http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
--- Comment #18 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Fri Mar 21 12:48:02 2014
New Revision: 208747
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208747&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-03-21 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/60419
* ipa.c (symtab_remove_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
--- Comment #17 from Martin Jambor ---
Trunk patch posted to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg01078.html
4.8 will need some slightly modified variant, I'm still looking for the best
place to reset the flag there.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I have:
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ipa/pr60419.C2014-03-19 15:57:57.735114622 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ipa/pr60419.C2014-03-20 11:13:58.933256068 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+// PR middle-end/60419
+//
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
--- Comment #15 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
So, what about (crashes trunk and 4.8.3) :
class J
{
public:
J ();
virtual void m_fn1 (int &p1, int);
};
template class D
{
public:
virtual void m_fn1 (TDATA &) const;
void m_fn2 ()
{
TD
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
--- Comment #13 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
The problem with both pasted testcases is that they don't crash 4.7.4.
The attached one does.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
--- Comment #14 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #13)
> The problem with both pasted testcases is that they don't crash 4.7.4.
4.8.3
of cou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Slightly more reduced testcase:
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ipa/pr60419.C2014-03-19 15:57:57.735114622 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ipa/pr60419.C2014-03-20 10:20:56.245365852 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor ---
Good job reducing the testcase to something this small!
Anyway, Jakub's analysis of what is going on is still correct and all
the high level decisions that we do are IMHO correct too. The
invocation of symt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
--- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
A bit more reduced:
markus@x4 tmp % cat test.ii
namespace poses
{
}
namespace utils
{
using namespace poses;
}
namespace poses
{
class J
{
public:
J ();
virtual void m_fn1 (int &p1, int);
};
class
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
FYI, since r208573 the reduced ppc64 testcase no longer reproduces, but the #c0
still does.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
--- Comment #4 from Yury Gribov ---
This might have been fixed in trunk already, at least I can't repro for
arm-v7a15. My fresh gcc is configured with
~/src/gcc-master/configure --build=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
--host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --target=arm-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
Created attachment 32265
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32265&action=edit
preprocessed source (armv7)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose ---
yes, the first attachment is for powepc64le-linux-gnu
19 matches
Mail list logo
