https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85740
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > These functions are not functional equivalent.
> >
> > In the b.c, it records the max location but it is the last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23094
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||herring at lanl dot gov
--- Comment #20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80617
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85740
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> These functions are not functional equivalent.
>
> In the b.c, it records the max location but it is the last element which
> contains that value. While in c.c,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85745
Bug ID: 85745
Summary: variable with asm register assignment allocated in
wrong reg
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85744
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85744
--- Comment #2 from cerlane ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Try 0x8000ULL
No unfortunately, it still returns 0x0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85744
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Try 0x8000ULL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85744
Bug ID: 85744
Summary: Returning INT_FAST64_MIN become zero
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85743
Bug ID: 85743
Summary: Cannot call template member function inside a variadic
lambda unless specifying `this`
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83140
--- Comment #5 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Fri May 11 01:44:05 2018
New Revision: 260149
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260149&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
correct changelog!
2018-05-10 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@veriz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85742
Bug ID: 85742
Summary: sizeof allocatable arrays returning wrong value
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85740
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(a a) != 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85740
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> These functions are not functional equivalent.
>
> In the b.c, it records the max location but it is the last element which
> contains that value. While in c.c, the first element which contains
> th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85732
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85363
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
P::P () is marked as TREE_NOTHROW because when we're processing X::X ((struct X
*) <<< Unknown tree: void_cst >>>, 20) (which can throw) in
set_flags_from_callee, cfun is null in this case, so we don't mark P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85687
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu May 10 22:49:44 2018
New Revision: 260141
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260141&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-10 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85687
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85521
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu May 10 22:45:38 2018
New Revision: 260139
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260139&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-10 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/85521
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70870
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu May 10 22:43:00 2018
New Revision: 260138
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260138&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-10 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/70870
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85740
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> These functions are not functional equivalent.
To get them equivalent, you either need to use >= or <=.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85740
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
These functions are not functional equivalent.
In the b.c, it records the max location but it is the last element which
contains that value. While in c.c, the first element which contains the value
is recor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741
Bug ID: 85741
Summary: [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wformat-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85598
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The problem is that the warning pass sees x as having the range of [0, 256]
rather than [0, 255]. The incorrect range can also be seen in EVRP. There is
no warning at -O1 because the range determined at that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85740
Bug ID: 85740
Summary: Non-optimal determining maximum in a loop
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70693
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85733
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Sounds like a regression if this is the case, since bpabi.h in GCC 7 does
include march=armv8-a in BE8_LINK_SPEC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82899
--- Comment #15 from Marc Glisse ---
Created attachment 44112
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44112&action=edit
Untested patch
Something like this, but I haven't tested, and other calls to build_this_parm
need auditing to ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85623
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80617
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #10 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80617
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse ---
The testcases from comment #6 and comment #7 are now (gcc-8) properly
optimized. The original has lost one of the 2 calls to free, one remains:
__old_val_4 = MEM[(void * &)a_2(D)];
MEM[(void * &)a_2(D)] = 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85739
Bug ID: 85739
Summary: internal compiler error: in finish_member_declaration,
at cp/semantics.c:3057
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80227
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dawid_jurek at vp dot pl
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80169
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80227
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
*** Bug 68280 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68280
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80227
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82893
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82899
--- Comment #14 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #13)
> I have no idea what was changed in gcc-8 that
> helped the original testcase,
(optimization happens in FRE1)
It could be an optimization that says that either the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85738
Bug ID: 85738
Summary: internal compiler error: verify_gimple failed
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85735
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85735
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu May 10 18:33:22 2018
New Revision: 260120
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260120&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/85735
* options.c (gfc_post_options): Set ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85737
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82899
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse ---
Explicitly marking the constructor with __restrict lets it optimize also the
testcase in comment #12. I have no idea what was changed in gcc-8 that helped
the original testcase, but it wasn't equivalent to mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85732
--- Comment #7 from Tom Straub ---
Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for really tracking that down. Looks like a really deep and subtle bug.
I hope somebody knows where to look to fix it in the glibc code.
Best, Tom
Hi,
I would like to know if you are interested in acquiring Dassault SIMULIA
Users List.
Information fields: Names, Title, Email, Phone, Company Name, Company URL,
Company physical address, SIC Code, Industry, Company Size (Revenue and
Employee).
We also have related technology users li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85732
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This isn't a libstdc++ bug, I get the same with a pure C program:
$ cat loc.c
#include
#include
#include
int main()
{
locale_t loc = newlocale(1 << LC_ALL, "en_US.UTF-8", 0);
const char* ccurr = nl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85662
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu May 10 17:40:28 2018
New Revision: 260119
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260119&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/85662
* c-common.h (fold_offsetof_1): Removed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82899
--- Comment #12 from Antony Polukhin ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #10)
> This seems fixed in 8.1 (at least we don't generate the extra mov anymore),
> can you check?
Actually it still does not work for subobjects. For example
https:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85737
Bug ID: 85737
Summary: gfortran 8.1.0 false positive with -Wdo-subscript
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85717
--- Comment #2 from claudio daffra ---
if swap types, result of compilation changes :
union {
uint64_tinteger ;
double real;
} ;
union {
double real;
uint64_tinteger ;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85717
--- Comment #1 from claudio daffra ---
if swap types, result of compilation changes :
union {
uint64_tinteger ;
double real;
} ;
union {
double real;
uint64_tinteger ;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82899
--- Comment #11 from Antony Polukhin ---
Seems perfect https://godbolt.org/g/GX3GQd
The mov is not generated for any constructor and the following code:
extern struct A a;
struct A {
int m, n;
A(const A &v);
};
A::A(const A &v) : m(v.m), n(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85736
Bug ID: 85736
Summary: Support warn_unused or warn_unused_result on specific
constructors
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85735
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85735
Bug ID: 85735
Summary: f951 crashes on empty input
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85728
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85729
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85562
Paul Eggert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eggert at gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85734
Bug ID: 85734
Summary: --suggest-attribute=malloc misdiagnoses static
functions
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #11)
> I've started to work on a new patch according to review feedbacks. I've
> reached the stage where I can compile without -fPIC with the stack protect
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85715
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.4
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85715
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82899
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse ---
This seems fixed in 8.1 (at least we don't generate the extra mov anymore), can
you check?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
--- Comment #19 from Xi Ruoyao ---
I think the best result would be like FMV, for e.g.
int foo(void) __attribute__((symver("@1.1")))
{
return 0;
}
int foo(void) __attribute__((symver("@@1.2")))
{
return 1;
}
Would produce two symbols "foo.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85729
--- Comment #4 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> Does that fix it?
yes, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85693
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu May 10 14:50:59 2018
New Revision: 260117
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260117&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/85693
* config/i386/sse.md (usadv64qi):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85655
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
I have posted a proposed fix to the mailing list:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-05/msg00468.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54613
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu May 10 14:31:54 2018
New Revision: 260116
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260116&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-10 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/54613
* intrins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83140
--- Comment #4 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: emsr
Date: Thu May 10 13:59:52 2018
New Revision: 260115
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260115&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-10 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85733
Bug ID: 85733
Summary: ARM -mbe8 behaviour doesn't match documentation
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84379
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85606
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85732
--- Comment #5 from Tom Straub ---
Hi Johnathon,
Okay, thanks for confirming. I didn't realize it was such as old bug. You're
right, I just recently switched over to using -static (got tired of the library
mismatches with multiple gcc versions o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85732
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reduced:
#include
#include
using namespace std;
void test(std::locale loc)
{
cout << "--> Setting locale '" << loc.name() << "'\n";
const moneypunct & l_facMoneyIntl = use_facet >(loc);
const mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85180
Matt Weber changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthew.weber@rockwellcolli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85732
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85732
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85729
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Does that fix it?
If not then we'll need a preprocessed reproducer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85729
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 10 12:35:45 2018
New Revision: 260114
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260114&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/85729 add linkage specifications to headers
PR libs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82899
--- Comment #9 from Antony Polukhin ---
There's an identical issue for clang:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37329
During review of that issue Richard Smith noted that the solution could be made
more generic by adding `__restrict` for `th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70693
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70693
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Reduced code seems to be
class a {
public:typedef char b;
};
namespace {
class c {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85732
--- Comment #1 from Tom Straub ---
Sorry, wrong compiler included in post, here is the right one:
$ g++ --version
g++ (Ubuntu 6.4.0-17ubuntu1~16.04) 6.4.0 20180424
Copyright (C) 2017 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85732
Bug ID: 85732
Summary: use_facet>(mylocale) retrieving
wrong locale information
Product: gcc
Version: 6.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85731
Bug ID: 85731
Summary: [8/9 Regression] Inner class method declaration
changes meaning of outer template class template
method
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71181
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
François, I think you fixed this for GCC 7.1, so should we close the bug
report?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85730
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85730
Bug ID: 85730
Summary: complex code for modifying lowest byte in a 4-byte
vector
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85729
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
See also PR 69386 where we had to workaround:
extern "C" {
#inclue
}
which includes which includes . Sigh.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85729
Bug ID: 85729
Summary: including c++ headers within extern "C" linkage
specification
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70864
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68846
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=68846
--- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Thu May 10 10:48:50 2018
New Revision: 260113
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260113&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-10 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/68846
PR fortran/70864
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70864
--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Thu May 10 10:48:50 2018
New Revision: 260113
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260113&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-10 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/68846
PR fortran/70864
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 64914, which changed state.
Bug 64914 Summary: [UBSAN/bootstrap-ubsan] With -g3: libiberty/md5.c:336:7:
runtime error: load of misaligned address for type 'const md5_uint32', which
requires 4 byte alignment
https://gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64914
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64914
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu May 10 10:15:42 2018
New Revision: 260112
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260112&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Improve boostrap-ubsan config (PR bootstrap/64914).
2018-05-10 Martin Li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85656
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 44108
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44108&action=edit
i386-pc-solaris2.11 ipa-icf-38.exe.wpa.073i.icf
It's only one part that fails
FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-icf-38.c scan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85389
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
