https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83631
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka ---
I can't reproduce it anymore as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83631
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82982
--- Comment #12 from Arseny Solokha ---
I cannot reproduce it anymore for both powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu and
powerpc-e500v2-linux-gnuspe-gcc w/ gcc-9.0.0-alpha20180909 snapshot (rr264185).
wprop -c
osda2bvg.c
during GIMPLE pass: pre
osda2bvg.c: In function 'my':
osda2bvg.c:30:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
30 | my (unsigned long int n6, int bt, int yy)
| ^~
0xcb76df crash_signal
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-9.0.0_alpha20180909/work/gcc-9-20180909/gcc/topl
c:29:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
29 | }
| ^
0xcb76df crash_signal
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-9.0.0_alpha20180909/work/gcc-9-20180909/gcc/toplev.c:325
0xa197c0 useless_type_conversion_p(tree_node*, tree_node*)
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-9.0.0_alpha20180909/work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87265
--- Comment #2 from Wen Yang ---
The latest GCC also has the same problem.
make[3]: Entering directory '/home/10156314@zte.intra/build_gcc/gcc'
if [ xinfo = xinfo ]; then \
makeinfo --split-size=500 --split-size=500
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87265
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57076
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yellowriver2010 at hotmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87265
Bug ID: 87265
Summary: makeinfo cannot process path names with @ special
character
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69578
Peter Selinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||selinger at mathstat dot dal.ca
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87264
Ulya changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||skvadrik at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87264
Bug ID: 87264
Summary: missed optimization of std::find_if (predicate
inlining)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/9.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 9.0.0 20180909 (experimental) [trunk revision 264184] (GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87093
--- Comment #4 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Patch available: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-09/msg00484.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82967
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #8)
> *** Bug 78068 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
This one had "time" vs "nice", which the patch has test coverage for, via:
+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78068
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82967
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #21 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-09 2:46 PM, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> In the last patch you replace arg0 || arg1 with arg0 & & arg1, that looks
> wrong. Otherwise the patch looks OK.
It was intentional.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87093
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On September 6, 2018 12:58:33 PM GMT+01:00, "dave.anglin at bell dot net"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
>
>--- Comment #16 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
>On
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86772
Bug 86772 depends on bug 86794, which changed state.
Bug 86794 Summary: mmix port needs updating for CVE-2017-5753
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86794
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86794
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85666
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86794
--- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Author: hp
Date: Sun Sep 9 18:13:18 2018
New Revision: 264184
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264184=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/86794
* config/mmix/mmix.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85666
--- Comment #13 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Author: hp
Date: Sun Sep 9 18:12:14 2018
New Revision: 264183
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264183=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/85666
* config/mmix/mmix.c (mmix_assemble_integer):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85666
--- Comment #12 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Author: hp
Date: Sun Sep 9 18:05:48 2018
New Revision: 264182
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264182=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/85666
* config/mmix/mmix.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87030
--- Comment #5 from Jack Howarth ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #3)
>
> 3. I don't see why GCC should be subject to the vendor's support policy. As
> far as I am concerned, with the right SDK / sysroot available, there's no
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87262
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
4.8.2 belongs in a museum. If you want to perform some static analysis on
trunk, you may find someone to look at the output, but with an old version I
think you are wasting your time...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87262
Bug ID: 87262
Summary: Static Code Analysis Findings
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85395
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This should finally be the proper fix:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/decl.c b/gcc/fortran/decl.c
index 03298833c98..3d19ad479e5 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/decl.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/decl.c
@@ -10570,7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87030
--- Comment #4 from Jack Howarth ---
A couple notes here.
1) As I mentioned in the duplicate PR 87257, Apple achieved the obsoleting of
the i386 support in Xcode 10 through the libSystem.tbd in the 10.14 SDK's
buried /usr/lib/libSystem.tbd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85395
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #6)
> I have verified that the patch in comment 5 shows no failures in the
> testsuite.
Despite that, it's still not fully correct. In fact it rejects the following
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87261
Bug ID: 87261
Summary: Optimize bool expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87260
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Created attachment 44673
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44673=edit
Possible patch
Does this patch fix the problem?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87260
Bug ID: 87260
Summary: [8 Regression] go fails to build a simple program on
arm-linux-gnueabihf
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84201
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56703
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||sparc-sun-solaris2.10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56703
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Try building a supported version of GCC. Nobody is going to fix anything in gcc
4.8.x now.
The errors you;re getting are not the same as the ones on SunOS, I suspect
you've copied a built GCC from one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87259
Bug ID: 87259
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: error: definition in block 3 does
not dominate use in block 2
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56703
--- Comment #6 from Yves Caniou ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #5)
> (In reply to Yves Caniou from comment #4)
> > I have the same issue with gcc-4.8.2 compiling gcc-4.8.2, on a Intel(R)
> > Xeon(R) CPU E5-2630 0 @ 2.30GHz.
>
>
40 matches
Mail list logo
