https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85475
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85475
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85475
Bug ID: 85475
Summary: [8 Regression] Compile time hog w/ -O1 -fpeel-loops
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: compile-time-hog
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85474
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85474
Bug ID: 85474
Summary: unspecified string literal comparison accepted in
constexpr context
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85466
--- Comment #14 from Daniel Elliott ---
I had a response from chandler carruth on twitter, who informed me that the
benchark was hoisting the computation out of the loop. So thats why clang was
faster. but also he said that the noconditional vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67308
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85440
--- Comment #13 from Michael Meissner ---
You can use --with-cpu=power7 as well. But if you only have power8 systems, it
is better to use --with-cpu=power8. The little endian PowerPC Linux systems
have a minimum cpu base level of power8, so flo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85473
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Something like this
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index dc80b34f302..99feb5ea629 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@ -37141,11 +37141,10 @@ ix86_expan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85473
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85473
Bug ID: 85473
Summary: internal compiler error: in emit_move_insn, at
expr.c:3722
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85440
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or configure the big endian compiler with VSX by default, e.g.
--with-cpu=power8 or similar.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85471
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Have you read https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ yet?
(In reply to Andreas Otto from comment #2)
> this is not as easy because this is a non trivial SW… what I mean… to just
> use my test-case you have to setup a w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85440
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
You need powerpc64le, big-endian doesn't support __float128.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85440
--- Comment #10 from Dennis Clarke ---
Well, current gcc 8 snapshot doesn't work :
nix_$
nix_$ /usr/local/gcc8/bin/gcc --version
gcc (genunix Wed Apr 18 19:16:29 GMT 2018) 8.0.1 20180415 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2018 Free Software Foundat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85436
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10360
--- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, jason at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> The quoted passage in the documentation now reads
>
> ---
> Some machines never actually require alignment; they allow reference to a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85472
Bug ID: 85472
Summary: Regex match bug
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69560
--- Comment #20 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I consider it part of the ABI that long long
__attribute__((__aligned__(__alignof__(long long, as in the definition
of max_align_t (and similarly in gnulib's max_align_t definition, fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85471
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Otto ---
this is not as easy because this is a non trivial SW… what I mean… to just use
my test-case you have to setup a whole environment… the basic of a SW is a
client/server application using a non trivial protocol…
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85448
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85467
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85467
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Apr 19 19:16:18 2018
New Revision: 259507
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259507&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/85467
* fold-const.c (fold_ternary_lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61982
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And, GCC offers the -fno-lifetime-dse option which will not eliminate the
stores:
-fno-lifetime-dse
In C++ the value of an object is only affected by changes within its lifetime:
when the constructor begins,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61982
--- Comment #16 from Avi Kivity ---
Sorry, of course the stores are not illegal.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61982
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The stores aren't illegal, just can't be observed in a valid program, because
after the destruction the bits have indeterminate values.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61982
--- Comment #14 from Avi Kivity ---
This is a common missed optimization. A container is cleared as part of
destruction, but the stores are not eliminated, even though they are illegal.
If you want to access members of an object, don't destroy i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84611
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] ICE in |[6/7 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84611
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Apr 19 18:09:45 2018
New Revision: 259505
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259505&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2018-04-19 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/84611
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61982
--- Comment #13 from hyrosen at mail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #12)
> The C++ standard. Specifically, [basic.life].
>
> So the first memcmp call reuses the storage to create an array of unsigned
> char with indetermina
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67882
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85470
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/cp/typeck2.c.jj 2018-04-19 15:57:36.765482568 +0200
+++ gcc/cp/typeck2.c2018-04-19 19:32:43.335986274 +0200
@@ -824,7 +824,9 @@ store_init_value (tree decl, tree init,
bool const_init;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50639
--- Comment #4 from Andi Kleen ---
I doubt it's fixed. It's a race so can be unstable.
Especially since judging from the growing cc list other people keep seeing it
It may not be something that gcc can fix, if anything it's more likely in make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77696
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81652
Bug 81652 depends on bug 85334, which changed state.
Bug 85334 Summary: Shadow stack isn't unwound properly through signal handler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85334
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85334
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85334
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Apr 19 17:05:39 2018
New Revision: 259502
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259502&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libgcc/CET: Skip signal frames when unwinding shadow stack
When -f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85464
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85464
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85464
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Apr 19 17:00:37 2018
New Revision: 259501
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259501&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85464 - missing location for -Wignored-qualifiers diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85471
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85470
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85471
Bug ID: 85471
Summary: closing a "thread" in "C++" using "pthread_exit(NULL)"
creates a "SIGABRT"
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85198
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, I see Jakub's point now. And this whole business is a big mess -- probably
too late to change in 8, but we need to clean this up.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85397
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81652
Bug 81652 depends on bug 85397, which changed state.
Bug 85397 Summary: -mcet -fcf-protection doesn't work with label in nested
function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85397
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68450
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85397
--- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Apr 19 16:36:34 2018
New Revision: 259500
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259500&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
i386: Add save_stack_nonlocal and restore_stack_nonlocal
Define ST
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61424
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85470
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85450
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
There are 4 spots, unsigned_type_for breaks for-5.c though.
There are several other spots that do use signed_type_for instead, so following
works for the testsuite:
--- gcc/omp-expand.c.jj 2018-04-16 20:35:14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85470
Bug ID: 85470
Summary: Strange error about "call to non-constexpr function"
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85381
--- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #6)
> Created attachment 43992 [details]
> tentative patch
Tested libgomp on og7 build with quadro m1200, no issues found.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85464
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Apr 19 15:29:03 2018
New Revision: 259499
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259499&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85464 - missing location for -Wignored-qualifiers diagnostic
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69733
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Apr 19 15:29:03 2018
New Revision: 259499
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259499&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85464 - missing location for -Wignored-qualifiers diagnostic
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65775
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Apr 19 15:29:03 2018
New Revision: 259499
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259499&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85464 - missing location for -Wignored-qualifiers diagnostic
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81652
Bug 81652 depends on bug 85417, which changed state.
Bug 85417 Summary: -fcf-protection should provide CET protection on x86
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85417
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85417
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85404
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81652
Bug 81652 depends on bug 85404, which changed state.
Bug 85404 Summary: -fcf-protection -mcet doesn't work with -fleading-underscore
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85404
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81652
Bug 81652 depends on bug 85379, which changed state.
Bug 85379 Summary: Missing ENDBR in __stack_split_initialize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85379
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85379
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85404
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Apr 19 15:24:53 2018
New Revision: 259498
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259498&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
x86/cet: Properly output labels in property note section
Replace A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85379
--- Comment #1 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Apr 19 15:22:27 2018
New Revision: 259497
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259497&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libgcc/CET: Add _CET_ENDBR to __stack_split_initialize
Program rec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85469
Bug ID: 85469
Summary: -mibt is unused
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85417
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Apr 19 15:15:04 2018
New Revision: 259496
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259496&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
x86: Enable -fcf-protection with multi-byte NOPs
-fcf-protection -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #47 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #35)
> > A port does not need maintenance only for that port, and its users, but also
> > for GCC itself. All ports are a cost to _all_ GCC developers. If a por
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
--- Comment #31 from James Kuyper Jr. ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #29)
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, jameskuyper at verizon dot net wrote:
...
> > The relevant wording is "anywhere that a declaration of the completed type
> > of
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85448
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85448
--- Comment #5 from francois.jacq at irsn dot fr ---
On Thursday 19 April 2018 16:30:09 you wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85448
>
> --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl
> ---
>
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 09:07:15AM +, fran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85381
--- Comment #7 from Tom de Vries ---
For this example:
...
#define n 1024
int
main (void)
{
#pragma acc parallel vector_length(128)
{
#pragma acc loop vector
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
;
#pragma acc loop vector
for (i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85198
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Ah, but vulli does have the wrong element type, when you get a little deeper.
V2DI
size
unit-size
align:128 warn_if_not_align:0 symtab:0 alias-set -1 canoni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85448
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 09:07:15AM +, francois.jacq at irsn dot fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85448
>
> --- Comment #3 from francois.jacq at irsn dot fr ---
> Notice that this is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85381
--- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 43992
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43992&action=edit
tentative patch
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #4)
> This looks like a JIT bug, but with this tentative
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85455
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #46 from David Edelsohn ---
I understand the issues with Golang and have been raising the issue internally.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #45 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #42)
> See e.g. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/#toc-RTL-Representation
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85466
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85466
>
> --- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse ---
> Constant folding for nextafter seems like a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #44 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #41)
> SPE mostly is a separate architecture that happens to share many of the
> basic mnemonics with PowerPC. Maintaining the SPE port was a burden to th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53905
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85466
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse ---
Constant folding for nextafter seems like a useful thing to add, whatever we
say about the rest of the testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #43 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
>
> --- Comment #40 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz fu-berlin.de> ---
> Is th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
--- Comment #30 from Martin Sebor ---
Richard, I offered to write a proposal (with Clark) to improve the rules. With
the object model proposals already in the pipeline (N2223) this is a good time
to review them and see if it makes sense to exten
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #42 from Jakub Jelinek ---
See e.g. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/#toc-RTL-Representation
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Machine-Desc.html#Machine-Desc
https://kristerw.blogspot.cz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #41 from David Edelsohn ---
SPE mostly is a separate architecture that happens to share many of the basic
mnemonics with PowerPC. Maintaining the SPE port was a burden to the
Power/PowerPC maintainers. As discussed in the other thread
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50909
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #40 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Is there documentation like this for gcc?
> https://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMBackend.html
Would be very useful for people wanting to help with the old backends.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81307
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Thanks Jakub, I can confirm I don't see any other UBSANs related to gstabs in
the test-suite.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #39 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #37)
> Not sure about IBM, I as a GCC developer and RM have major problem with the
> amount of dead code in the port, because anyone who makes changes to t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85455
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Apr 19 13:53:06 2018
New Revision: 259494
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259494&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-04-19 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/85455
* cfg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #38 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #35)
> Do you IBM guys have a hidden agenda to bury the left-overs of Freescale? ;-)
I thought Jakub works for RedHat?
> The SPE port has already been mo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #37 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Not sure about IBM, I as a GCC developer and RM have major problem with the
amount of dead code in the port, because anyone who makes changes to the
middle-end that need backend changes will waste time adjus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #36 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #33)
> Yes, but the port split was done in May last year, and nothing substantial
> happened since then. Port maintainance is not about promises, but abou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85464
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85468
Bug ID: 85468
Summary: Wrong location for -Wignored-qualifiers diagnostic on
conversion operator
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84737
--- Comment #20 from Pat Haugen ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #18)
> Fixed (hopefully).
Yes, mgrid performance is back. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85455
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking
--- Comment #2 from Richar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85467
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
1 - 100 of 165 matches
Mail list logo
