Hi,
I'm still porting my private backing from gcc 4.5.2 to gcc 4.7.3.
When compiling the following code with -g option, I encountered internal
compiler error: in dwarf2out_var_location, at dwarf2out.c:20883
void toto(int* , float);
void foo(int a, float b, int * c) {
if (b)
toto(c, b);
}
I found my problem totally elsewhere (sorry to bother)
I was loosing proper NOTES during a COND_EXEC((..)(CALL(..))) split ...
Selim
-Message d'origine-
De : gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] De la part de
BELBACHIR Selim
Envoyé : vendredi 29 novembre 2013 14:29
À
Hello Robert,
Robert Schiele rschi...@gmail.com a écrit:
in http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48778 Manuel
López-Ibáñez mentioned that starting with gcc 4.7 there is supposed to
be infrastructure to figure out for diagnostics whether the location
of an error was created by macro
Hello,
Would you mind to implement the function
Ada.Containers.Indefinite_Holders.Reference (Container : aliased in out
Holder) return Reference_Type; please?
Best regards
Christian Morgenroth
Hello there!
I am trying to compile GCC using Apple’s latest tools. The reason is that I am
building an own, redistributable, toolchain.
Everything goes quite well (except a ton of warnings about redeclarations and
c99 standart), untill it tries to link cc1.
A rough rip-off of the warnings is:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59336
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59320
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59337
Bug ID: 59337
Summary: surprising OMP error message
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58253
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58253
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59334
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Reduced testcase for -O3:
struct A { float a[4]; };
struct B { int b; A a; };
__attribute__((noinline, noclone)) void
bar (A a)
{
if (a.a[0] != 36.0f || a.a[1] != 42.0f || a.a[2] !=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59337
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I wonder why atomic negate isn't possible - from a QOI perspective treating
it as 0 - i would be obvious, no?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59336
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59208
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #7)
Created attachment 31322 [details]
Proposed fix I am testing
Hi,
the problem here is that update_stmt is called with cfun being set
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59338
Bug ID: 59338
Summary: error: position plus size exceeds size of referenced
object in BIT_FIELD_REF
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59208
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31324
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31324action=edit
patch
Like this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59332
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code, lto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59338
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59337
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The standard doesn't allow it, and given the parsing complexities of the
atomics creating extensions there is IMHO undesirable, especially when it will
unlikely work with other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59339
Bug ID: 59339
Summary: vtable_verify objects still trying to be linked on
Android
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59339
--- Comment #1 from Luke A. Guest laguest at archeia dot com ---
Toolchain I'm using:
gcc version 4.6.3 (Debian 4.6.3-14)
This is the Ada enabled one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59339
--- Comment #2 from Luke A. Guest laguest at archeia dot com ---
I also don't think this should be adding the following the parts either:
parts=crtbegin.o crtbeginS.o crtbeginT.o crtend.o crtendS.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59338
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59326
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 29 10:36:10 2013
New Revision: 205512
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205512root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR lto/59326
* tree-core.h (enum
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59326
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 29 10:41:12 2013
New Revision: 205514
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205514root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR lto/59326
* omp-low.c (simd_clone_create):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59334
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Nov 29 10:47:52 2013
New Revision: 205515
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205515root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-11-29 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59334
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59330
Bug 59330 depends on bug 59334, which changed state.
Bug 59334 Summary: [4.9 Regression] r205486 caused many failures
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59334
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59340
Bug ID: 59340
Summary: LRA enable-checking bootstrap failure since r205136
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58239
Luke A. Guest laguest at archeia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||laguest at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58844
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58239
--- Comment #20 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think this fix has been reverted somewhere in source as I've just got
trunk from SVN and have had to patch by hand.
It's very easy to check, the patch is linked from comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59208
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
Argh. I'll try to add a update_stmt_fn.
Yep, would make life easier ;)
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59340
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58253
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #2)
Isn't it easier to avoid building a type with different alignment
in the first place? Or do this adjustment in SRA where the bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58253
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #2)
Isn't it easier to avoid building a type with different alignment
in the first place? Or do this adjustment in SRA where the bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59336
--- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
I suppose it doesn't happen without LTO?
correct.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59341
Bug ID: 59341
Summary: spark_05 No_Implicit_Aliasing undefined
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58253
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58253
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59337
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59338
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59338
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Nov 29 12:09:12 2013
New Revision: 205521
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205521root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-11-29 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59341
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063
--- Comment #21 from ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ygribov
Date: Fri Nov 29 12:30:36 2013
New Revision: 205524
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205524root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
2013-11-29 Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063
--- Comment #22 from Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com ---
Joost, could you check and close bug if trunk works for you?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59341
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58089
Andrey Zholos a...@q-fu.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a...@q-fu.com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
I think that we should disallow tie of TImode with 128bit vector modes due to
different alignment requirements. Integer register pairs can load unaligned
TImode without problems, while
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58864
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59309
--- Comment #4 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Nov 29 13:00:35 2013
New Revision: 205525
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205525root=gccview=rev
Log:
Properly handle function without arguments
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59332
--- Comment #4 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com ---
Can you expand on those shortcomings/bugs?
There are LTO-related issues in GCC and LD, such as PR43038, PR56536 and
others. Not all problems will be fixed soon, and more
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59332
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59309
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54316
Jaak Ristioja jaak at ristioja dot ee changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jaak at ristioja
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Maybe even better idea is to use ix86_legitimate_combined_insn and reject
combinations that would result in unaligned operands of all but vector move
instructions.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59342
Bug ID: 59342
Summary: Function Template Specialisation causing compiler
error together with using clauses
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59343
Bug ID: 59343
Summary: miscompiled for loop in sh4 target (-Os)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58864
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31328
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31328action=edit
gcc49-pr58864.patch
Alternate patch. Rather than doing do_pending_stack_adjust ()
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59343
--- Comment #2 from gcc-bugzilla-f5d8 at theblacksun dot eu ---
Created attachment 31330
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31330action=edit
assembler output from -O2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59343
--- Comment #1 from gcc-bugzilla-f5d8 at theblacksun dot eu ---
Created attachment 31329
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31329action=edit
assembler output from -Os
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59332
--- Comment #6 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com ---
It was discovered by accident. However, if it does work, why no-lto (which is
so much more useful) should not work?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59344
Bug ID: 59344
Summary: warning for needless pointer attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59345
Bug ID: 59345
Summary: _gfortran_internal_pack on compiler generated temps
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59208
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Nov 29 14:37:07 2013
New Revision: 205528
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205528root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-11-29 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31331
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31331action=edit
gcc49-pr59163.patch
So like this? Untested...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59208
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59199
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59340
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59208
--- Comment #13 from Markus Trippelsdorf octoploid at yandex dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
Fixed.
The testcase is missing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54316
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[C++11] move constructor|[C++11] move
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59342
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59289
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Fri Nov 29 15:19:34 2013
New Revision: 205529
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205529root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-11-29 Kyrylo Tkachov kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59289
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59346
Bug ID: 59346
Summary: [4.9 Regression] s-osinte.adb:107:35: expected type
Interfaces.C.long
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59340
Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59346
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55025
Paulo J. Matos pa...@matos-sorge.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54040
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Nov 29 16:19:36 2013
New Revision: 205532
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205532root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR ada/54040
PR ada/59346
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59346
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Nov 29 16:19:36 2013
New Revision: 205532
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205532root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR ada/54040
PR ada/59346
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59346
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
Created attachment 31331 [details]
gcc49-pr59163.patch
So like this? Untested...
Yes, but I think that we can also allow simple vector
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For stores I think the patch already allows that, that is the
if (GET_CODE (*x) == SET SET_DEST (*x) == data)
return 1;
in there (the reason why I've added it was that for the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #11 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
For stores I think the patch already allows that, that is the
if (GET_CODE (*x) == SET SET_DEST (*x) == data)
return 1;
in there
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59313
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59199
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
Likely a update_address_taken bug, eventual fix:
@@ -1329,6 +1336,10 @@ non_rewritable_mem_ref_base (tree ref)
if (DECL_P (ref))
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58687
--- Comment #22 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013, mtewoodbury at gmail dot com wrote:
The elaborate description of the different forms of the '#line' (and other)
directives makes it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #31331|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
Created attachment 31332 [details]
gcc49-pr59163.patch
So like this?
Yes, with adjusted comment in ix86_legitimate_combined_insn.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59011
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59313
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sparc*-sun-solaris2.*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59313
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
Me to, on alpha-linux-gnu, exactly the same numbers:
alpha-linux-gnu is 128 bit long double, but not __float128 target:
auto-host.h:#define
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59176
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Now that PR59208 was fixed, I tried the test case of this PR again (with
today's r205539).
Result: Still the same, an ICE with -O3 in verify_cgraph_node. (-O2 is fine.)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59163
--- Comment #14 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13)
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
Created attachment 31332 [details]
gcc49-pr59163.patch
So like this?
Yes, with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59333
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think we just shouldn't try to pass values by reference in
ubsan_encode_value...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59340
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Nov 29 20:08:38 2013
New Revision: 205541
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205541root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-11-29 Vladimir Makarov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59340
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Andreas, could you check that the bootstrap is fixed. At least, the test is
compiled by the cross-compiler.
1 - 100 of 227 matches
Mail list logo
