https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #7 from Ulrich Weigand ---
Ah, OK. I did't realize this value didn't fit into a 106-bit mantissa.
I agree that it probably doesn't make sense to change the internal
representation to allow larger mantissas. First of all, there's no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135
Bug ID: 70135
Summary: -fsanitize=undefined causes static_assert to fail
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70112
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at ucw dot cz
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69953
--- Comment #16 from john.frankish at outlook dot com ---
Any news on a possible patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
--- Comment #38 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Matthew Woehlke from comment #37)
> [[fallthrough]] was approved for C++17. While the standard does not
> normatively *require* a diagnostic, it's certainly expected that one be
> issued. It's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53637
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 from TC ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70134
Bug ID: 70134
Summary: combine misses jump optimization on powerpc64le
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70133
Bug ID: 70133
Summary: AArch64 -mtune=native generates improperly formatted
-march parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra ---
> Well, what I don't quite understand is that the gnulib value, which is
>
> 0x1.f7cp+1023
Sorry, I didn't look properly at the bug before commenting last night. For
some reason I thou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The issue is that GCC internally handles IBM long double as having a
106-bit mantissa. There is one value that is larger than can be
represented with a 106-bit mantissa, while still being
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70114
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 7 Mar 2016, tanzx940228 at hotmail dot com wrote:
> 3.gcc.error.c
> -
> int main() {
> {
> int foo(float arg0, float arg1);
> foo(3.0f, 4.0f);
> }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70048
--- Comment #12 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Jiong Wang from comment #11)
> (In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #10)
> > Created attachment 37890 [details]
> > second patch
> >
> > Still going through full testing, but I wanted to post th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70058
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70112
--- Comment #3 from Marek Behun ---
Created attachment 37892
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37892&action=edit
sanitizer-output.txt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70048
--- Comment #11 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #10)
> Created attachment 37890 [details]
> second patch
>
> Still going through full testing, but I wanted to post this
> before the end of the day.
>
> This updat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70112
--- Comment #2 from Marek Behun ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1)
Does not happen with -O0, does with -O1, -O2, -O3.
When gengal.bin is compiled with -O0 -fsanitize=undefined, then in runs
successfully, but the sanitizer pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70132
Bug ID: 70132
Summary: ARM -mcpu=native can cause a double free abort.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70128
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, it is a question if it is -fno-strict-aliasing or -std=kernel thing.
Anyway, IMHO what matters is the points-to stuff:
Points-to sets
ANYTHING = { ANYTHING }
ESCAPED = { ESCAPED NONLOCAL __aeabi_uidiv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59054
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70131
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70131
Bug ID: 70131
Summary: PowerPC ISA 2.07 is inefficient at doint
(float)(int)x.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70128
--- Comment #7 from Richard Henderson ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> I still say this is undefined even with -fno-strict-aliasing because
> patching a function is undefined.
Oh please. I think that's short-sighted.
I don't s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70130
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70130
Bug ID: 70130
Summary: h264ref fails with verification error starting with
r231674
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70128
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note since 4.5 is not out yet there looks to be another week before it comes
out. The fix to the kernel can make it in.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70128
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
I still say this is undefined even with -fno-strict-aliasing because patching a
function is undefined.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70128
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Shouldn't the call to v7_coherent_kern_range prevent DSE from removing the
store to fn_addr[0] and fn_addr[1]?
It feels like the undefined nature of this code is leading to a lack of proper
dataflow for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70048
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37886|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Hmm, seems to break Ada of all things...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70129
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70129
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70127
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70129
Bug ID: 70129
Summary: [6 Regression] stdlib.h: No such file or directory
when using -isystem /usr/include
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70064
--- Comment #12 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> So, shall we silently disable -mred-zone for -fpic/-fPIE in 32-bit code?
> Or error out in that combination?
> Or disable it only if we need PIC pointer?
> What ab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70064
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70128
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
*.mergephi1 has (just the first half, the second one is analogous):
__aeabi_uidiv.0_1 = (long unsigned int) __aeabi_uidiv;
fn_addr_2 = __aeabi_uidiv.0_1 & 4294967294;
fn_addr.1_3 = (unsigned int *) fn_a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70064
--- Comment #10 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Mar 7 19:54:02 2016
New Revision: 234050
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234050&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70064
* config/i386/i386.h (machine_fun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70128
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Just so I'm clear on what's happening here.
Precisely which stores are getting removed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70128
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think anyone patching functions need to be considered special and undefined.
In most cases they did not mean to do it. Just the kernel is special.
> just add an optimization barrier on fn_addr (like asm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70128
Bug ID: 70128
Summary: Linux kernel div patching optimized away
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
URL: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303147
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70126
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, there are some significant differences between C99 VLAs and N3639. I
don't know how common using sizeof with VLA types is in C++. I suspect not
very.
VLAs never did make it into C++ 14 (though I'm not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70048
--- Comment #9 from Richard Henderson ---
While I fully believe in CSE'ing "base + reg*scale" when talking about
non-stack-based pointers, when it comes to stack-based data access I'm
less certain about the proper approach.
All things work out "
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70094
--- Comment #2 from Robert Obryk ---
Note that this optimization can not only be applied when the parameter is a
compile-time constant. The following function can also be compiled so as not to
touch the stack:
--snip--
struct foo {
int a;
in
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20160307 (experimental) [trunk revision 234022] (GCC)
$:
$: gcc-trunk -O3 small.c ; ./a.out
0
$: gcc-4.7 -O3 small.c ; ./a.out
0
$: gcc-4.8 -O3 small.c ; ./a.out
0
$: gcc-trunk -O0 small.c ; ./a.out
1
$: cat small.c
int printf(const char *, ...);
struct S0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24998
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44756
Bug 44756 depends on bug 49401, which changed state.
Bug 49401 Summary: Warning regression for 'uninitialized' variable on
non-existant code path (in mep-pragma.c)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49401
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49401
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64402
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70126
--- Comment #1 from Florian Weimer ---
There seems to be a fundamental incompatibility here with supporting the GNU CC
VLA extension and this new (and apparently dead) C++ VLA specification.
I wonder how much existing G++ code applies sizeof to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70048
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #6)
> Created attachment 37886 [details]
> proposed patch
>
> I agree -- at minimum virtual and eliminable frame registers ought to be
> special-cased.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70009
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc*-*-*, aarch64-*-* |powerpc*-*-*, aarch64-*-*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70105
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70126
Bug ID: 70126
Summary: VLA accepted in sizeof and typedef, allowing integer
overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70123
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, the spilled value is pseudo 240, which holds &b. Dunno why instead of
spilling it it couldn't be rematerialized. Anyway, the value in r6 after the
f9 call is needed, so all that seems to be wrong is the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70123
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The __builtin_strcat in the testcase should be __builtin_strcpy, it reproduces
even with that and without it it has UB.
Anyway, what I see is that the f9 call loads the g variable into %r6 register
(for argu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16994
Bug 16994 depends on bug 21113, which changed state.
Bug 21113 Summary: Jumps into VLA or VM scope not rejected for C++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21113
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21113
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Last reconfirmed|2012-01-05 00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70076
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70019
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch for this bug and for bug 69517 posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00441.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69517
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00441.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19705
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66786
--- Comment #8 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Mon Mar 7 17:09:53 2016
New Revision: 234038
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234038&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Adjust fix for PR c++/66786
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR c++/66786
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19705
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon Mar 7 17:10:12 2016
New Revision: 234039
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234039&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/19705 - -fno-branch-count-reg doesn't prevent decremen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69740
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Mar 7 17:01:54 2016
New Revision: 234036
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234036&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/69740
* cfghooks.c (remove_edge): Req
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70120
Zdenek Sojka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6 Regression][aarch64] |[6 Regression][aarch64] -g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052
--- Comment #17 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amker
Date: Mon Mar 7 16:39:27 2016
New Revision: 234034
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234034&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/69052
* rtlanal.c (commuta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70124
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Bug 70125 tracks the problem with the missing context of the diagnostic.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70125
Bug ID: 70125
Summary: attributes diagnostics missing essential context
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70124
Bug ID: 70124
Summary: alignas error in constexpr function
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69633
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70123
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #4 from Ulrich Weigand ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #3)
> > while with GCC, we get:
> >
> > high double: 7FEF
> > low double: 7C8F FFFE
>
> Right. This is 0x1.f78p+1023
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70123
Bug ID: 70123
Summary: [6 Regression] Miscompilation of
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70120
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.4, 5.3.1
Sum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69666
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor ---
With the reverted patch re-applied, this should be again fixed
everywhere (and the fix should not be causing any new issues).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70120
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka ---
Created attachment 37888
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37888&action=edit
another testcase
This testcase does not need -mno-pc-relative-literal-loads.
$ aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc -O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
--- Comment #37 from Matthew Woehlke ---
> Essentially, this warning and the "intentional fallthrough" attribute
exist for both clang and MSVC and will be enabled there; but GCC
still doesn't have this feature.
[[fallthrough]] was approved for C+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70116
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70048
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69879
Gabriel Ibarra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37848|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69666
--- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Mar 7 15:17:49 2016
New Revision: 234030
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234030&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR 69666 and PR 69920
2016-03-07 Martin Jambor
PR tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69920
--- Comment #16 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Mar 7 15:17:49 2016
New Revision: 234030
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234030&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR 69666 and PR 69920
2016-03-07 Martin Jambor
PR tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
Tom Tromey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #36 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70013
--- Comment #9 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
In analyze_access_subtree (since r147980, "New implementation of SRA", 2009):
else if (root->grp_write || TREE_CODE (root->base) == PARM_DECL)
root->grp_unscalarized_data = 1; /* not cover
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70122
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #2)
> For now, marking missed-optimization/enhancement. There might also be
> correctness failures due to the lack of explicit handling, I'm not sure.
Which is why I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70122
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
For now, marking missed-optimization/enhancement. There might also be
correctness failures due to the lack of explicit handling, I'm not sure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70122
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70122
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, patch
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70013
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
That is what I suspected. Please have at look why
analyze_access_subtree (which has to set the grp_unscalarized_data
flag) acts differently then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70122
Bug ID: 70122
Summary: [openacc] Handle acc loop directive
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgomp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69710
--- Comment #15 from Doug Gilmore ---
> I had a patch too, will send it for review in GCC7 if it's still needed.
Sorry I got side track last week and didn't make much progress.
Please go ahead and submit if you have something you feel comfortabl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70116
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Mon Mar 7 14:50:13 2016
New Revision: 234029
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234029&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Skip ubsan/asan internal fns with different location in tail-mer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67364
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Mar 7 14:43:14 2016
New Revision: 234028
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234028&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67364
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_store_expression):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69607
--- Comment #24 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #23)
> pinged patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01632.html
ping^2: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00487.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70013
--- Comment #7 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*second* half, sorry. grp_to_be_replaced is here true, but
grp_unscalarized_data is false, so handle_unscalarized_data_in_subtree sets
sad->refreshed=UDH_LEFT and we build the access to the LHS.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70083
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
RA is not my area of expertise, so sure, go ahead (unless Vlad wants to have a
look).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70121
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
