10-days ping
This restores bootstrap on a secondary target, target maintainer is OK with it.
I think I need build maintainers approval, so please review.
when the freshly built g++ is used, we need to pass the appropriate -B
options. As I understand it, the appropriate place for that is in
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:34 PM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote:
If a target (rl78-elf in my case) has a named address space larger
than the generic address space (__far in my case), why is pointer math
in that named address space still truncated to sizetype?
N1275 recognizes that named
FX fxcoud...@gmail.com writes:
10-days ping
This restores bootstrap on a secondary target, target maintainer is OK with
it. I think I need build maintainers approval, so please review.
While in my testing, 64-bit Mac OS X 10.10.1 (x86_64-apple-darwin14.0.0)
now bootstraps, but 32-bit
Hi Rainer,
On 4 Dec 2014, at 13:32, Rainer Orth wrote:
FX fxcoud...@gmail.com writes:
10-days ping
This restores bootstrap on a secondary target, target maintainer is OK with
it. I think I need build maintainers approval, so please review.
While in my testing, 64-bit Mac OS X 10.10.1
FX fxcoud...@gmail.com writes:
While in my testing, 64-bit Mac OS X 10.10.1 (x86_64-apple-darwin14.0.0)
now bootstraps, but 32-bit (i386-apple-darwin14.0.0) does not:
Is it due to my patch, or pre-existing bootstrap failure?
I can't tell: before your patch, 32-bit bootstrap was broken due to
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Iain Sandoe i...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Hi Rainer,
On 4 Dec 2014, at 13:32, Rainer Orth wrote:
FX fxcoud...@gmail.com writes:
10-days ping
This restores bootstrap on a secondary target, target maintainer is OK with
it. I think I need build maintainers
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Iain Sandoe i...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Hi Rainer,
On 4 Dec 2014, at 13:32, Rainer Orth wrote:
FX fxcoud...@gmail.com writes:
10-days ping
This restores bootstrap on a
The default BOOT_CFLAGS are: -O2 -g -mdynamic-no-pic
the libiberty pic build appends: -fno-common (and not even -fPIC) [NB -fPIC
_won't_ override -mdynamic-no-pic, so that's not a simple way out]
This means that the PIC library is being built with non-pic relocs.
config/mh-darwin says that
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Iain Sandoe i...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Hi Rainer,
On 4 Dec 2014, at 13:32, Rainer Orth wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:52 PM, FX fxcoud...@gmail.com wrote:
The default BOOT_CFLAGS are: -O2 -g -mdynamic-no-pic
the libiberty pic build appends: -fno-common (and not even -fPIC) [NB -fPIC
_won't_ override -mdynamic-no-pic, so that's not a simple way out]
This means that the PIC library is
Can you try adding it as
T_CFLAGS += -mdynamic-no-pic
in gcc/config/t-tarwin instead?
Nope, doing so fails to link libgcc_s.dylib:
/Users/fx/devel/gcc/i/./gcc/xgcc -B/Users/fx/devel/gcc/i/./gcc/
-B/Users/fx/devel/gcc/i2/i386-apple-darwin14.0.0/bin/
On 4 Dec 2014, at 15:24, FX wrote:
Can you try adding it as
T_CFLAGS += -mdynamic-no-pic
in gcc/config/t-tarwin instead?
-mdynamic-no-pic should be used to build *host* executable stuff for m32 darwin.
It is not suitable for building shared libraries (hence the problem with
building
Snapshot gcc-4.8-20141204 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20141204/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.8 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64145
--- Comment #5 from Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Thu Dec 4 08:46:03 2014
New Revision: 218342
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218342root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/64145
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #13 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #6)
If I'm reading things right, this loop in shorten_branches populates
insn_lengths[uid] in order of the NEXT_INSN ()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56493
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 4 09:46:45 2014
New Revision: 218345
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218345root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/56493
* convert.c (convert_to_real,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56493
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 4 09:47:54 2014
New Revision: 218346
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218346root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/56493
* convert.c (convert_to_real,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56493
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 4 09:48:54 2014
New Revision: 218347
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218347root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/56493
* convert.c (convert_to_real,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63985
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64167
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to John David Anglin from comment #3)
Introduced in r218208 on 4.9:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2014-12/msg00015.html
Also present on trunk.
Can you please check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64181
Bug ID: 64181
Summary: 'noexcept' on a lambda sometimes appears to get
optimised away at -O2 (or above).
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61664
Nagaraju Mekala nmekala at xilinx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nmekala at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64100
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54819
Nagaraju Mekala nmekala at xilinx dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nmekala at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64172
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64167
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63917
Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64182
Bug ID: 64182
Summary: [5 Regression] wide-int rounding division is broken
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64182
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64172
--- Comment #3 from Siarhei Siamashka siarhei.siamashka at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
So it works with GCC 4.8?
Yes, the testcase works with GCC 4.8. It started to fail only with GCC 4.9 and
only on ARM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64183
Bug ID: 64183
Summary: [5.0 Regression] Complete unroll doesn't happen for a
while-loop
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64183
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42734
--- Comment #43 from Alexander Varnin fenixk19 at mail dot ru ---
And I also confirm that adding -latomic to build options fixes the issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42734
--- Comment #44 from Damien Buhl (daminetreg) damien.buhl at lecbna dot org
---
On a yocto built cross-toolchain adding -latomic didn't help. This may
be due to the yocto cross-toolchain built without the support for some
reason.
I'll explorate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64183
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich enkovich.gnu at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
It works correctly for
int bits;
void
test ()
{
while (bits (unsigned int)25)
bits += 8;
}
Right. But shift
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61591
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
Recently I rewrote the implementation of -fsanitize=unreachable and now I
get an Illegal instruction on the testcase attached. So is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64183
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Which is
(instantiate_scev
(instantiate_below = 10)
(evolution_loop = 2)
(chrec = (24 - (unsigned int) prephitmp_36) / 8)
(res = (24 - (unsigned int) prephitmp_36) / 8))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64183
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61749
--- Comment #7 from Yvan Roux yroux at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: yroux
Date: Thu Dec 4 13:25:10 2014
New Revision: 218358
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218358root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
2014-12-04 Yvan Roux yvan.r...@linaro.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64056
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So fixed?
Not completely: unlike Solaris 11, Solaris 10 lacks stpcpy in libc, thus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64184
Bug ID: 64184
Summary: error: '_SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN' undeclared (first use in
this function)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63210
--- Comment #6 from Yvan Roux yroux at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: yroux
Date: Thu Dec 4 14:19:00 2014
New Revision: 218368
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218368root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
2014-12-04 Yvan Roux yvan.r...@linaro.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59593
--- Comment #7 from fyang at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: fyang
Date: Thu Dec 4 15:15:57 2014
New Revision: 218376
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218376root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-11-20 Ramana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64185
Bug ID: 64185
Summary: Optimized code gives unexpected results
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64172
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64172
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I can't reproduce with -O2 and -mfpu=neon.
Can you please give the exact configuration of your GCC?
The output of 'arm-none-linux-gnueabi-gcc -v' should be good
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64183
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64019
Pat Haugen pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61591
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64172
--- Comment #6 from Siarhei Siamashka siarhei.siamashka at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #4)
I can't reproduce with -O2 and -mfpu=neon.
Can you please give the exact configuration of your GCC?
The output of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64172
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-none-linux-gnueabi |arm-none-linux-gnueabi,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64172
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm, is passing vectors around when vector instructions are not present
expected to work?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64172
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014, ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Hmm, is passing vectors around when vector instructions are not present
expected to work?
All you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63173
--- Comment #10 from Yvan Roux yroux at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: yroux
Date: Thu Dec 4 17:46:32 2014
New Revision: 218385
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218385root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-12-04 Yvan Roux yvan.r...@linaro.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63442
--- Comment #7 from Yvan Roux yroux at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: yroux
Date: Thu Dec 4 17:55:00 2014
New Revision: 218387
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218387root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-12-04 Yvan Roux yvan.r...@linaro.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63937
--- Comment #9 from Yvan Roux yroux at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: yroux
Date: Thu Dec 4 18:19:01 2014
New Revision: 218390
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218390root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
2014-12-04 Yvan Roux yvan.r...@linaro.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64180
David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #15 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Just to be clear, that was a Damn as in Damn good find, sorry if it came
out the wrong way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64186
Bug ID: 64186
Summary: Conversion of signed to unsigned of same rank not
performed
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64186
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
My interpretation of the C99 conversion rules is that the conversion to
unsigned short
You are incorrect, the conversion rules never convert to anything smaller than
int.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56917
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Dec 4 19:20:12 2014
New Revision: 218395
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218395root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/56917
* fold-const.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56917
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64186
--- Comment #2 from Michael Chapman michael.chapman at cortus dot com ---
I think you are right. Geez you need to be a lawyer to understand this
sometimes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42734
--- Comment #45 from Alexander Varnin fenixk19 at mail dot ru ---
(In reply to Damien Buhl (daminetreg) from comment #44)
While given test works properly with -latomic on my installation, my
application doesn't. It fails with segfault in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64186
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64163
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64080
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ai.azuma at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64106
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64187
Bug ID: 64187
Summary: Writing to a char array cast from a char * causes a
segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #17 from Ilya Enkovich enkovich.gnu at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke from comment #13)
AFAICS, the length attribute was broken in r217125
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2014-11/msg00133.html
If I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #18 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #17)
If I understand the problem correctly the root is in attempt to get length
of following instructions computing length for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64187
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #19 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
I was thinking more along the lines of documented in the texi documention for
Length attributes.Useful to have in sh.md, but better documented in a
location that is more likely to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #20 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Ilya, it's the function call in this code I think:
(cond [(eq_attr length_nobnd !0)
(plus (symbol_ref (ix86_bnd_prefixed_insn_p (insn)))
(attr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64167
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64080
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Dec 4 20:37:24 2014
New Revision: 218401
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218401root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/64080
* constexpr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64029
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Dec 4 20:37:30 2014
New Revision: 218402
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218402root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/64029
* decl.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64029
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64080
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53379
--- Comment #16 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #15)
While if we use -fsanitize=address (at greatly increased cost), we actually
get a Christmas tree with losts of colourful lights:
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62296
--- Comment #4 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #3)
One might be able to do better on any reasonable Unix/Linux system.
Replying to myself: Intel has changed/fixed their implementation of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63854
--- Comment #25 from David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Dec 4 21:11:04 2014
New Revision: 218403
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218403root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR jit/63854: Fix leak of ipa hooks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55901
--- Comment #6 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de ---
Any news on this one?
: gcc (GCC) 5.0.0 20141204 (experimental)
63 DW_AT_static_link : 2 byte block: 91 68 (DW_OP_fbreg: -24)
PASS: gcc (GCC) 4.9.3 20141204 (prerelease)
nothing
(2)
echo 'int main(void) { void func (void) {} void (*p) (void) = func; return 0;
}'|gcc -g -Wtrampolines -x c -
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 5.0.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63888
--- Comment #8 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(sorry for delay, I missed the last comment)
Generally, we do want to instrument even artificial variables, and on many
of them buffer overflow is possible.
Yea, agree.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63854
--- Comment #26 from David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Dec 4 21:23:57 2014
New Revision: 218404
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218404root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR jit/63854: Fix double-initialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64187
--- Comment #2 from Brian brian.corriveau at ericsson dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
char *test = this is a test;
This is a string literal so it stored in constant memory and which is why
you are getting a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64166
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patches posted as:
* https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00466.html
(non-JIT part, needs review)
* https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00467.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64187
--- Comment #3 from Brian brian.corriveau at ericsson dot com ---
Thanks for the speedy reply. I just added a comment on the bug. Maybe
-Wall should catch this kind of thing?
thanks again
brian
pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63613
--- Comment #11 from David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch posted as https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00468.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64189
Bug ID: 64189
Summary: [5.0 Regression] r218397 breaks bootstrap on darwin.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64189
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64189
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 34194
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34194action=edit
A patch
Please try this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64189
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
I am now at stage2 with the patch. So it seems to work. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64189
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Dec 4 23:53:24 2014
New Revision: 218408
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218408root=gccview=rev
Log:
Always define HAVE_LD_PIE_COPYRELOC
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64189
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42734
--- Comment #46 from Damien Buhl (daminetreg) damien.buhl at lecbna dot org
---
As a pretier alternative you can use boost::thread with boost::atomic as
backend as we did in a yocto cross toolchain with the same issue where latomic
also
HI,
I have a piece of code at http://goo.gl/r2ySE6;
Refer to the code, with option of -O2 -std=c++1y, when we comment
out the statement idint; clang-3.4.1 compiles the code
successfully, but g++-4.9.0 compiles failed, where g++ complains that
unresolved overloaded function type, which in turn
1 - 100 of 250 matches
Mail list logo
