117753
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE: tree check: expected |[12/13/14/15 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117757
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115489
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xieym3 at zohomail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117748
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117758
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117765
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117764
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
We will most likely have a similar issue with assume attribute too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
--- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The dump-tree difference between 14.2.0 and 14.2.1-HEAD is:
@@ -1662,7 +1662,7 @@
void model_data_get_field_array_ptr (struct array01_field_data_t & __result,
struct __class_model_data_Model_da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82086
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117741
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101057
Bug 101057 depends on bug 117741, which changed state.
Bug 117741 Summary: GCC hangs when compiling a specific C file on the trunk
version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117741
What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|15.0|14.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117741
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e9f3eb8493c66da143561d6b866c4b3204e42574
commit r15-5633-ge9f3eb8493c66da143561d6b866c4b3204e42574
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date: Sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117715
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The shortened reproducer fails for me at runtime not only on 15-trunk, but
on 14-branch too, and with same backtrace, so if we have a regression,
it should be on 14-branch, too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #59688|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|anlauf at gmx dot de |
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117715
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ab952929f7741998e3f28959c85e7abbf88ea79f
commit r15-5632-gab952929f7741998e3f28959c85e7abbf88ea79f
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date: S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117764
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
> I don't think IPA-SRA does that. Is this something that is happening in the
> testcase from the bug summary? Do I need to use some inlining parameters to
> reproduce it?
Problem is that at ipa analysis we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117765
Bug ID: 117765
Summary: Impure function within a BLOCK construct within a DO
CONCURRENT
Product: gcc
Version: 15.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117764
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117630
--- Comment #18 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to R. Diez from comment #17)
> > > I haven't found any way to make the linker say why it is pulling certain
> > > symbols or object files.
> >
> > That sounds like the GNU linker "-y" option
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117630
--- Comment #17 from R. Diez ---
> > I haven't found any way to make the linker say why it is pulling certain
> > symbols or object files.
>
> That sounds like the GNU linker "-y" option (as in "-y symbol"). Does that
> not DTRT?
That option
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117630
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||14.2.1
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84869
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12/13/14 Regression] ICE |[12 Regression] ICE in
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84869
--- Comment #13 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e78a0cb8604cd3e0fdbc606ed5e7094b646ded02
commit r13-9212-ge78a0cb8604cd3e0fdbc606ed5e7094b646ded02
Author: Paul Thomas
Date
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117764
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117764
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|cddce should handle |[15 Regression] cddce
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117764
Bug ID: 117764
Summary: cddce should handle __builtin_unreachable guards
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
Andreas Schwab, le dim. 24 nov. 2024 15:15:43 +0100, a ecrit:
> On Nov 24 2024, Sergey Bugaev wrote:
> > So are you saying that we always must mark any asm statement that
> > might transfer control somewhere else w/o returning as 'asm goto',
> > even if we don't actually need to jump to any of the
On Nov 24 2024, Samuel Thibault via Gcc-bugs wrote:
> Sergey points me at
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html#Goto-Labels
>
> “
> GCC assumes that asm execution falls through to the next statement (if
> this is not the case, consider using the __builtin_unreachable intrinsic
>
On Sun, Nov 24, 2024 at 3:58 PM Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html#Goto-Labels
> >
> > “
> > GCC assumes that asm execution falls through to the next statement (if
> > this is not the case, consider using the __builtin_unreachable intrinsic
> > after the
On Nov 24 2024, Sergey Bugaev wrote:
> So are you saying that we always must mark any asm statement that
> might transfer control somewhere else w/o returning as 'asm goto',
> even if we don't actually need to jump to any of the C-level labels?
An ordinary asm is not allowed to change flow contro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116463
--- Comment #24 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #23)
> > Am 23.11.2024 um 13:20 schrieb tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
> > :
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116463
> >
> > --- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109345
--- Comment #10 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0794ca02b47935cd672f74815023d708e5e262e1
commit r13-9211-g0794ca02b47935cd672f74815023d708e5e262e1
Author: Paul Thomas
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84869
--- Comment #12 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:911a870a6198a2fe50af8bbeb63de1dfaa90de0e
commit r14-10977-g911a870a6198a2fe50af8bbeb63de1dfaa90de0e
Author: Paul Thomas
Dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84869
--- Comment #11 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aa09e32c4d4ebdd58f677a7ecbdcb93cce84823d
commit r15-5630-gaa09e32c4d4ebdd58f677a7ecbdcb93cce84823d
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Sun N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84869
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85869
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85869
--- Comment #3 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:470ebd31843db58fc503ccef38b82d0da93c65e4
commit r15-5629-g470ebd31843db58fc503ccef38b82d0da93c65e4
Author: Paul Thomas
Date: Sun No
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
--- Comment #4 from Jürgen Reuter ---
There are two left-over use statements for modules parser and variables which
need to be taken out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
--- Comment #3 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Comment on attachment 59688
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59688
Shorter reproducer
>module iso_varying_string
> implicit none
> integer, parameter, private :: GET_BUFFER_LEN = 1
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
This is a shorter reproducer:
1 module iso_varying_string
2implicit none
3integer, parameter, private :: GET_BUFFER_LEN = 1
4
5type, public :: varying_string
6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117763
--- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 59688
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59688&action=edit
Shorter reproducer
Samuel Thibault, le dim. 24 nov. 2024 12:44:00 +0100, a ecrit:
> Sergey Bugaev, le dim. 24 nov. 2024 14:35:33 +0300, a ecrit:
> > Reduced further:
> >
> > --8<--
> > struct hurd_sigstate;
> >
> > typedef struct
> > {
>
> [... the content doesn't actually matter]
>
> > unsigned int reply_p
Sergey Bugaev, le dim. 24 nov. 2024 14:35:33 +0300, a ecrit:
> Reduced further:
>
> --8<--
> struct hurd_sigstate;
>
> typedef struct
> {
[... the content doesn't actually matter]
> unsigned int reply_port;
> } tcbhead_t;
>
> void
> __sigreturn2 (struct hurd_sigstate *ss, unsigned long *
Reduced further:
--8<--
struct hurd_sigstate;
typedef struct
{
void *tcb;
union dtv *dtv;
unsigned int self_do_no_use;
int __glibc_padding1;
int multiple_threads;
int gscope_flag;
unsigned long sysinfo;
unsigned long stack_guard;
unsigned long pointer_guard;
long __glibc_p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116463
--- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> Am 23.11.2024 um 13:20 schrieb tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116463
>
> --- Comment #22 from Tamar Christina ---
> Ok, so the problem wit
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
