https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66303
--- Comment #6 from Dominik Vogt ---
Ah, forget it, the addresses are okay; I'll dig deeper into the code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66303
--- Comment #5 from Dominik Vogt ---
Funny, the backtrace claims that 0x80001de7 ist main.main+23 (#0 of the
backtrace), but it actually is main.main-1 (#7).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66374
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66375
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65225
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66345
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66345
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Jun 2 09:17:49 2015
New Revision: 224017
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224017&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/66345
* gimple-fold.c (gimple_fold_builti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66345
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Jun 2 09:13:29 2015
New Revision: 224016
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224016&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/66345
* gimple-fold.c (gimple_fold_builti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew from comment #7)
> IMHO
>
> "So no GCC bug, just wrongly assuming pointers can't become null pointers if
> they were not null pointers."
>
> Nevertheless, that is no reason to generate a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090
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=66368
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66369
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
--- Comment #1 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66370
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090
Andrew changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wad at infinet dot ru
--- Comment #7 from Andre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66303
Dominik Vogt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66374
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66372
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66375
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65419
--- Comment #15 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #3)
> [ There's a problem with the matching. The rs in "..rrr" were supposed to
> match the PTR_PTR_PTR arguments. But that's not the case, since we need to
> add a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56926
İsmail "cartman" Dönmez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ismail at donmez dot ws
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65961
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 2 07:50:19 2015
New Revision: 224013
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224013&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-02 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/65961
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65366
Jan Kratochvil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65366
--- Comment #2 from jkratoch at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jkratoch
Date: Tue Jun 2 07:37:22 2015
New Revision: 224012
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224012&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR other/65366
* gdbhooks.py: Use int(...)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66348
--- Comment #6 from Sebastiano Vigna ---
I forgot an important aspect: with -fsanitize=undefined the optimization bug
does not show up. The instrumentation perturbs the code enough to make it go
away.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66348
--- Comment #5 from Sebastiano Vigna ---
Fantastic tool! I didn't know about it.
But it doesn't fire. There is no undefined behaviour in that code--it's just
that the optimizer at -O1 does something wrong.
I tried a binary search over the singl
101 - 126 of 126 matches
Mail list logo