https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69549
Bug ID: 69549
Summary: Named Address Spaces does not compile in C++
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65143
Balakrishnan B changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.9.2 |5.3.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69545
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69548
Bug ID: 69548
Summary: libatomic fails to build with -Os on powerpc64-linux
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69530
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10)
> Created attachment 37512 [details]
> A new patch
>
> I am testing this now.
No regressions on x86-64. I will leave it to Vladimir.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69547
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69547
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The problem first appeared with r222135.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69547
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone|-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69547
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.3.0
Summary|no-op array init
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69547
Bug ID: 69547
Summary: no-op array initializer emits an empty loop
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69546
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Will have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69546
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69546
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69533
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
x=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-232939-checking-yes-rtl-df-nobootstrap-nographite
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160128 (experimental) (GCC)
$ gcc -O testcase.c
$ ./a.out
Aborted
All tested __int128-capable targets are affected. (x86_64, powerpc64,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69542
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69545
Sebastian Pop changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |spop at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69506
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
OK thanks, I'll commit it tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69506
--- Comment #3 from Roger Orr ---
Tested: bootstrap build on cygwin with your patch completed successfully.
I used:
../gcctrunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++ --prefix=/usr/share/gcc-trunk
make -j5
make install
Thank you :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28901
--- Comment #22 from Chen Gang ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #21)
[...]
> Although in C a static const is not really like a #define I suspect that
> there are cases where they are used as such in header files. If that is the
> maj
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68176
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regression] all|[4.9/5 Regression] all pch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68176
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 28 22:35:20 2016
New Revision: 232956
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232956&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR pch/68176
* files.c (_cpp_find_file): Set file->implic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69520
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69459
--- Comment #12 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Jan 28 22:32:47 2016
New Revision: 232955
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232955&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/69459
* config/i386/constraints.md (C):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69543
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Breakpoint 4, linemap_compare_locations (set=0x77ff6000, pre=2147483641,
post=post@entry=2147483656) at ../../src/libcpp/line-map.c:1326
(gdb) call inform (2147483641, "pre=2147483641")
../../src/gcc/tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69544
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69530
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37509|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68400
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Thu Jan 28 22:28:04 2016
New Revision: 232954
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232954&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/68400
* gcc.target/mips/mips.exp (mips_option_group
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68400
--- Comment #5 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Thu Jan 28 22:25:55 2016
New Revision: 232952
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232952&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-28 Steve Ellcey
PR target/68400
* config/mips/mip
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69530
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Is the r229087 change still needed after r229458?
Backout r229087 doesn't cause gcc.target/i386/pr67609-2.c nor
gcc.target/i386/pr67609.c to fail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68176
--- Comment #11 from Nix ---
Confirmed fixed (properly this time).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69545
Bug ID: 69545
Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/graphite/pr42285.f90
-O (internal compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40737
Josh Hykes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joshuahykes at yahoo dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63805
kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57816
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69542
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 28 21:08:23 2016
New Revision: 232949
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232949&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/69542
* lra-remat.c (calculate_local_reg_rem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69524
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17381
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Jan 28 21:05:39 2016
New Revision: 232947
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232947&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/17381 - Unnecessary register move for float extend
2016-01-28
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69542
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 28 21:01:51 2016
New Revision: 232946
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232946&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/69542
* lra-remat.c (calculate_local_reg_rem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69530
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69535
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3920
--- Comment #10 from Mattias Engdegård ---
Stabs is rather obsolete and I don't personally care about it any more. As far
as I can tell from the source (GCC 5.3 and GDB 7.10), the problem (wrong CTR
numbering in stabs) is still there, but if it we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69459
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37510|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69544
Bug ID: 69544
Summary: Internal compiler error with -Wall and where
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69459
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> We need to adjust md.texi too.
> Also, I see there are 7 different uses of constraint "C" in i386.md with
> general_operand predicate, are you sure you don't want
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69459
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
We need to adjust md.texi too.
Also, I see there are 7 different uses of constraint "C" in i386.md with
general_operand predicate, are you sure you don't want "BC" for those?
Stuff like
*movti_internal
*movdi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69543
Bug ID: 69543
Summary: _Pragma does not apply within macro
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68972
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg02245.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69459
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 37510
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37510&action=edit
Proposed patch
Patch in testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69524
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68972
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69524
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68176
--- Comment #10 from Nix ---
Argh, scratch that -- I need to test a tree that *doesn't* have the original
patch reverted! Doing that now, will report back once that's done.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69524
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6 Regression] Compiler |[6 Regression] Compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69524
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here is a slightly reduced test case:
module A
interface
module subroutine A1
end
end interface
contains
subroutine A1
end
end
It's still invalid, but gives less errors with gfortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69459
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> >
> > > I'd say the i386 backend just should add a new constraint for C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69524
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69484
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69355
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #23)
> The testcase I posted to comment #19 fails also on the 4.9 branch so I
> will test and commit the patch there too.
>
> Jakub, can I close the bug afterwards or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69535
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69355
--- Comment #23 from Martin Jambor ---
The testcase I posted to comment #19 fails also on the 4.9 branch so I
will test and commit the patch there too.
Jakub, can I close the bug afterwards or do you want to backport the
gcc/tree-dfa.c (the patc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69484
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Thu Jan 28 18:42:36 2016
New Revision: 232940
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232940&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-01-28 Janus Weil
PR fortran/69484
* inv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69535
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69530
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #6)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5)
> > Created attachment 37509 [details]
> > A patch
> >
> > I am testing this.
>
> Many post-reload splitters in i386.md check thei
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68543
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69530
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5)
> Created attachment 37509 [details]
> A patch
>
> I am testing this.
Many post-reload splitters in i386.md check their operands with REG_P, based on
the premise that the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447
--- Comment #22 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #21)
> Fixed.
Thanks, but I think there's been some fallout in PR 69447.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447
--- Comment #20 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Jan 28 18:11:27 2016
New Revision: 232938
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232938&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-opt/69447
* lra-remat.c (subreg_regs): New.
(dump_candidate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68176
--- Comment #9 from Nix ---
Tested on the same old GCC 4.9 build tree and eglibc system that failed in the
original report (for maximum reproducibility): it works, the regression is
cured.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69355
--- Comment #22 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jan 28 18:04:00 2016
New Revision: 232937
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232937&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR 69355] Correct hole detection when total_scalarization fails
2016-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69459
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
>
> > I'd say the i386 backend just should add a new constraint for CONST0_RTX
> > only and use it wherever the all one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69530
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 37509
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37509&action=edit
A patch
I am testing this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69305
--- Comment #13 from Richard Henderson ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Jan 28 17:48:22 2016
New Revision: 232936
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232936&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/69305
* config/aarch64/aarch64-modes.def (CC_Cmode): New
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69459
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> I'd say the i386 backend just should add a new constraint for CONST0_RTX
> only and use it wherever the all ones is not allowed. As "C" is documented,
> probably
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69542
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69542
Bug ID: 69542
Summary: [6 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure in
simplify-rtx.c on i?86 since r232905
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69542
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69450
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Amker, if you're talking about aarch64-*-*gnu* then that's not this bug
(because this is about HP-UX). I assume you're using glibc from git, in which
case see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65546
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
For GCC 6, this is just a testcase error. The failing assertion requires this
clause now that we can vectorize the loop using misaligned loads/stores:
{ target { ! vect_hw_misalign } }
I'll get that fixed s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69517
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
By the way, it was removed in r219359.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69517
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> Just to clarify: it's the program that crashes, not GCC (so removing the
> ice-on-invalid-code keyword).
>
> But I also think that rejecting or at least loudly di
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69459
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69450
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to amker from comment #13)
> I also saw this issue on aarch64, will test if the patch fixes it.
It's a C library conflict, not hardware-specific, so "aarch64" is not relevant.
The patch only af
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69450
amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69517
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69541
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69541
Bug ID: 69541
Summary: check ssa more often in parloops
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68949
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67407
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65608
Bug 65608 depends on bug 67407, which changed state.
Bug 67407 Summary: [6 regression] ice in friend_accessible_p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67407
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69540
Bug ID: 69540
Summary: add a short info on .so priority in -l
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
Severity: normal
Priority: P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69526
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rdapp from comment #7)
> (In reply to amker from comment #6)
>
> > It comes from loop niter analysis, as in may_eliminate_iv, we have:
> >
> > (gdb) call debug_generic_expr(desc->nite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69526
--- Comment #7 from rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
(In reply to amker from comment #6)
> It comes from loop niter analysis, as in may_eliminate_iv, we have:
>
> (gdb) call debug_generic_expr(desc->niter)
> n_5(D) + 4294967295
and this is c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40200
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36312
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||_paul at bk dot ru
--- Comment #20 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69526
--- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rdapp from comment #5)
> I still don't quite get why the "n - 1" is needed. Do we need it to possibly
> have an exit condition like
>
> if (i != n-1) or
> if (i <= n-1)?
>
> Am I m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68662
--- Comment #12 from Peter Bergner ---
Should we add an assert somewhere to ensure that flag_pic and
TARGET_RELOCATABLE are consistent?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69538
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.8.5, 4.9.4, 5.3.1, 6.0
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69538
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
Status|UNCO
1 - 100 of 231 matches
Mail list logo
