https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61385
Bug ID: 61385
Summary: ICE on valid code at -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61378
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jun 2 07:45:15 2014
New Revision: 211126
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211126&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-02 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/61378
* tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61378
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61360
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61359
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61354
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
When doing LTO bootstrap it's wise to add --disable-werror.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61346
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jun 2 08:07:23 2014
New Revision: 211128
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211128&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-02 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/61346
* gcc.d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61386
Bug ID: 61386
Summary: inaccurate location for missing headers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: preprocess
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61384
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61383
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61380
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61377
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61375
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thomas.preudhomme at arm dot
com
Tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61334
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 |hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61371
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Cristian Rodríguez from comment #6)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Cristian Rodríguez from comment #2)
> > > It would be.. if there wasn't half a ton of pac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61385
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61154
--- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Mon Jun 2 08:22:30 2014
New Revision: 211129
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211129&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR target/61154
2014-06-02 Ramana Radhakrishnan
PR tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61385
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61361
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Works with Beta3, gcc (SUSE Linux) 4.8.2 20140516 [gcc-4_8-branch revision
210491]. Also works with a cross compiler from x86_64. Also works with
Beta8, GNU C++ (SUSE Linux) version 4.8.3 20140523 [gcc-4_8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37804
--- Comment #7 from Ilya Konstantinov ---
Whoever has permission to change, please add 'rejects-valid' as per my example
in the previous comment.
P.S. this issue reproduces in g++ 4.8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61383
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61239
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61325
--- Comment #5 from christophe.lyon at st dot com ---
I confirm that the build is now fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61384
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dehao at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61353
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61154
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||naroyce at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61239
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61239
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
LGTM, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61154
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37804
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--- Comment #8 from Jona
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61387
Bug ID: 61387
Summary: [4.10 Regression] ~900 test failures on on
x86_64-apple-darwin13 for g++ with -m64 after r211088
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61385
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
Ah, right, I use last_and_only_stmt (middle_bb) but that doesn't prove there
are no PHI nodes there. Easiest fix, something like:
if (!gimple_seq_empty_p (phi_nodes (middle_bb)))
return 0;
A better fix woul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61387
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin13 |x86_64-apple-darwin12
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61388
Bug ID: 61388
Summary: [4.8.3 Regression] linux/microblaze fails to build:
undefined machine-specific constraint at this point:
"Q"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61336
--- Comment #2 from Michael Cree ---
OK, I had reported the ICE on the basis that any ICE, whether the code under
compilation is correct or not, is a bug.
I guess you are implying that when the problem is an inlined asm then it cannot
be guarant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61388
--- Comment #1 from Rose Garcia ---
tried adding the author of the faulty/incomplete patch that caused the
regression: nagaraju.mek...@xilinx.com to the CC list but i'm apparently not
allowed to.
could someone with op powers please do so ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61325
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61389
Bug ID: 61389
Summary: libcpp diagnostics shouldn't talk about ISO C99 for
C++ input files
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61388
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||microblaze
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61387
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
--- Comment #2 from Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61353
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49611
--- Comment #9 from Ryan Johnson ---
(In reply to Andi Kleen from comment #7)
> You can do many of these things these days with asm goto, however it
> typically requires non-structured control flow (goto labels).
I filed this bug after determinin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61331
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||naroyce at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61353
--- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Sorry, you're right of course. I was getting my PRs mixed up.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 61331 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61387
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> This is a google branch rev.
211088 is OK the revision that triggers the fail is
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=211089
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61353
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |FIXED
--- Comment #5 from Ramana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61383
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
This very minor variant also misbehaves with 4.7 and 4.6, so before my patch.
An unsafe instruction (1%f) is taken out of a branch in ifcombine.
int a, b = 1, c, d, e, f, g;
int
fn1 ()
{
int h;
for (;;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61239
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Jun 2 13:22:34 2014
New Revision: 211134
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211134&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/61239
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_vec_perm)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61383
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
There is similar issue in RTL PRE GCSE [1], PR45223.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61383
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #3)
> This very minor variant also misbehaves with 4.7 and 4.6, so before my
> patch. An unsafe instruction (1%f) is taken out of a branch in ifcombine.
>
> int a, b =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61300
Ulrich Weigand changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61384
dehao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61336
--- Comment #3 from Richard Henderson ---
You're absolutely right it shouldn't ICE. The proper solution to
anything we can't handle here should result in a call to
output_operand_lossage, which produces a graceful error when applied
to an asm.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61390
Bug ID: 61390
Summary: error in nested template parameter in ext/pb_ds header
file
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61336
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61390
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60732
--- Comment #9 from Mike Stump ---
So, I’m still left wondering if the difference in behavior between linux and
darwin is a bug in itself or not… Do we know which code or what change gives
rise to that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52829
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61336
--- Comment #4 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Mon Jun 2 16:27:41 2014
New Revision: 211139
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211139&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/61336
* config/alpha/alpha.c (print_operand_address):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61336
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60732
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Mike Stump from comment #9)
> So, I’m still left wondering if the difference in behavior between linux and
> darwin is a bug in itself or not… Do we know which code or what change
> gives rise to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61387
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61391
Bug ID: 61391
Summary: [4.10 Regression] ICE in execute_one_pass at -O3 and
above
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
runk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.10.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../s-trunk/configure --prefix=/home/craig/new-gcc/i-trunk
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.10.0 20140602 (experimental) (GCC)
WHEN RUN LIKE THIS:
g++ -c --std=c++0x prog.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59498
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61361
--- Comment #2 from Nancy Wang ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Works with Beta3, gcc (SUSE Linux) 4.8.2 20140516 [gcc-4_8-branch revision
> 210491]. Also works with a cross compiler from x86_64. Also works with
> Beta8, GNU C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61094
--- Comment #15 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Jun 2 19:12:08 2014
New Revision: 211142
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211142&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/61094
* ree.c (combine_reaching_defs): Do not r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61380
--- Comment #2 from Markus Ilmola ---
I am not a c++ expert, but I think that the code should NOT compile.
The point of the code was to create a function template that only accepts
non-nested arrays (arrays with order of 1).
So F(c) should not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61393
Bug ID: 61393
Summary: GCC TM - O3 optimization level constant propagation
problem
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59483
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jun 2 20:47:55 2014
New Revision: 211147
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211147&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/59483
PR c++/61148
* search.c (accessible_p): Use curren
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61148
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jun 2 20:47:55 2014
New Revision: 211147
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211147&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/59483
PR c++/61148
* search.c (accessible_p): Use curren
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61394
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61394
Bug ID: 61394
Summary: [4.10 regression] ICE in symtab_get_node
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61383
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61395
Bug ID: 61395
Summary: Linker cannot find symbols in object files compiled
with recent GCC
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61395
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61395
mimamer at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from mima
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61395
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to mimamer from comment #2)
> Well, since this did work for 4.3.4, what is the proper way to build
> libgcc.so?
The proper way is to edit the t-* files under libgcc for your target.
> No, I canno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61396
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61396
Bug ID: 61396
Summary: [4.10 regression] ICE in simplify_immed_subreg
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61397
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61397
Bug ID: 61397
Summary: [4.10 regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/powerpc/p8vector-ldst.c scan-assembler
lxsdx
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61239
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Jun 2 22:02:58 2014
New Revision: 211149
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211149&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-06-02 Uros Bizjak
PR ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61239
--- Comment #7 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Jun 2 22:05:48 2014
New Revision: 211150
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211150&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-06-02 Uros Bizjak
PR ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61239
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57519
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jun 2 22:10:57 2014
New Revision: 211151
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211151&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/57519
* class.c (handle_using_decl): Pass the corr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61398
Bug ID: 61398
Summary: [4.10 Regression] Object.java:313:0: ICE: Bus error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61395
--- Comment #4 from mimamer at gmail dot com ---
I'm sorry to bother you one more time. All symbols are marked as hidden in
libgcc.a, true. But they become "local default" when I create a shared
libgcc.so from it. Just to help me understand what i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61395
mimamer at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
Resolution|FIXE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61399
Bug ID: 61399
Summary: LDBL_MAX is incorrect with IBM long double format /
overflow issues near large values
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61399
--- Comment #1 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #0)
> One may choose to keep the behavior, i.e. consider that the high double is
> the value rounded to double precision, but this means that the
> floating-point m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51253
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61020
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61380
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code, |ice-on-invalid-code
|r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61300
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra ---
No, I don't believe there is a convenient way we can look at the
REG_PARM_STACK_SPACE argument to determine whether it was used for a call or
for a function body. (I did think it might be possible, hence my com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61391
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61134
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61046
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Sorry, I didn't realize it was preventing bootstrap. I have a small patch that
disable the optimization for STRICT_ALIGNMENT target but was reluctant to use
it as is because this effectively disable this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52174
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
