https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63210
--- Comment #2 from zqchen at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: zqchen
Date: Wed Sep 24 07:00:55 2014
New Revision: 215540
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215540&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
ChangeLog:
2014-09-24 Zhenqiang Chen
PR rtl-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62311
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63355
Bug ID: 63355
Summary: libjava/classpath/native/jni/gstreamer-peer/gst_native
_pipeline.c:180: possible typo ?
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63351
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63349
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63348
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||mips
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63349
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
That identifier_node in a component_ref is bogus, I'm investigating how it got
there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63338
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Target|
ck: expected tree_list, have var_decl in
> get_attribute_name, at attribs.c:679
> if (__builtin_cpu_supports("sse"))
> ^
I also see this one when bootstrapping 20140924, revision 215539.
Interestingly, 20140921 was fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63348
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to baoshan from comment #1)
> I believe this regression is introduced by the code for cleanup_barriers()
> in jump.c of patch https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg02164.html:
>
> The call in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63266
--- Comment #1 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Sep 24 08:27:21 2014
New Revision: 215546
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215546&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-09-24 Thomas Preud'homme
gcc/
PR tree-opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63266
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61945
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
Bug ID: 63356
Summary: Compilation failure where clang does not have problems
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63353
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63316
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Sep 24 09:14:17 2014
New Revision: 215547
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215547&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/63316
* asan.c (asan_expand_check_ifn): Fix up align
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63349
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
In finish_class_member_access_expr we have
expr = build_class_member_access_expr (object, member, access_path,
/*preserve_reference=*/false,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You should have read https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ and attached preprocessed code
anyway, not everyone has Boost 1.56 already installed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63353
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Sep 24 09:40:10 2014
New Revision: 215549
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215549&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/63353
* src/c++11/ios.cc (ios_base::_M_swap): Fix ty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63353
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
--- Comment #3 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
I wanted to, but the problem is that the ii file is 2.7MB, more than the
maximum allowed file size of 1000KB. Should I upload it to a different site?
Also I just realized that the problem only occurs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to fiesh from comment #3)
> I wanted to, but the problem is that the ii file is 2.7MB, more than the
> maximum allowed file size of 1000KB. Should I upload it to a different site?
>
> Also I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63344
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Andi Kleen from comment #3)
> Yes it's a kernel bug. I hit it earlier too.
>
> const always needs to go into separate sections.
> const __read_mostly is also meaningless.
Is there any existing b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 33545
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33545&action=edit
preprocessed testcase
Here's the unreduced testcase. I cannot reduce it, because
clang doesn't handle all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58893
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63357
Bug ID: 63357
Summary: Warn for P && P and P || P
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63235
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63235
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #2 from Dietmar Schindler ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> #pragma are considered statements.
This can't be entirely true, since #pragma can be used where statements cannot
(outside of functions), and #pragma STDC ce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63235
--- Comment #15 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Sorry, it's r215537
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63235
Kirill Yukhin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63352
--- Comment #1 from Richard PALO ---
This seems to be a bug in the write formatting for g0
Here is the compile with -fdump-parse-tree showing that the constant expression
is calculated exactly as '3.3331e-1_8'
Namespace: A-H: (REAL 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63235
--- Comment #17 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Wed Sep 24 12:27:30 2014
New Revision: 215552
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215552&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/63235
gcc/
* varpool.c (varpool_node::add): Pass decl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63358
Bug ID: 63358
Summary: [4.8.3 - 4.9.1] gcc -O2/-O3 wrong assembly code (crash
/ Segmentation fault)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63358
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63358
--- Comment #2 from jean-baptiste.laurent at epitech dot eu ---
Thanks for the quick answer. The overflow is not only supposed to alter the
result printed out ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
Bug ID: 63359
Summary: aarch64: 32bit registers in inline asm
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63358
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
James Molloy changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||james.molloy at arm dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
This is what C-reduce came up with:
markus@x4 ~ % cat boost.ii
template
struct integral_constant {
static constexpr _Tp value = 0;
};
template
struct __and_;
template
struct __and_<_B1> : _B1 {};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to James Molloy from comment #1)
> > Besides, clang rejects it, so please find a common syntax...
>
> It shouldn't. The "w" modifier should have been supported since clang 3.4,
> and is certainly sup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Or a bit more compact and obfuscated:
template
struct A {
static constexpr _Tp value = 0;
};
template
struct B;
template
struct B<_B1> : _B1 {};
template
_Tp declval();
template
struct C {
tem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63354
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64le-linux |powerpc*-*-*
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #8 from Rainer Emrich ---
(In reply to xur from comment #7)
> OK. I'll fix this and submit another patch.
What is the status for that?
>
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:26 AM, ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
When compiled with Clang, it returns 0 by the way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63352
--- Comment #2 from Richard PALO ---
FWIW, just checked ... this is a regression introduce after 4.7.3 (where this
test seems to work fine...can't test 4.8.3 any more, sorry).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
template
struct A {
static constexpr _Tp value = 0;
};
template
struct B;
template
struct B<_B1> : _B1 {};
template
_Tp declval();
template
struct C {
template ()))>
static A __test(int);
t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #9 from Rainer Emrich ---
Created attachment 33548
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33548&action=edit
Proposed patch to fix the mingw case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
--- Comment #4 from James Molloy ---
Hi Richard,
My two-pennyworth for what it's worth - we've had several people with broken
code tripped by this bug, and Apple have reported seeing the same thing with
their internal codebases. This one seems o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw ---
So consider:
int f(int i){
long x;
asm("lsl %0, %1, 33" : "=r"(x) : "r"(i)); // lshift by more than sizeof(int)
return x;
}
We really don't care about the top bits in i, so we don't want to extend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
--- Comment #6 from James Molloy ---
Good example, although I might argue slightly pathological.
So in this case currently, GCC doesn't even implicitly promote the argument,
just uses it as-is. It seems a very dangerous behaviour to have as defa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #3)
> I'm not so sure about a warning, however. I could envisage cases where the
> warning would be incorrect and avoiding it would lead to code pessimisation.
I don
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63249
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
--- Comment #8 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to James Molloy from comment #6)
> Good example, although I might argue slightly pathological.
>
Agreed, this is somewhat pathological, but I only need to find one valid
counter-example :-)
Fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359
--- Comment #9 from James Molloy ---
OK, given your second example I agree that the usecase isn't quite as
pathological as I thought.
> I'm not saying I'll never accept a warning for this sort of code; but I'd need
convincing that it won't undul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
--- Comment #9 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Ever so little simplified:
struct A {};
template
struct B : _B1 {};
template
_Tp declval();
template
struct C {
template ()))>
static A __test(int);
typedef decltype(__test<_From, _To>(0))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.4
Summary|Compilati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
> When compiled with Clang, it returns 0 by the way.
So ...
Pragma that are not recognized are ignored.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
#pragma STDC is functionally a declaration (it can only occur "either
outside external declarations or preceding all explicit declarations and
statements inside a compound statement" - each
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63352
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63344
--- Comment #5 from Andi Kleen ---
I posted a patch here
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1793662
BTW actually I don't agree that the bug is valid. We should probably relax the
LTO checking to match what the linker does (which does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63352
--- Comment #4 from Richard PALO ---
Just checked with the native omnios gcc 4.8.1 and the problem already exists
there.
I commented as indicated to be able to get debugger output for 2nd part:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_g0_1.f08
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63352
--- Comment #5 from Richard PALO ---
Created attachment 33550
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33550&action=edit
output from --save-temps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63348
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53874
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Sep 24 17:23:56 2014
New Revision: 215559
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215559&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/61405
PR c/53874
gcc/
* asan.c (maybe_instrument_call)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61405
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Sep 24 17:23:56 2014
New Revision: 215559
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215559&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/61405
PR c/53874
gcc/
* asan.c (maybe_instrument_call)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61405
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53874
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63348
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|uros at gcc dot gnu.org|law at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63352
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Your are not doing what I asked for. Could you compile and run without/with
--save-temps the following test:
character(25) :: string = "(g0,g0,g0)"
character(50) :: buffer
write(buffer, s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49551
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48116
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46151
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Do we need to keep this PR open now we have the abi_tag attribute to solve the
problem?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41215
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63360
Bug ID: 63360
Summary: Does not retore f31 at -O0 across function calls
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46151
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
abi_tag does indeed address this issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29988
--- Comment #2 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Wed Sep 24 19:55:35 2014
New Revision: 215568
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215568&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-09-24 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/29988
* include/bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29988
François Dumont changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63361
Bug ID: 63361
Summary: Test case c-c++-common/ubsan/float-cast-overflow-1.c
fails on Pentium2
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63361
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 33552
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33552&action=edit
log file with detailed error information
gcc.log, from this command:
make -k check-gcc
RUNTESTFLAGS="ubsan.ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63352
--- Comment #7 from Richard PALO ---
$ cat test.f08
character(25) :: string = "(g0,g0,g0)"
character(50) :: buffer
write(buffer, string) ':',1.0_8/3.0_8,':'
print *, "'", buffer, "'"
print *, "'", " :.1:", "'"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63352
--- Comment #8 from Richard PALO ---
Created attachment 33553
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33553&action=edit
test.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63352
--- Comment #9 from Richard PALO ---
output from 4.7.3:
':.1: '
' :.1:'
' :.1: '
' :.1:'
and test.s.4.7.3 attached
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63352
--- Comment #10 from Richard PALO ---
Created attachment 33554
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33554&action=edit
test.s from 4.7.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63226
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #9)
> Tobias, does your big program work now?
I have just tested it - and it works now. Thanks!
> Also if you have testsuite ready testcases, I think we can plug them
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63362
Bug ID: 63362
Summary: The c++11 triviality-traits need front-end help
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56193
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Sep 24 22:13:35 2014
New Revision: 215571
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215571&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/56193
* config/abi/pre/gnu.ver: Add new exports.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63335
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63360
--- Comment #1 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to camm from comment #0)
> Created attachment 33551 [details]
> invert.c, invert.cpp, and invert.gdb gdb session
>
> Register variable stored in f31 is stored on the stack, but not restored and
> t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63335
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Proposed patch here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg02201.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63352
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56193
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63354
--- Comment #2 from Anton Blanchard ---
Created attachment 33555
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33555&action=edit
Avoid an unused stack frame for -mprofile-kernel profiling on leaf functions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #31 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 33556
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33556&action=edit
A bit reduced test case of pr38338.c (-O0 -m4 -ml)
That case has only one basic block which looks like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #32 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 33557
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33557&action=edit
Patch for SH untyped_call
* config/sh/sh.md (untyped_call): Clobber function value
registers before
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63363
Bug ID: 63363
Summary: No diagnostic for passing function as actual argument
to KIND
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63364
Bug ID: 63364
Summary: GCC optimizer causing memory corruption
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
