https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88871
--- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter ---
My suspicion goes toward the fix for PR81849, so maybe also the gcc-7 and gcc-8
branches are affected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88872
--- Comment #1 from m.olbrich at pengutronix dot de ---
I forgot to mention: This only happens with "-std=c++17"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88872
Bug ID: 88872
Summary: ICE with g++ 8.x in cp_build_addr_expr_1, at
cp/typeck.c:5936
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88871
Bug ID: 88871
Summary: [9.0 regression] ICE segmentation fault in f951
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81849
--- Comment #8 from Jürgen Reuter ---
I think this fix or something very near by causes an ICE in our code, I will
provide a bug report soon.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88870
Bug ID: 88870
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault (in
df_worklist_propagate_backward)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88861
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77960
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is an interesting bug. Fortran 2003 exlicitly forbids
a procedure pointer from appearing in a READ statement.
F2003:C932 (R915) A variable that is an input-item shall
not be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
On the #c22 testcase this started with r242549, but guess it has been latent
before.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86308
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Looks like I dropped the ball on this. Let me see if I can still get it done
for GCC 9.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Self-contained testcase which actually fails because of this bug, even e.g.
when compiled with -O0 and gcc 8.2.1. That doesn't mean this bug shouldn't be
P1, because preventing bootstrap on a primary target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635
--- Comment #14 from Tom Tromey ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> Something like __builtin_unreachable() to say "trust me" would be nice, but
> I can't think how to do it.
How about an attribute that can be attached to the memb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88795
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Should be fixed on trunk by r267957.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88795
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Jan 15 23:29:15 2019
New Revision: 267957
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267957&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix ICE on class-template argument deduction (PR c++/88795)
PR c++/887
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77960
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88859
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
__y is passed in %rsi:
(gdb) p &__y
Address requested for identifier "__y" which is in register $rsi
(gdb) p __y
$24 = {static npos = , _M_len = 10,
_M_str = 0x402008 L"costa rica"}
(gdb) p/x $rsi
$25 = 0x40200
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Short testcase -O2 -mtune=cortex-a9 -mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=vfpv3-d16
-mtls-dialect=gnu -marm -march=armv7-a+fp:
struct S { int a, b, c; int *d; };
void bar (int, int, int, int);
void
foo (struct S *x, stru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88869
Bug ID: 88869
Summary: ICE (Segmentation Fault) when using lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88859
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
Breakpoint 1, std::char_traits::compare (__n=,
__s2=, __s1=)
at
/export/build/gnu/tools-build/gcc-x32-debug-8/build-x86_64-linux/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/x32/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/char_traits.h:420
420
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #20 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks for investigating this.
At an initial glance, I guess this is something gen_operands_ldrd_strd in
config/arm/arm.c should handle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88782
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] Crash when |[8/9 Regression] Crash when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43136
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19276
Bug 19276 depends on bug 43136, which changed state.
Bug 43136 Summary: Excess copy-in/copy-out with character argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43136
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43136
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Jan 15 22:20:26 2019
New Revision: 267954
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267954&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-15 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/43136
* resolve.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43072
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Jan 15 22:18:55 2019
New Revision: 267953
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267953&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-15 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/43072
* resolve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88815
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, I've hacked up assembly version which contained 2 versions of this function
(good and bad) plus a wrapper function:
void *
vn_reference_lookup_2b (ao_ref *op, tree vuse, unsigned int cnt, void *vr_);
voi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88859
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
[hjl@gnu-skx-1 pr88859]$ cat x.cc
#include
#define VERIFY(fn) if (!(fn)) __builtin_abort();
int
main()
{
std::experimental::wstring_view str_0(L"costa rica");
std::experimental::wstring_view st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81849
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81849
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue Jan 15 20:53:13 2019
New Revision: 267952
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267952&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-15 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/81849
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88861
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Assertion fails in dom_info::calc_dfs_tree:
457 /* This aborts e.g. when there is _no_ path from ENTRY to EXIT at
all. */
458 gcc_assert (m_nodes == (unsigned int) m_n_basic_blocks - 1);
(gdb)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81849
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue Jan 15 20:45:43 2019
New Revision: 267951
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267951&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-15 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/81849
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88859
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It's not obvious to me what machine code is wrong here. Maybe it is obvious
to someone who is better at Arm code than I am?
Does it all work if you use -fno-if-conversion2 though? Or, what other
late
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88726
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.3 |7.5
Summary|[7/8 Regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88720
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.3 |7.5
Summary|[7/8 Regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88726
--- Comment #3 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Tue Jan 15 20:32:00 2019
New Revision: 267949
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267949&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix diagnostics for never-defined inline and nested functions (PR c/8872
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88720
--- Comment #3 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Tue Jan 15 20:32:00 2019
New Revision: 267949
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267949&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix diagnostics for never-defined inline and nested functions (PR c/8872
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88868
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81849
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue Jan 15 20:17:35 2019
New Revision: 267948
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267948&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-15 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/81849
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88863
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88055
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
*** Bug 88863 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81849
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88810
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 07:21:16PM +, paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com
wrote:
>
> Hi Steve and Thomas,
>
> I plead guilty to creating confusing code... It developed step
> by step and I didn't go back
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88613
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88810
--- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Steve and Thomas,
I plead guilty to creating confusing code... It developed step by step
and I didn't go back and consolidate it.
If you can simplify it and still obtain the same r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88861
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88867
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to John Levon from comment #2)
> There is no Address Sanitizer in our kernel, bootloaders etc.
There is support for asan in the Linux kernel and maybe others. Again security
is about auditing and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88867
--- Comment #2 from John Levon ---
There is no Address Sanitizer in our kernel, bootloaders etc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88795
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg00865.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88312
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88868
Bug ID: 88868
Summary: [SSE] pshufb can be omitted for a specific pattern
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88866
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88866
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Jan 15 18:35:01 2019
New Revision: 267944
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267944&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/88866
* g++.dg/cpp0x/variadic126.C: Tweak dg-err
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85949
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
There are two kinds of warnings for printf-type functions: -Wformat implemented
in the front-ends, and -Wformat-overflow/truncation implemented in the
middle-end. The former detects mostly just type-based err
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88803
--- Comment #5 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Tue Jan 15 18:26:07 2019
New Revision: 267943
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267943&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-15 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/88803
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88867
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88867
Bug ID: 88867
Summary: -Waggressive-loop-optimizations doesn't warn when
-faggressive-loop-optimizations is in play
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88866
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid |
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85949
--- Comment #6 from Jonny Grant ---
Created attachment 45435
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45435&action=edit
Could these be detected as errors?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85949
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Unfortunately, not easily. By the time attribute arguments are being validated
their location information has been stripped. Keeping it around is possible
but will likely involve some intrusive changes that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43210
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #4 from Domin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88866
Bug ID: 88866
Summary: g++.dg/cpp0x/variadic126.C fails with -std=c++2a
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88866
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88865
Bug ID: 88865
Summary: [[no_unique_address]] leads to sizeof(T) == 0, which
cannot be
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52813
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Tue Jan 15 16:46:54 2019
New Revision: 267941
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267941&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR inline-asm/52813 revisited
The original patch for th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87836
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88864
Bug ID: 88864
Summary: default template arguments not merged across all
declarations
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37835
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86736
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe ---
so, no... it doesn't have a name.
(lldb) p ((tree)0x1446212f8)->decl_minimal.name
(tree) $5 = 0x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70303
--- Comment #5 from Casey Carter ---
IIRC my reasoning was that [random.access.iterators] specifies the operational
semantics of `a < b` to be `b - a > 0`, which suggests but doesn't quite
require that `a < b` is valid whenever `b - a` is valid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70303
Casey Carter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Casey at Carter dot net
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Some more progress.
I've used
--- gcc/combine.c.jj2019-01-10 11:43:17.050333949 +0100
+++ gcc/combine.c 2019-01-15 14:47:28.009094300 +0100
@@ -2319,6 +2319,9 @@ contains_muldiv (rtx x)
}
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86736
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
dunno if this is helpful...
frame #4: 0x0001007b4288 lto1`::add_pubtype(decl=0x000144625f18,
die=0x000144627f50) at dwarf2out.c:11333
11330 scope = TYPE_P (decl) ? TYPE_CONTEXT (de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86549
Bug 86549 depends on bug 88046, which changed state.
Bug 88046 Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in add_data_member_location_attribute at
gcc/dwarf2out.c:19237 since r261885
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88046
What|Remove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88046
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88046
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 15 16:06:42 2019
New Revision: 267940
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267940&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-15 Richard Biener
PR debug/88046
* dwarf2ou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88861
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
That means we have unreachable blocks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88862
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86736
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #5)
> > > = pr78651 is:
> > >
> > > $ /XC/9.4/usr/bin/lldb --
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88863
Bug ID: 88863
Summary: ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2305
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88862
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88862
Bug ID: 88862
Summary: ICE in extract_affine, at graphite-sese-to-poly.c:313
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88861
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.2.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88861
Bug ID: 88861
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in calc_dfs_tree, at
dominance.c:458
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88859
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Is r267938 a bisection result?
No.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86736
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> > > Hmm, I can no longer reproduce -g0 vs -g on x86_64-linux. Ians
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88859
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #1 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88857
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
With the modified testcase the ICE started with r173679:
$ ./cc1plus.173678 -quiet ~/k.C -std=c++0x
k.C: In function ‘void g()’:
k.C:11:7: error: invalid initialization of reference of type ‘const Foo&’ from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88855
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 15 15:37:29 2019
New Revision: 267939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267939&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-15 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/88855
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88855
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88810
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 12:39:13PM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88810
>
> Thomas Koenig changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86736
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #5)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> > Hmm, I can no longer reproduce -g0 vs -g on x86_64-linux. Ians testresults
> > now
> > list
> >
> > FAIL: g++.dg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85949
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86736
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
62017 would seem to suggest that we've generated bad code for the stage#3
tree_fits_shwi_p function (which would be a separate issue) but maybe the tree
shouldn't be null anyway.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85949
Jonny Grant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88860
Bug ID: 88860
Summary: Clarify gcc online manual 6.38 Attribute Syntax
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86736
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Hmm, I can no longer reproduce -g0 vs -g on x86_64-linux. Ians testresults
> now
> list
>
> FAIL: g++.dg/asan/pr62017.C -O2 -flto (internal compiler error)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88791
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
Okey, I really believe there's some ABI incompatibility between libsanitizer
and glibc. Maybe here:
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux_libcdep.cc#L266
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
