https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71864
--- Comment #3 from niXman ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #2)
> I cannot reproduce the problem on gcc-6 branch or trunk.
Try to use this build:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw-w64/files/Toolchains%20targetting%20Win64/P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71864
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71733
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71604
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71733
--- Comment #7 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Jul 14 04:28:25 2016
New Revision: 238327
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238327&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] -mno-vsx should force -mno-power9-dform
PR target/71733
gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71733
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Jul 14 04:26:36 2016
New Revision: 238326
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238326&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] -mno-vsx should force -mno-power9-dform
PR target/71733
gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71872
--- Comment #1 from Gary Funck ---
(In reply to Gary Funck from comment #0)
> See also PR 70683.
>
> When the attached test case is compiled with -O3 and gcc checks are enabled,
> the following ICE is triggered.
>
> It looks like this check was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71872
Bug ID: 71872
Summary: ICE in inchash::add_expr, at tree.c:7782 -
OEP_ADDRESS_OF asserted for ADDR_EXPR applied to
constant
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71867
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71871
--- Comment #1 from Micha³ Miros³aw ---
Created attachment 38894
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38894&action=edit
test case 2
Small change (second variable instead of constant) changes the ICE to:
$ g++ -c b.cc
b.cc: In f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71871
Bug ID: 71871
Summary: ICE on mixing templates and vector extensions ternary
operator
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71870
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
The following output with my WIP patch for bug 49905 shows that at least in C
the correct location information is available (the second warning):
$ cat xyz.c && /build/gcc-49905/gcc/xgcc -B /build/gcc-49905/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66319
--- Comment #18 from jim.wilson at linaro dot org ---
On 07/12/2016 09:36 AM, bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66319
>
> --- Comment #16 from The Written Word com> ---
> (In reply to Joh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71870
Bug ID: 71870
Summary: wrong location of "%n$" directive in -Wformat
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56856
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks for the background and the pointer. Is this report then a duplicate of
bug 43486?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71869
Bug ID: 71869
Summary: __builtin_isgreater raises an invalid exception on
PPC64 using __float128 inputs.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71868
--- Comment #1 from nghia.huynh at nxp dot com ---
Created attachment 38892
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38892&action=edit
gcc info and log
preprocessed files size exceed 1kb size limit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71868
Bug ID: 71868
Summary: internal compiler error: in compute_working_sets, at
gcov-io.c:1006
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70926
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70926
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71711
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71867
Bug ID: 71867
Summary: Optimizer generates code dereferencing a null pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70842
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Gerhard Steinmetz from comment #4)
> ICE for both release and experimental :
>
>
> $ gfortran-6 pr70842.f90
> f951: internal compiler error: in gfc_add_component_ref, at
> fortran/cla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71731
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71805
--- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt ---
*** Bug 71731 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71731
--- Comment #3 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This appears to be fixed by the fix for PR71805.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69880
--- Comment #11 from vsz.bugzilla at emailuser dot net ---
Thank you, Nick.
I'd be glad to make tests with a binary pre-built using your patches, but
building binutils from source myself, appears to be a too long shot at this
point.
Is there som
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56856
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5)
> I thought I'd look into this bug since it affects the testing of my patch
> for bug 49905 and I'm finding out that it seems to be a general problem with
> C+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
--- Comment #18 from Anton Blanchard ---
Urgh too early in the morning for me. PR71866 created, with the correct
backtrace.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71866
Bug ID: 71866
Summary: gcc locks up after fix for PR70159
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71858
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/c/c-decl.c.jj 2016-06-24 12:59:22.0 +0200
+++ gcc/c/c-decl.c 2016-07-13 22:40:23.410658411 +0200
@@ -4021,7 +4021,7 @@ lookup_name_fuzzy (tree name, enum looku
for (c_scope *scope =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71858
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Anton Blanchard from comment #16)
> I'm seeing a lockup in gcc with this patch on ppc64le. Run as:
>
> gcc -O2 -c testcase.i
Can you file a new bug for this? Also your backtrace is just for t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
--- Comment #16 from Anton Blanchard ---
I'm seeing a lockup in gcc with this patch on ppc64le. Run as:
gcc -O2 -c testcase.i
It gets stuck in:
#0 0x3fffb7e5e3e8 in __waitpid_nocancel ()
at ../sysdeps/unix/syscall-template.S:84
#1 0x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70159
Anton Blanchard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anton at samba dot org
--- Comment #15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71865
Bug ID: 71865
Summary: [7 regression] test case
gcc.dg/diagnostic-token-ranges.c fails starting with
r237714
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71864
--- Comment #1 from niXman ---
This error does not occur if '-Og' is excluded. Also this error does not occur
when '-O0' is used.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71862
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71861
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71860
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71864
Bug ID: 71864
Summary: x86_64-w64-mingw32, ICE when '-Og' & '-mssse3' are
used simultaneously
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71862
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56856
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
I thought I'd look into this bug since it affects the testing of my patch for
bug 49905 and I'm finding out that it seems to be a general problem with C++
and function arguments. From what I can see, the C fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71862
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Gerhard Steinmetz from comment #0)
> Release versions (5, 6, 7) are bailed out, with no backtrace.
> Experimental versions (6, 7 tested) give a backtrace.
>
>
> $ cat z1.f90
> program
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56856
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71863
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56856
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71863
Bug ID: 71863
Summary: wrong column location in -Wformat in C++
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71862
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Works when "class" is changed to "type" ...
$ cat z2.f90
program p
type t
integer :: n = 0
integer, pointer :: q => null()
end type
type(t) :: x
print *, associated(x%q)
x =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71862
Bug ID: 71862
Summary: ICE in gfc_add_component_ref, at fortran/class.c:241
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71861
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Side note :
$ cat z0.f90
module m
abstract interface
function abs(x)
real :: abs, x
end
end interface
end
$ gfortran-6 -Wall z0.f90
z0.f90:3:6:
function abs(x)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71861
Bug ID: 71861
Summary: ICE in write_symbol(): bad module symbol
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71859
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Gerhard Steinmetz from comment #0)
> When using the same name for a variable and a subroutine (invalid),
> experimental (--enable-checking=yes) versions 7, 6 and maybe older
> ones (not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70842
Gerhard Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerhard.steinmetz.fortran@t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71859
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71860
Bug ID: 71860
Summary: ICE on pointing to null(mold), verify_gimple failed
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71859
--- Comment #2 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
For completeness another ICE, only with dedicated option -ff2c.
$ gfortran-6 -ff2c z1.f90
z1.f90:2:0:
call s(1)
internal compiler error: in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2292
$ gfortran-7-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71859
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Somehow detected when being a bit more explicit :
$ cat z3.f90
program p
implicit none
real :: s = 1.0
real :: x
call s(1)
x = abs(s)
print *, x
end
subroutine s(n)
implicit none
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71859
Bug ID: 71859
Summary: ICE on same variable/subroutine name (verify_gimple
failed)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71623
--- Comment #9 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Wed Jul 13 17:30:58 2016
New Revision: 238308
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238308&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
2016-07-13 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71856
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.3.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71856
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jul 13 17:22:57 2016
New Revision: 238307
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238307&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libstdc++/71856 Define _GLIBCXX_PARALLEL_ASSERTIONS
PR libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71856
--- Comment #4 from Michael Hamann ---
Created attachment 38889
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38889&action=edit
Test case, try compiling with g++ -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG testcase.cpp
Sorry for not including a test case, I thought
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71851
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Gutson ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> (In reply to Daniel Gutson from comment #5)
> > This macro would change break reproduceability as much as __TIME__ does.
>
> __TIME__ is now being warned on if r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71153
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> I have not done a bootstrap/test yet but I can do it on a machine which has
> LSE support in a few minutes.
Note this patch causes many failures but none in gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71851
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Daniel Gutson from comment #5)
> This macro would change break reproduceability as much as __TIME__ does.
__TIME__ is now being warned on if requested (-Wdate-time), and can be changed
through e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71851
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Gutson ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> > Any kind of such code goes strongly against build reproduceability,
> > -fcompare-debug etc., so not sure it woul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71851
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Gutson ---
The idea is that the macro expands always to the same value.
The final usage of this facility should not be of any matter to gcc, it will be
just another program.
This macro would change break reproduceabilit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71858
Bug ID: 71858
Summary: Surprising suggestions for misspellings
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71623
--- Comment #8 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Wed Jul 13 16:09:57 2016
New Revision: 238304
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238304&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
2016-07-13 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71489
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66145
--- Comment #21 from Boris Kolpackov ---
Speaking of possible fixes, I had this crazy idea, not sure if it is
technically possible though: what if libstdc++ throws some custom exception
that derives from both version of ios::failure? This way bot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71857
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker.cheng at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71857
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 3
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3&action=edit
IVOPTS dump after the commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71857
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 38887
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38887&action=edit
IVOPTS dump before the commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71857
Bug ID: 71857
Summary: [7 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopt_mult_4.c FAILs
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71490
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
The r237185 revision really caused that one slsr opportunity is gone, however
there's still one remaining (-fno-tree-slsr vs -ftree-slsr) show:
:
- a2_15 = s_11(D) * 4;
- _4 = (long unsigned int) a2_15;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71856
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24574
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 13 13:57:05 2016
New Revision: 238299
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238299&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-07-13 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/24574
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24574
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24568
Bug 24568 depends on bug 24574, which changed state.
Bug 24574 Summary: a!=0?a/10:0 is not reduced to a/10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24574
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71652
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 38886
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38886&action=edit
Candidate patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71856
--- Comment #2 from Michael Hamann ---
This is not about activating parallel mode, this is about using individual
parallel algorithms by directly including e.g. and using
the namespace __gnu_parallel explicitly. There I do not get the error you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71652
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Thank you very much Jakub with the suggested hint.
I applied basically what you suggested and I'm wondering whether target macro
can really produce insane options that would eventually cause an ICE or another
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71856
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You can't mix Debug Mode and Parallel Mode anyway. With previous versions you
get
In file included from /usr/include/c++/5.3.1/utility:68:0,
from /usr/include/c++/5.3.1/algorithm:60,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71856
Bug ID: 71856
Summary: _GLIBCXX_DEBUG-mode breaks GNU parallel extension
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71855
--- Comment #1 from Ben Woodard ---
I just discovered (by mistake) that the problem does not seem to happen with
GCC 4.4.7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71851
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Then command line macro + __COUNTER__ ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71851
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Any kind of such code goes strongly against build reproduceability,
> -fcompare-debug etc., so not sure it would be really appreciated, it is a
> direction again
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69880
--- Comment #10 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 38885
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38885&action=edit
Proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69880
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71624
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71624
--- Comment #4 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Wed Jul 13 12:19:44 2016
New Revision: 238295
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238295&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline r238086.
2016-07-07 Ilya
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71855
Bug ID: 71855
Summary: duplicate unspecified_parameters DIE in DWARF for
functions with variable arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71633
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71633
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Wed Jul 13 11:02:15 2016
New Revision: 238290
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238290&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR ipa/71633
* ipa-inline-transform.c (inline_ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71851
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24574
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #4)
> Yeah, but folding would happily create undefined behavior from, say,
>
> if (x != INT_MIN)
>x = x * -1;
>
> as folding folds INT_MIN * -1 to INT_MIN (ok,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71851
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
seeding from the current time sounds like a bad idea from a security
perspective.
why not __RANDOM__ or __SECURE_RANDOM__?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11832
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Note the testcase is flawed because c might point to b and thus the stores to
c[b] might clobber b itself. Similar c might point to c itself and thus
clobber the pointer value. This causes us to re-load b
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
