https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83311
Bug ID: 83311
Summary: Unable to optimize alloc calls with casts and string
builtins
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83310
Bug ID: 83310
Summary: Compiler crash
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
Assignee: unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83309
Bug ID: 83309
Summary: Structure elements have O(n^2) compile time slowdown
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83308
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I suspect you'll need other changes as well, such as a new file
libgo/go/internal/syscall/unix/getrandom_linux_sh.go. For that matter you'll
need to add sh to libgo/go/go/build/syslist.go and to match.sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83308
--- Comment #1 from Rich Felker ---
If PCQUANTUM is the minimum unit/alignment for the program counter, which it
sounds like, then the value should be 2 not 4. SH has 16-bit opcodes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83308
Bug ID: 83308
Summary: Missing platform definitions for SH in libgo
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80641
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So based my findings around c#5 we can classify this as a false positive. GCC
has enough information lying around to prove the problematical memset can never
be reached, but fails to do so.
Martin's patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69224
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Dec 6 23:50:58 2017
New Revision: 255457
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255457&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/69224
PR tree-optimization/80907
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82286
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Dec 6 23:50:58 2017
New Revision: 255457
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255457&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/69224
PR tree-optimization/80907
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80907
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Dec 6 23:50:58 2017
New Revision: 255457
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255457&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/69224
PR tree-optimization/80907
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83307
Bug ID: 83307
Summary: Miscompilation of range_for with
initializer_list in constructors on MacOS
(works on Linux)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81470
--- Comment #15 from hainque at adacore dot com ---
And thanks Rainer for having confirmed that it resolves
the problem for you as well.
> On Dec 6, 2017, at 23:54 , hainque at adacore dot com
> wrote:
>
>>> Confirmed, this patch solves the i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81470
--- Comment #14 from hainque at adacore dot com ---
> On Dec 6, 2017, at 21:16 , rai...@emrich-ebersheim.de
> wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81470
>>
>> Confirmed, this patch solves the issue.
>>
>> Thanks
>
> Olivi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80259
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] ICE |[6/7 Regression] ICE
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81281
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] UBSAN: |[6/7 Regression] UBSAN:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83293
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80259
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 6 22:48:39 2017
New Revision: 255456
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255456&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/80259
* decl2.c (grokfield): Diagnose = delete rede
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83306
Bug ID: 83306
Summary: filesystem_error is not nothrow copyable
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82115
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82115
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Dec 6 21:42:02 2017
New Revision: 255454
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255454&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/82115 - ICE with variable initialized with its own address.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83305
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82115
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81470
--- Comment #13 from Rainer Emrich ---
(In reply to Rainer Emrich from comment #12)
> (In reply to Olivier Hainque from comment #11)
> > Comment on attachment 42747 [details]
> > don't emit .cfi_personality/.cfi_lsda for !dwarf2 eh
> >
> > >diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83236
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83236
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Wed Dec 6 20:02:55 2017
New Revision: 255453
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255453&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
C/C++: don't suggest implementation names as spelling fixes (PR c/83236
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83305
Bug ID: 83305
Summary: Some warnings are suppressed when compiling
preprocessed files
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83300
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> > Created attachment 42801 [details]
> > gcc8-pr83300.patch
> >
> > Completely untested patch.
>
> OK.
Unfortunat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83300
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Created attachment 42801 [details]
> gcc8-pr83300.patch
>
> Completely untested patch.
OK.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83293
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 6 19:27:41 2017
New Revision: 255451
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255451&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/83293
* gimple-ssa-strength-reduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83303
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83304
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
But losing a clobber like that is just fine (even losing a SET is fine, if
its dest is REG_UNUSED, and combine actually does that in certain cases).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83303
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed Dec 6 19:22:55 2017
New Revision: 255450
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255450&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/83303 - FAIL: g++.dg/opt/new1.C on arm-none-eabi
(extra -Wall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81281
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Dec 6 19:22:06 2017
New Revision: 255449
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255449&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/81281
* match.pd ((T)(P + A) - (T)P -> (T) A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83252
--- Comment #13 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> This broke again with r255377.
> Testcase in patch form at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-12/msg00133.html
I've started to work on it. In any ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80818
--- Comment #11 from Vladimir Makarov ---
I am still working on this PR. I hope to fix it on this week or on the next
one (the patch will need a lot of testing).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83303
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83304
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So I'm digging through the combine dumps...
Before the r255384 we have:
Trying 70 -> 19:
70: r131:SI={(cc:CC!=0)?r130:SI:0x}
REG_DEAD r130:SI
19: {r134:SI=r131:SI!=0x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83299
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, I know the POINTER_PLUS operand is represented as sizetype. But since
(when) we know the operand comes from an unsigned expression as in the test
case I'm wondering if that information could be used to c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82646
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed Dec 6 17:59:01 2017
New Revision: 255448
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255448&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/82646 - bogus -Wstringop-overflow with -D_FORTIFY_SOU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82646
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83075
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83075
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Fixed in r255446.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83075
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed Dec 6 17:47:45 2017
New Revision: 255446
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255446&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/83075 - Invalid strncpy optimization
gcc/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80641
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41455
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, because it doesn't have any tests.
It should probably adjust:
../gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/overload/ellipsis1.C
../gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/overload/ellipsis2.C
../gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.pt/vaarg3.C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83298
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I see what's going on here. I'm a bit concerned there's a deeper issue. Some
planned gcc-9 work would take care of this, but I was hoping to avoid those
changes in the gcc-8 cycle. Investigating the deepe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81165
--- Comment #15 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Yea, I just looked and it's somewhat painful to do because of how threading
works. We walk statements forward and stop when we hit the limit. But DCE
analysis is easier to formulate as a backwards walk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81165
--- Comment #14 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 42802
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42802&action=edit
patch, second try (following backlinks from dead uses to maybe-dead defs)
Here's an alternate patch that get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83304
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> With r255384 combine manages to do many more combinations. Without it, it
> can get rid of most of the loop body (which should have been optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83304
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
With r255384 combine manages to do many more combinations. Without it, it
can get rid of most of the loop body (which should have been optimised
away in gimple already really).
I don't see how it would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867
--- Comment #20 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #17)
> This adds -Wnon-pod-varargs, enabled by -Wconditionally-supported, allowing
> e.g.
> -Wconditionally-supported -Werror=non-pod-varargs
>
> diff --git a/gcc/c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79228
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #4)
> Incidentally, why doesn't complex have a constructor from __complex T?
I guess because the primary template doesn't store a __complex T, but two
separate T mem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Perhaps slsr should then if it is considering
Y = B + (i' * S)
X = B + (i * S)
to
Y = B + (i' * S)
X = Y + (i - i') * S
and if i and i' are INTEGER_CSTs call choose_mult_variant on both
i and (i - i') and see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
--- Comment #31 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 6 Dec 2017, glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
>
> --- Comment #30 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz fu-berlin.de> ---
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
--- Comment #30 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #29)
> I don't see the issue building glibc with build-many-glibcs.py any more,
> hence it no longer uses -fno-isolate-erroneous-paths-dereferen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
--- Comment #29 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I don't see the issue building glibc with build-many-glibcs.py any more,
hence it no longer uses -fno-isolate-erroneous-paths-dereference
-fno-isolate-erroneous-paths-attribute for SH.
co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83295
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83292
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83292
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The i?86 ABI never passes anything in %st* registers, so in theory
__builtin_apply_args could through some target hook or similar do the %mm0/%mm1
stores conditional on whether the current function has any ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83303
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
--- Comment #28 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #27)
>
> The problem is that with gcc-7 as the default compiler in Debian, this issue
> always results in glibc and the Linux kernel failing to build from sou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83304
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
hmm, I'm getting some weird behaviour.
I see the test failing in a testsuite run.
When I try to build and run the test outside the testsuite harness it doesn't
abort.
However, the generated code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83298
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
--- Comment #27 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #26)
> What's the matter anyway? This issue has been around for like
> 2 years and now it can't wait a week or two?
The problem is that with gcc-7 as the def
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81485
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #8)
>
> Should we mark this as resolved?
No, because it has not been resolved for GCC 6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
--- Comment #26 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #25)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #24)
> > Send it to gcc-patches@? If it is approved, I can commit it, sure.
>
> Ok, thanks! Will do!
Tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83298
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This goes wrong during dom2, before that we have:
[local count: 161061274]:
b.1_11 = b;
if (b.1_11 <= 0)
goto ; [85.00%]
else
goto ; [15.00%]
[local count: 136902083]:
[local count: 9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83300
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83300
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
--- Comment #25 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #24)
> Send it to gcc-patches@? If it is approved, I can commit it, sure.
Ok, thanks! Will do!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
--- Comment #24 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Send it to gcc-patches@? If it is approved, I can commit it, sure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83304
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I do not see any differences in generated asm code between before r255384
and trunk. Some other options are needed as well?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
--- Comment #23 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #22)
> ?
>
> Why me? What do I have to do with this? It's SH code, I'm not
> an SH maintainer. /confused
I was wondering whether you could help w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
--- Comment #22 from Segher Boessenkool ---
?
Why me? What do I have to do with this? It's SH code, I'm not
an SH maintainer. /confused
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82614
--- Comment #13 from PeteVine ---
Almost certainly not related, but there's been some sort of regression in
gcov-dump from GCC 8 branch. Trying to dump any *.gcda file (ver. 8 included)
ends like this:
$ gcov-dump-8 Unified_cpp_js_src25.gcda
Un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81165
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80863
--- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Oops, I didn't mean to add Segher to this PR, but PR/70216.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216
--- Comment #21 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Maybe Segher could extende Oleg's patch and merge it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81020
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So this is likely dup of PR80693.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81485
--- Comment #8 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
This particular bug does no longer reproduce with gcc-7_7.2.0, the package
builds fine with gcc-7:
gcc-6:
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=totem-pl-parser&arch=sh4&ver=3.10.8-3&s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83143
--- Comment #13 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Let me know if any other input is necessary from my side.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80863
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Current gcc-8 pre-release versions don't show this bug anymore and gcc-8 builds
fine on Debian sh4:
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=gcc-8&arch=sh4
The gcc-snapshot version still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83304
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83304
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.2.0
Target Milestone|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83304
Bug ID: 83304
Summary: [8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr61725.c
-O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops
-ftracer -finline-functions
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81020
--- Comment #12 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #11)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> > There's nothing wrong with the GIMPLE (looked at aarch64) so it must be some
> > other RTL optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
--- Comment #17 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I tried configuring GCC with --enable-linux-futex=no, but that did not really
solve the problem for me.
Maybe I'm using that flag in a wrong way?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80101
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81020
--- Comment #11 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> There's nothing wrong with the GIMPLE (looked at aarch64) so it must be some
> other RTL optimization issue.
>
> aarch64 assembler is
>
> foo:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83293
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Created attachment 42799 [details]
> gcc8-pr83293.patch
>
> Untested fix. The gsi is unused afterwards, but we don't have a
> GSI_DONT_CARE
> and GSI_SAME_STMT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81020
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|rguenth at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81876
--- Comment #6 from Adrian Bunk ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #4)
> WRT locations/diagnostics for things like ldist where GCC conjures up code
> that has little resemblance to what the user wrote. It's a real issue once
> we issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81876
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81876
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
> Richi.
>
> I do worry about cases where we exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82027
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Martin J., any progress on this?
Unfortunately not yet, seems to always be number four on my todo-list.
At the moment I hope to get to it just before Christmas o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81020
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-pc-linux-gnu |x86_64-pc-linux-gnu,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
--- Comment #16 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #14)
> Following the discussion at
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2017-10/msg2.html
>
> all the false positives go away if --enable-linux-futex=no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66099
Luboš Luňák changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||l.lunak at centrum dot cz
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66205
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66205
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Dec 6 09:42:57 2017
New Revision: 255441
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255441&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/66205
* bindgen.adb (Gen_AdaFinal): If the res
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
