https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67349
Bug ID: 67349
Summary: ICE on optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67348
Bug ID: 67348
Summary: [concepts] Constraints, special member functions, and
default/delete
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67344
--- Comment #2 from Anton Blanchard ---
I've been trying out csmith, then passing the failing tests through creduce.
Even I do not write code like that :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67306
--- Comment #3 from hs.naveen2u at gmail dot com ---
Thanks for the patch.
It fixes the Segmentation Fault issue and generates expected results.
Tested the patch on X86_64 and AArch64 with no new regressions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67347
Bug ID: 67347
Summary: [alpha] unused function vms_asm_out_constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: boo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67346
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64* |powerpc*
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67344
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64* |powerpc*
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67346
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67346
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc*|powerpc64*
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67344
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64*
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67346
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67345
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66609
--- Comment #4 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Mon Aug 24 23:23:00 2015
New Revision: 227155
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227155&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66609
* [SH] Take into account weak symbols for pc relative
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67345
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67346
Bug ID: 67346
Summary: PowerPC: could not split insn
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67345
Bug ID: 67345
Summary: -Woverloaded-virtual false negative: Does not warn on
overloaded virtual function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67344
Bug ID: 67344
Summary: PowerPC unrecognizable insn
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67343
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
For the record, when the same file is compiled with clang, the symbol is
_Z1fIiEvN1HIXaasr1CIT_EE2B1ntsr1CIS1_EE2B2EE1TE . This symbol does appear to
follow the current API. The relevant part of the expr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67343
Bug ID: 67343
Summary: C++ mangler does not follow ABI for local names in
expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67298
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Fomin ---
Yep, looks like -fwrapv fixes this issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67211
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67211
--- Comment #15 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Mon Aug 24 20:36:35 2015
New Revision: 227149
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227149&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2015-08-24 Michael Meissner
PR target/67211
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66343
--- Comment #1 from Roger Orr ---
Fails for me (with a very slightly different label: Lubsan_type0) on gcc-trunk
(as of 2015-08-22) without needing the -m32:
$ /usr/share/gcc-trunk/bin/gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/usr/share/gcc-trun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43849
--- Comment #6 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #0)
> Currently, _gfortran_abort calls:
> close_units ();
> Additionally, one should call:
> flush_all_units ();
close_units() actually flushes all units
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67288
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67342
--- Comment #3 from Barry Revzin ---
Thanks! I was pretty sure I was wrong but couldn't figure out why.
Barry
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 2:29 PM redi at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67311
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Seems with ALLOCATABLE rather than POINTER it is rejected though:
That's PR45516.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67342
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1402
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67342
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66676
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67311
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Ugh, Fortran really allows this mess (effectively self-referential types)?
It has to - otherwise how to you implement linked lists?
However, I don't know what t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67211
--- Comment #14 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Mon Aug 24 19:11:02 2015
New Revision: 227146
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227146&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2015-08-24 Michael Meissner
PR target/67211
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67342
Bug ID: 67342
Summary: Ill-formed move constructor ignored in favor of copy
constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67311
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems with ALLOCATABLE rather than POINTER it is rejected though:
TYPE myType
TYPE(myType), DIMENSION(:), ALLOCATABLE :: x
END TYPE myType
end
pr67311-2.f90:2:46:
TYPE(myType), DIMENSION(:), ALL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67311
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67211
--- Comment #13 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Mon Aug 24 18:43:02 2015
New Revision: 227144
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227144&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2015-08-24 Michael Meissner
PR target/67211
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67141
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67293
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'm fine with introducing some limit on the size of const values, with a param.
As for the other question, I think you've answered that yourself,
if the const ends up in the source, then that is supposedly be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67311
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61164
--- Comment #4 from Gleb Pfotenhauer-Malinowski ---
Seems to be fixed with:
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=227040
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67283
--- Comment #6 from Xavier Roche ---
> the problem is that the structure contains an array an total scalarization is
> not implemented for them
I confirm that without any array the inlining is fine.
Side note: the same problem appears with an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62536
--- Comment #5 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Mon Aug 24 16:29:59 2015
New Revision: 227135
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227135&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/62536
PR fortran/66175
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57496
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66175
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62536
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57496
--- Comment #8 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Mon Aug 24 16:31:47 2015
New Revision: 227136
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227136&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libfortran/57496
* io/write_float.def: Us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66175
--- Comment #2 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Mon Aug 24 16:29:59 2015
New Revision: 227135
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227135&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/62536
PR fortran/66175
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67133
Bug 67133 depends on bug 67284, which changed state.
Bug 67284 Summary: [6 regression] libgo fails to build on trunk r227015 /
*-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67284
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67284
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67284
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Aug 24 16:06:02 2015
New Revision: 227134
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227134&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/67284
* go-gcc.cc (Gcc_backend::de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67329
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59480
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> And on the very next slide they give another example of a bug accepted by
> GCC, which is rejected by every version of GCC I tried, going back to 4.4,
> s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66821
--- Comment #12 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Aug 24 15:31:02 2015
New Revision: 227133
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227133&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add a testcase for PR target/66821
PR target/66821
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67329
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Aug 24 15:24:44 2015
New Revision: 227132
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227132&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Update MOVE_RATIO cost for IA MCU
This patch updates MOVE_RATIO co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65102
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
pinged: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-08/msg01425.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46193
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
ping^2: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-08/msg01423.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65468
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59480
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And the next slide shows a "missing warning", that actually GCC has warned
about since 4.8
And the next slide is a gnu89-inline issue, which would also show up with GCC 5
due to the -std=c11 default.
etc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65468
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Mon Aug 24 15:01:44 2015
New Revision: 227130
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227130&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/vector-loop.c
2015-08-24 Tom de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67298
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also does using -fwrapv fix the problem? It might be the case gap just has
undefined code in it and now we produce better code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59480
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #3)
> Strangely enough, this is one of the bugs in GCC that OpenMandriva
> developers present as a reason for them switching to Clang as the default
> compiler.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59480
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2014-12-14 00:00:00 |2015-8-24
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67283
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
>
> so no total scalarization for foo? Maybe SRA is confused by the CLOBBER?
I think clobbers are fine, the problem is that the structure contains
an array an t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67341
Bug ID: 67341
Summary: [ICE] libgo build failure: in
mark_stmt_if_obviously_necessary, at
tree-ssa-dce.c:278
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67298
Alexander Fomin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||afomin.mailbox at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67330
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65049
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Aug 24 13:43:54 2015
New Revision: 227127
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227127&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65049
* include/bits/char_traits.h (char_tra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67309
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed on trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67309
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Aug 24 13:43:36 2015
New Revision: 227126
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227126&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/67309
* include/bits/random.tcc
(poi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57195
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Please send it as a separate patch, not buried in an unrelated
target-specific patch. Use a subject that makes clear what the
patch is about.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65468
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Mon Aug 24 13:14:17 2015
New Revision: 227124
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227124&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Optimize expand_omp_for_static_chunk for chunk_size one
2015-08
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67339
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67340
Bug ID: 67340
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: in convert_move, at expr.c:279
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
snippet crashes in trunk (6.0.0 20150824).
-- test.ii
template < typename T>
struct A
{
void foo();
template < typename S, typename W >
using N = void (T::*)(S, W) const ;
};
template < typename T>
void A::foo()
{
typename A::template N fun = &T::o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67338
Bug ID: 67338
Summary: fold-const sanitizer runtime error in roundup_loc
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67303
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66761
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67303
--- Comment #4 from vondele at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vondele
Date: Mon Aug 24 12:17:07 2015
New Revision: 227122
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227122&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgomp/66761
PR libgomp/67303
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66761
--- Comment #3 from vondele at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vondele
Date: Mon Aug 24 12:17:07 2015
New Revision: 227122
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227122&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgomp/66761
PR libgomp/67303
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67313
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62058
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still there in GCC 5.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50184
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66761
--- Comment #2 from vondele at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vondele
Date: Mon Aug 24 11:01:25 2015
New Revision: 227119
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227119&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgomp/66761
PR libgomp/67303
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67303
--- Comment #3 from vondele at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vondele
Date: Mon Aug 24 11:01:25 2015
New Revision: 227119
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227119&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgomp/66761
PR libgomp/67303
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67337
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Testing obvious fix:
diff --git a/gcc/cp/mangle.c b/gcc/cp/mangle.c
index 342cb93e68b3..a9993f40b94d 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/mangle.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/mangle.c
@@ -1149,7 +1149,7 @@ write_template_prefix (cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65468
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67157
--- Comment #2 from Дилян Палаузов ---
I have retried with the most current gcc code. The problem is not solved.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67288
--- Comment #2 from Christophe Leroy ---
Compilation ok with below code
[root@localhost knl]# cat flush.c
#define L1_CACHE_SHIFT 4
#define L1_CACHE_BYTES (1 << L1_CACHE_SHIFT)
#define mb() __asm__ __volatile__ ("sync" : : : "memory")
stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67337
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66053
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
this is in OpenMP 4.1 only allowed in #pragma omp declare simd clauses, not
anywhere else (it is not a variable in the language). It might change in
OpenMP 5.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67336
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-01/msg01474.html
There might be another thread with a newer version of the patch which uses
futex rather than mincore.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67334
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
That is:
__asm__ volatile ("\n"
" adds%0,%2,%4\n"
" adc %1,%3,$0"
: "=&r"(c),"=r"(d)
: "r"(a),"r"(b),"r"(i) : "cc");
Because the first (0th) operand gets clobbered (set) before yo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67336
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think it might better to use futex than msync.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67337
Bug ID: 67337
Summary: Segmentation fault on a template class
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67336
Bug ID: 67336
Summary: Verify pointers during stack unwind
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #25 from Joshua Kinard ---
Still present in gcc-5.2. Reverting commit r218976 also didn't help.
Reproduced on a second MIPS machine running N32 ABI as well. any idea if this
is being looked at for 5.3?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #16 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #15)
> Oh, and according to the Debian changelog, it must be a regression that was
> introduced somewhere between r218987 and r222750 of the gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67335
Bug ID: 67335
Summary: [ICE] in compiling mop sims function with unused
argument
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67334
--- Comment #2 from anmin_deng at yahoo dot com.tw ---
In the said test code,
variable "b" is never used later so in the 2nd "__asm__" (with "adds" and "adc"
instructions), there is no proper dependency described between the 2
instructions.
Proble
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67334
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
100 matches
Mail list logo
