https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66227
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78305
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Nov 17 08:39:33 2016
New Revision: 242536
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242536&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-17 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/78305
* fol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78305
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.4.0, 7.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78306
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Nov 17 08:42:50 2016
New Revision: 242537
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242537&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-17 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/78306
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78306
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, wrong-code
Component|ot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78386
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Should be the default when you don't enable GNU extensions (thus use -std=c11
for example). But use of FMA can also appear without -fexpensive-optimizations
if the combiner can synthesize it on RTL (without
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78384
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78391
Bug ID: 78391
Summary: g++ (any version) at O0 (for O1, O2, O3 is ok) doesn't
warn when class members are used uninitialized.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78383
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78391
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78319
--- Comment #9 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: prathamesh3492
Date: Thu Nov 17 09:48:34 2016
New Revision: 242540
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242540&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-17 Prathamesh Kulkarni
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68180
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Nov 17 09:59:07 2016
New Revision: 242541
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242541&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-17 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/68180
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78391
--- Comment #2 from Luca Stoppa ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> -Wuninitialized requires optimization to handle this case.
I see thanks. Considering that I found this bug in our unit tests, I'll simply
add -O1 in order to avoi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78172
--- Comment #13 from Tony Reix ---
We have experimented with 20161106 snapshot and the change does work fine.
We have fixed our Proxy issue and we will work with GCC v7 trunk now.
Now investigating other issues.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78392
Bug ID: 78392
Summary: ICE in gfc_trans_auto_array_allocation, at
fortran/trans-array.c:5979
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78392
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78393
Bug ID: 78393
Summary: Segfault with --help=^
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78393
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71063
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave-gccbugs at earth dot li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #2 from Dominik Vogt ---
Both, the hang in genattrtab and the error message happen in stage 2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
Does it help to revert r242414?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #4 from Dominik Vogt ---
There's another error that our dailybuild system found yesterday. May have the
same cause.
build/genmatch --gimple
/home/dailybuild/gnu-dailybuild/arena/20161116/gcc-head/src/gcc/match.pd \
> tmp-gimple-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78383
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78383
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Nov 17 12:39:24 2016
New Revision: 242543
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242543&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-17 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/78383
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78383
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #5 from Dominik Vogt ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #3)
> Does it help to revert r242414?
Yep. r242414 has introduced the problem.
(Happens only with --with-arch=zEC12.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78392
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #0)
> On trunk, the error looks like this:
>
> internal compiler error: in gfc_trans_auto_array_allocation, at
> fortran/trans-array.c:5979
This line is an assert,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78386
Gustavo Romero changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gromero at linux dot
vnet.ibm.com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|s390x |s390x-*-*, ia64-*-*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78394
Bug ID: 78394
Summary: False positives of maybe-uninitialized with -Og
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78384
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78343
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Previously handled by the loop_depth check I guess. Note that in
void
record_temporary_equivalences (edge e,
class const_and_copies *const_and_copies,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78386
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64le-unknown-linux-g |powerpc64le-unknown-linux-g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77308
--- Comment #63 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Thu Nov 17 13:47:24 2016
New Revision: 242549
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242549&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-17 Bernd Edlinger
PR target/77308
* confi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78394
Allan Jensen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #40064|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77505
--- Comment #6 from Elizebeth Punnoose ---
Modified code with the warning message moved behind -fcheck=bounds.
Index: trans-array.c
===
--- trans-array.c (revision 241960)
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78395
Bug ID: 78395
Summary: [OOP] ICE for operations with polymorphic variables
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78386
--- Comment #9 from Gustavo Romero ---
Both -ffp-contract=off and -std=c11 (with -O3) do not damage the precision:
CFLAGS=-I. -g -static -O3 -ffp-contract=off# Precision is OK
CFLAGS=-I. -g -static -std=c11 -O3 #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
--- Comment #25 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Nov 17 14:22:17 2016
New Revision: 242550
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242550&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2016-11-17 Bill Schmidt
Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78396
Bug ID: 78396
Summary: [7 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-cond-1.c FAILs after
fix for PR77848
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77848
--- Comment #27 from Bill Schmidt ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78396 is open to track that
failure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78396
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Miles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78397
Bug ID: 78397
Summary: The stack is not 8 bytes aligned on ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78397
--- Comment #1 from Alexandre Martins
---
Created attachment 40068
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40068&action=edit
Demo generated assembly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78397
Alexandre Martins changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alexandre.martins@stormshie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78398
Bug ID: 78398
Summary: missing warnings and inconsistencies with
-Wuninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78398
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #0)
> 2) We get a warning when an uninitialized variable is used in an assignment,
> but not in a print statement.
This may be related to PR 34721.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78395
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #8 from Michael Matz ---
The aarch64 fail is fixed by the below patch. It will take a while for me
to try this on s390, so if somebody beats me to test this I won't complain.
diff --git a/gcc/combine.c b/gcc/combine.c
index 0210685.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78395
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78386
--- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn ---
-std=gnuXX affects IEEE 754 conformance, but that is not mentioned in the
documentation, only in source code comments (c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78386
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78395
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Somewhat reduced test case (without all the abstract stuff):
module types_mod
implicit none
type, public :: t1
integer :: a
contains
procedure :: get_t2
end type
type, public :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61399
Vincent Lefèvre changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78324
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Nov 17 15:55:26 2016
New Revision: 242552
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242552&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix locations within raw strings
Whilst investigating PR preprocessor/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #9 from Dominik Vogt ---
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 03:03:03PM +, matz at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
>
> --- Comment #8 from Michael Matz ---
> The aarch64 fail is fixed by the below
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78399
Bug ID: 78399
Summary: g++ generates sub-optimal assembler code when structs
aren't explicitly aligned.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46639
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] Missing |[5/6 Regression] Missing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78399
--- Comment #1 from Luca Stoppa ---
Created attachment 40071
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40071&action=edit
Optimal code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78355
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Thu Nov 17 16:16:38 2016
New Revision: 242554
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242554&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/78355
* doc/tm.texi.in (SLOW_UNALI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78355
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #10 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Dominik Vogt from comment #9)
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 03:03:03PM +, matz at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> I'm just bootstrapping s390x with the fix; would you like me to
> run a regression te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78399
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Related to PR 50384.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78394
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
-prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-242552-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nographite-powerpc
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20161117 (experimental) (GCC)
The compiler was configured with --enable-checking=yes,rtl,df,extra ; maybe df
checking is needed to reproduce.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab ---
That didn't fix the ia64 bootstrap failure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78401
Bug ID: 78401
Summary: SciMark v2.0 Composite test runs 1,5 times slower
under GCC 6.2 than under Clang 3.9
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78402
Bug ID: 78402
Summary: SciMark v2.0 Dense LU Matrix Factorization test runs
more than 2 times slower under GCC 6.2 than under
Clang 3.9
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78403
Bug ID: 78403
Summary: SciMark v2.0 Jacobi Successive Over-Relaxation test is
30% slower under GCC 6.2 than under Clang 3.9
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69538
--- Comment #6 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I had a look at this and after some digging I found the bug is not due to LTO,
but rather with "local" functions. If you make bar static you will end up with
the same faulty behavior.
After some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78404
Bug ID: 78404
Summary: SciMark v2.0 Sparse Matrix Multiply test is 20% slower
under GCC 6.2 than under Clang 3.9
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78395
--- Comment #4 from Chris ---
I tried compiling (my original example) on a different box, this one with
gfortran 6.2.0 obtained from the ubuntu-toolchain-r/test PPA. I got
Driving: gfortran-6 -v minimal.f90 -l gfortran -l m -shared-libgcc
Using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #12 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #11)
> That didn't fix the ia64 bootstrap failure.
Would have been too easy I guess :-) Okay, can you try to find a testcase
that regressed by not bootstrapping but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78405
Bug ID: 78405
Summary: OpenSSL v1.0.1g RSA 4096 test is 20% slower under GCC
6.2 than under Clang 3.9
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78406
Bug ID: 78406
Summary: Crafty v23.4 is 20% slower under GCC 6.2 than under
Clang 3.9
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #13 from Dominik Vogt ---
I'm doing this on s390x right now. Just takes some more time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78406
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78201
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Nov 17 17:09:13 2016
New Revision: 242555
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242555&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/78201
* varasm.c (default_use_anchors_for_sy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78201
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78406
--- Comment #2 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1)
> Artem, please don't open a new bug for every phoronix benchmark where gcc
> appears to be slower than clang.
>
> First of all there are existing bug r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78390
--- Comment #14 from Dominik Vogt ---
With the fix I couldn't reproduce the error message in four attempts, but
genattrtab still hangs. Maybe this is bad luck, but maybe the error is gone.
Running a regression test without bootstrapping on s390
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78407
Bug ID: 78407
Summary: LTO breaks separate overriding of symbol aliases
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78395
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Chris from comment #4)
> I tried compiling (my original example) on a different box, this one with
> gfortran 6.2.0 obtained from the ubuntu-toolchain-r/test PPA. I got
>
> [..]
> gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 40074
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40074&action=edit
Test program for benchmarks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig ---
Here are some measurements with the AVX-enabling patch.
They were done on an AVX machine, namely gcc75 from the compile farm.
This was done with the command line
gfortran -static-libgfortran -finline-matmul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78395
--- Comment #6 from Chris ---
> Which one do you mean exactly? Shouldn't they all use the user-defined
> assignment function?
Yes, that's right--they all should. Sorry, I didn't have the code up in front
of me when I wrote that so I was a bit i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77599
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77600
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78408
Bug ID: 78408
Summary: Aggressive optimization of zeroing results in
incorrect behavior
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53833
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68467
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||baker at usgs dot gov
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78409
Bug ID: 78409
Summary: Segfault in classify_object_over_fdes when throwing
and exception
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69270
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
See A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78408
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Do you think you could produce a smaller, stand-alone testcase that reproduces
the issue? Or at least attach the preprocessed sources to the report?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78379
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77933
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Thu Nov 17 20:12:13 2016
New Revision: 242559
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242559&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR77933: stack corruption on ARM when using high registers and
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
