https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83722
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 9 08:02:01 2018
New Revision: 256367
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256367&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/83722
* gcc.c (try_generate_repro): Pass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83722
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83507
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 9 08:03:45 2018
New Revision: 256368
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256368&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/83507
* modulo-sched.c (schedule_reg_moves): Pu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83507
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80763
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Jan 9 08:22:28 2018
New Revision: 256369
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256369&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/80763
* ipa-comdats.c (set_comdat_group): Only se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83739
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83743
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
How does the "old" driver know power9? I think mixing driver and compiler
versions isn't supported.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83748
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
If PACK_PREFIX_ALWAYS_PACK is containing __attribute__((packed)) this bug is
invalid if the pointers wvlgthMin do not have packed pointed-to type.
As always without a full testcase it's hard to guess.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83713
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 9 08:53:14 2018
New Revision: 256371
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256371&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-09 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83748
--- Comment #5 from Sumit ---
PACK_SUFFIX_ALWAYS_PACK is defined as __attribute__ ((__packed__)).
But each individual element in the structure is of 4 bytes.
I understand that 4.8.x is not supported any more but we have progressed our
developme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83572
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 9 08:55:26 2018
New Revision: 256372
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256372&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-09 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/83572
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83572
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80763
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Summary|[7/8 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83706
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Caused by fact we have a sreal number:
(gdb) p x
$1 = {m_sig = 2096921321, m_exp = -21}
(gdb) p x.to_double()
$2 = 999.89000368118286
That is transformed in sreal::to_int to:
(m_sig >> -m_exp)
which ends wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83179
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
It's a rounding issue that popped up again in PR83705.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83749
Bug ID: 83749
Summary: Types with different language linkage are treated as
equivalent types
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83565
--- Comment #32 from Eric Botcazou ---
> However I'm not sure whether exposing the distinction is really the way to
> go so I'm going to evaluate the pessimization that would be introduced on
> SPARC 64-bit by disregarding WORD_REGISTER_OPERATION
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83565
--- Comment #33 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 43068
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43068&action=edit
Stopgap fix
To be tested on IA-64 and SPARC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83743
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83750
Bug ID: 83750
Summary: CSE erf/erfc pair
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83751
Bug ID: 83751
Summary: CSE erf/erfc pair
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #43013|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83750
--- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 83751 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83751
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83751
--- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Oops, looks like this got posted twice :(
Sorry about that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #47 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #45 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
[...]
>> that should have been used as the reloc section for the new section 2.
>> I see sh_info is still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83737
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Jan 9 10:38:45 2018
New Revision: 256373
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256373&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Don't save registers in main().
PR target/83737
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83749
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
See PR2316. Don't hold your breath for a change, it is more likely that the
standard will eventually be changed to allow the current behavior.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83738
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #48 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #30 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2017, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>>
>> --- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #49 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
> --- Comment #47 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #50 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #49 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
>> Indeed. I've just attached an updated patch that does just that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83737
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #2)
> Author: gjl
> Date: Tue Jan 9 10:38:45 2018
> New Revision: 256373
Typo in the ChangeLog :-( This was intended for PR83738
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82641
--- Comment #13 from Tamar Christina ---
Author: tnfchris
Date: Tue Jan 9 11:04:50 2018
New Revision: 256375
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256375&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-09 Tamar Christina
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83750
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79883
--- Comment #18 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Jan 9 11:27:34 2018
New Revision: 256376
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256376&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79883
* gcc.target/avr/torture/pr57631.c (dg-w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82975
--- Comment #12 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Jan 9 11:38:04 2018
New Revision: 256377
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256377&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[arm] PR target/82975: Guard against reg_renumber being N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82975
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82517
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Tue Jan 9 11:47:26 2018
New Revision: 256378
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256378&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add gcc_assert about stack alignment (PR sanitizer/82517).
2018-01-09 Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83749
--- Comment #2 from dan.cer...@cgc-instruments.com ---
Well I don't mind the current behavior at all and to be honest I find it more
logical that way, so I would welcome a change in the standard.
Should I then close this bugreport or keep it open
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82517
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Known to fail|8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2316
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dan.cermak@cgc-instruments.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83749
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82831
--- Comment #28 from Martin Liška ---
I've just sent patch to gcc-patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg00604.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82831
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83063
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43070
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43070&action=edit
gcc8-pr83063.patch
WIP patch. It still doesn't handle #__VA_OPT__(whatever) or #__VA_OPT__()
properly and ther
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83178
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 43071
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43071&action=edit
IPA CP dump file before the revision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83178
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 43072
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43072&action=edit
IPA CP dump file after the revision
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83178
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82831
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83752
Bug ID: 83752
Summary: gfortran.dg/common_align_2.f90 fails in execution for
target with __BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT__ < 8
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82214
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82831
--- Comment #30 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #29)
> Does the patch fix or make latent PR83575 ?
Unfortunately it doesn't. I'll try to take a look at the PR83575.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83735
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
I am testing this patch:
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index 8696f931806..8558995e067 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@ -11259,7 +11259,8 @@ ix86_co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #51 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 43073
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43073&action=edit
Updated patch with SHT_GROUP and extended section index handling
Tested on the big testcase, otherwise untest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64811
--- Comment #1 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Tue Jan 9 13:25:38 2018
New Revision: 256380
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256380&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix folding of Inf/NaN comparisons for -ftrapping-math (PR
tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64811
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83706
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83668
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 9 13:35:43 2018
New Revision: 256381
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256381&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-09 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/83668
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #43073|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #53 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
> --- Comment #47 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83668
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #43074|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83575
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Once BB order is finalized we should not move them across partitions.
The problem seems to start with loop2_unroll which for some reason introduce
blocks of count 0 that looks like a misupdate of profile, this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83399
--- Comment #9 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #8)
> Created attachment 43064 [details]
> Proposed fix
>
> I'm testing the attached patch.
Thank you, Peter. I thought about resurrection of address mutations (e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83718
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83753
Bug ID: 83753
Summary: ICE: in exact_div, at poly-int.h:2139
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80276
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81584
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83663
--- Comment #3 from Vidya Praveen ---
regressed tests passing now after the patch revert.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83754
Bug ID: 83754
Summary: Segmentation fault in regex_search
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83755
Bug ID: 83755
Summary: Pretty printers treat char* as NTBS
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83755
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80276
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We can prevent this by always casting the stored pointer to void*
self.pointer = self.pointer.cast(gdb.lookup_type("void").pointer())
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83755
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We can prevent this by always casting the stored pointer to void*
self.pointer = self.pointer.cast(gdb.lookup_type("void").pointer())
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80276
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> We can prevent this by always casting the stored pointer to void*
>
> self.pointer = self.pointer.cast(gdb.lookup_type("void").pointer())
Oops, that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83756
Bug ID: 83756
Summary: gcc (mingw64) 7.2.0 ICE on boost::call_once
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83756
--- Comment #1 from Jacob Godserv ---
Obviously you need a way to reproduce this bug. The original comment does not
include that information. I'm going to attach a minimal test case, instructions
on how to run it, and the .ii to make it even easi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83628
--- Comment #8 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Jan 9 16:27:11 2018
New Revision: 256387
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256387&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/83628
* combine.c (force_int_to_mode) :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83756
--- Comment #2 from Jacob Godserv ---
Created attachment 43077
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43077&action=edit
Minimal test case
With:
x86_64-w64-mingw32-g++ -std=c++11 -I path/to/official/boost/1.57/includes/ -L
path/to/o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83756
--- Comment #3 from Jacob Godserv ---
Created attachment 43078
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43078&action=edit
mingw-w64 5.4.0 TestClass.ii
I've attached gcc's intermediate output to make this even easier to reproduce.
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83063
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #43070|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83756
--- Comment #4 from Jacob Godserv ---
Created attachment 43080
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43080&action=edit
7.2.0 test case output
This is output from a 7.2.0 run. It produces the same crash.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83756
--- Comment #5 from Jacob Godserv ---
Created attachment 43081
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43081&action=edit
mingw-w64 7.2.0 TestClass.ii
This is the intermediate output from a 7.2.0 run.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83757
Bug ID: 83757
Summary: [8 regression] gcc.dg/pr82190.c fails starting with
r256351
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83695
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Given 3-level loop nest: , the ICE happens
when estimate_numbers_of_iterations called for the outermost Loop_1. The
function tries to infer niter information from all stmts inside the loop. In
thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83753
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83399
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59253
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Jan 9 18:49:57 2018
New Revision: 256390
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256390&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/59253 Improve pretty printers for smart pointers
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
Bug ID: 83758
Summary: ICE building gccgo on powerpc64le --with-cpu=power8
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83695
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On January 9, 2018 6:39:39 PM GMT+01:00, "amker at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83695
>
>--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
>Given 3-level lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83759
Bug ID: 83759
Summary: New test cases gcc.dg/torture/inf-compare-1.c (and -2,
-3, and -4) all fail on powerpc64
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83742
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue Jan 9 19:49:25 2018
New Revision: 256391
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256391&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-09 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/83742
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81933
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83742
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83754
Tim Shen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||timshen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83757
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83399
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83399
--- Comment #12 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #11)
> It is not valid: (void *)&a - 32 does not point inside a (or just behind
> it).
>
> Perhaps you can make it valid using uintptr_t. Either way: should n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83760
Bug ID: 83760
Summary: [8 Regression] [SH] ICE in maybe_record_trace_start
building glibc tst-copy_file_range.c
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Ke
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
