https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63802
Bug ID: 63802
Summary: UBSan doesn't catch misaligned access if address is
16-bytes (or more) aligned
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sun, 9 Nov 2014, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
>
> --- Comment #8 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
> (In reply to Francois-Xavier C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sun, 9 Nov 2014, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
>
> Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #14 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #12)
> So I bet apple GCC 4.2 is affected as well - not sure if LLVM
> provides libgcc_s on newer systems.
Apple does not provide GCC 4.2 anymore, but i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
>
> --- Comment #14 from Francois-Xavier Coudert
> ---
> (In reply to rguent...@su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53579
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #16 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #15)
> Your example directly calling __addvsi3 should suffice for that.
I've filed it (radar #18924081), but I don't expect them to fix anything,
becaus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #17 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #16)
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #15)
> > Your example directly calling __addvsi3 should suffice for that.
>
> I've filed it (radar #1892408
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63762
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #18 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #17)
> if it's part of compiler-rt we can just post a patch on llvm-commits and
> that will eventually percolate through to the system.
It is part of compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63778
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
I can't reproduce it on x86_64-linux, neither with unreduced zheev.F -DSPEC_CPU
nor with -march=native added. Trying a cross to ppc64-linux (BE).
HJ, please provide more detailed instructions (I'm on r2172
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63778
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #4 from Richard Bie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63785
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63580
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63803
Bug ID: 63803
Summary: When GCC 4.9.2 compile with option -O2, the target is
error.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63798
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63803
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63803
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Dereferencing a null pointer is undefined.
-fisolate-erroneous-paths-dereference changes some of them into __builtin_trap
and for arm that is udf #0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63800
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63804
Bug ID: 63804
Summary: ice in find_oldest_value_reg with -g -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63804
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63573
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #12)
> This also breaks g++.dg/ipa/pr63587-2.C on powerpc -m32, but the patches in
> #c6 and #c8 don't fix that.
>
> $ gcc/xg++ -Bgcc/ ../gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ipa/pr6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63800
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Ok - so when we enter tail-merging we have in BB2
:
# .MEM_9 = VDEF <.MEM_8(D)>
b = 1;
# .MEM_10 = VDEF <.MEM_9>
d[1] = 1;
if (1 != 0)
goto ;
else
goto ;
and at least one SSA name (the one we crash on)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63803
--- Comment #3 from Airbak ---
Thank you for your reply!
"-fisolate-erroneous-paths-dereference" is a new option in GCC-4.9.x.
When I use GCC-4.8.x, it is OK and will not have this problem.
More and more people are switching GCC4.8 to GCC4.9, I t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63803
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63803
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Airbak from comment #3)
> 2.
> *((unsigned int *)0) is OK
> *((volatile unsigned int *)0) is not OK.
> Why the "volatile" makes different?
Because volatile prevents the compiler from optimizi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63804
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63803
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
If dereferencing 0 is ok on your platform, you need at least
-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks. I don't know if the isolate pass checks that
flag though (it probably should).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63804
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63803
Airbak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #7 from Airbak ---
Thank yo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63805
Bug ID: 63805
Summary: [4.9/4.8/5 Regression] ICE: in extract_insn, at
recog.c:2154 with -mcpu=power8
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61127
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin13.1.0 |
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48002
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i686-apple-darwin9 |
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63748
--- Comment #6 from Ulrich Weigand ---
I guess I can see why there might be an abnormal edge starting at bb 3, or at
least, that the compiler might not be easily able to deduce that it isn't
necessary.
However, I do not understand why any of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48013
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i686-apple-darwin9 |
Host|i686-apple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48293
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i686-apple-darwin9 |
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48012
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i686-apple-darwin9 |
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48039
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i686-apple-darwin9 |
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63804
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
trippels@gcc2-power8 status % cat freelist_test.ii
template struct A
{
_Tp _M_i;
void
load ()
{
_Tp a;
__atomic_load (&_M_i, &a, 0);
}
};
class B
{
int *ptr;
int tag;
};
class
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63804
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Please ignore comment 4.
Testcase without implicit functions:
markus@x4 tmp % cat bug169.c
struct brw_context
{
int gen;
} e;
int a, d;
long b;
enum brw_reg_type
{
BRW_REGISTER_TYPE_Q
};
struct br
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63806
Bug ID: 63806
Summary: #UBSAN ignores signed char possible overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: saniti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63573
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63573
>
> --- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #12)
> > This also breaks g++.dg/ipa/pr63587-2.C on powerpc -m32, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62141
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63806
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63771
Aaro Koskinen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aaro.koskinen at iki dot fi
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63806
--- Comment #2 from Yury Gribov ---
I think Marat meant that narrowing cast from int to char can be undefined and
it makes sense to emit some check for it as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63805
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63806
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
No, narrowing conversion is implementation defined, and gcc defines that to the
modulo 2^N wrapping, so this is not undefined behavior, and furthermore,
something you'd complain about in pretty much all the c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61018
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63573
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #15)
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63573
> >
> > --- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
> > (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #12)
> > > This a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63807
Bug ID: 63807
Summary: -Wvarargs doesn't warn when last argument has type
that causes undefined behaviour
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55479
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63798
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 10 14:06:56 2014
New Revision: 217287
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217287&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-10 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/63798
* expr.c (exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63798
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63796
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63799
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63805
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.5 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48002
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||charlet at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48012
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48293
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63806
--- Comment #4 from Yury Gribov ---
Looks like some compilers check integer demotions (e.g. MS checks with their
/RTCc flag). I wonder if it makes sense to add an optional flag for this
(obviously not enabled under normal -fsanitize=undefined).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63800
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 10 14:31:31 2014
New Revision: 217288
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217288&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-10 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/63800
* tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63778
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> I can't reproduce it on x86_64-linux, neither with unreduced zheev.F
> -DSPEC_CPU
> nor with -march=native added. Trying a cross to ppc64-linux (BE).
>
> HJ, please
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63808
Bug ID: 63808
Summary: [arm] Invalid register saving in FIQ handler causes
register corruption
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63809
Bug ID: 63809
Summary: Missing warning on extra template
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #19 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #17)
> if it's part of compiler-rt we can just post a patch on llvm-commits and
> that will eventually percolate through to the system.
I've opened an LLVM PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63778
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63778
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63778
>
> --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63265
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at bromo dot med
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #21 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
True, we could also follow this approach again
(https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42333#c55), but it's more of a
hack really.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63796
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #22 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #21)
> True, we could also follow this approach again
> (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42333#c55), but it's more of a
> hack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63765
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn ---
> If _XOPEN_SOURCE is removed from thr.c completely, the testsuite results
> revert
> to 1 failure.
Did this failure already exist before my pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #23 from Iain Sandoe ---
My take is:
1. It's good we have an upstream patch - if it percolates through that's one
less thing to worry about - although (of course) that will never realistically
be available historically.
2. we have s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63765
--- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn ---
Yes, the single objc failure existed before the patch. But I don't know if
*other* targets need _XOPEN_SOURCE=500.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63765
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn ---
> Yes, the single objc failure existed before the patch. But I don't know if
> *other* targets need _XOPEN_SOURCE=500.
True, but now (end of sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #24 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
I always thought the major reorganization would be forced whenever Apple
finally fully deprecated the libgcc_s.10.5.dylib stub, the associated
libgcc_s.10.4.dylib symlink pointing at libgcc_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63685
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63765
--- Comment #9 from David Edelsohn ---
I would have expected _XOPEN_SOURCE=500 to be defined in a host-specific
configure file (like libstdc++-v3/config/os/.../os_defines.h) or added to the
compile line in configure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61407
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63765
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
Let's go with the one defining _XOPEN_SOURCE only for Solaris until someone
programs David's suggestion of the host-specific configure file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61018
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Target M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61407
howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at bromo dot med
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63265
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|paolo.carlini at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63375
--- Comment #11 from Pranith Kumar ---
Is there any work around for this in the mean time? Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42978
--- Comment #2 from simon at pushface dot org ---
I posted a patch for this in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-02/msg00325.html, and Arnaud approved
it in the followup message, but it never got applied.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63778
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
[hjl@gnu-mic-2 delta-fortran]$ cat foo.f
SUBROUTINE ZUNG2L( M, N, K, A, LDA, TAU, WORK, INFO )
COMPLEX*16 A( LDA, * ), TAU( * ), WORK( * )
IF( M.LT.0 ) THEN
END IF
CALL ZLAR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42978
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||charlet at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61529
--- Comment #11 from Jiong Wang ---
Author: jiwang
Date: Mon Nov 10 17:53:21 2014
New Revision: 217303
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217303&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH] Partially fix PR61529, bound basic block frequency
2014-11-10 R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63778
--- Comment #9 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Nov 10 18:08:00 2014
New Revision: 217304
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217304&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add a testcase for PR tree-optimization/63778
PR tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39336
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63776
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Tom Straub from comment #2)
> Hi Tim,
>
> Okay, a program very similar to this using the Boost REGEX library and ICU
> 4.55 works just fine with this.
>
> According to my understanding, the "
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63425
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61321
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||riku at multitaction dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63573
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Nov 10 19:14:17 2014
New Revision: 217307
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217307&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/63573
* calls.c (initialize_argument_information):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63244
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63244
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #21 from Cary Couta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61321
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nheghathivhistha at gmail dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63784
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 33931
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33931&action=edit
A testcase
[hjl@gnu-6 pr63784]$ make
./libtool --tag=CXX --mode=compile
/export/build/gnu/gcc/release/usr/gcc-5.0.0
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo