https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90415
Lei YU changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mine260309 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91395
Bug ID: 91395
Summary: Report an uninitialized variable on its initialization
statement (setjmp)
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81429
--- Comment #10 from Roland B ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #9)
> Fixed on trunk, will backport to 9.3 later.
Thanks! Much appreciated :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91394
tomas_paukrt at conel dot cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16804
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49702
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37041
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||meta-bug
Summary|-Wc++-compat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68301
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40073
--- Comment #18 from Kewen Lin ---
Created attachment 46687
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46687&action=edit
Powerpc case on vector rotation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87519
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87519
Keith Thompson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Keith.S.Thompson at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78209
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
This seems to fix it:
--- a/gcc/cp/pt.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/pt.c
@@ -27598,6 +27598,8 @@ do_auto_deduction (tree type, tree init, tree
auto_node,
else if (AUTO_IS_DECLTYPE (auto_node))
{
tree strippe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
--- Comment #34 from Xiong Hu XS Luo ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #32)
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2019, luoxhu at cn dot ibm.com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91287
> >
> > --- Comment #31 from Xiong Hu XS Lu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86535
--- Comment #22 from Curtis Hamilton ---
I've made progress in getting the go frontend to build, but have run into the
following error:
In file included from
/usr/ports/lang/gcc7/work/gcc-7.4.0/libgo/runtime/runtime.h:113:0,
fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91359
--- Comment #14 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Aug 7 22:33:27 2019
New Revision: 274201
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274201&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-08-07 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/91359
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88076
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91360
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86974
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86974
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
I think this is now "superseded" by PR91360, C++20 constinit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85125
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67533
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90117
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67533
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Aug 7 21:21:57 2019
New Revision: 274200
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274200&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67533
* g++.dg/tls/thread_local-ice5.C: New test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91385
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91178
--- Comment #15 from Vsevolod Livinskiy ---
I don't know if it is the same error or not, but the reproducer looks similar.
It takes about 11 minutes before GCC fails.
Reproducer:
extern int a[][1240092];
int b;
void c() {
for (int d = 2; d <=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91394
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91391
--- Comment #5 from Stephan Bergmann ---
(In reply to Stephan Bergmann from comment #0)
[...]
> template-parameter-list, and I wonder whether it should warn about a
> (hypothetical) comma expression in a call to an overloaded operator [] at
> all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84685
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91385
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Aug 7 18:34:11 2019
New Revision: 274183
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274183&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/91385
* config/i386/sse.md (*negsi2_1_ze
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91391
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/cp/parser.c.jj 2019-08-07 09:24:36.099089282 +0200
+++ gcc/cp/parser.c 2019-08-07 20:26:47.669663334 +0200
@@ -2102,7 +2102,7 @@ static cp_expr cp_parser_assignment_expr
static enum tree_code cp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90117
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81429
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
Fixed on trunk, will backport to 9.3 later.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81429
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Aug 7 17:32:12 2019
New Revision: 274181
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274181&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/81429 - wrong parsing of constructor with C++11 attribut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67224
--- Comment #30 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/plain/doc/Copyright/request-assign.future
is the form to complete and send to ass...@gnu.org (to do an assignment
covering past and future chan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81419
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> > Confirmed. There are few other similar bugs for these fix-it hints (e.g.,
> > pr80567 or pr80684). I haven't look
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82967
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.2 |8.5
--- Comment #14 from Eric Gallager
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91391
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88451
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I don't think anyone has really been maintaining the fixed-point support
for a very long time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91394
Bug ID: 91394
Summary: C++ ABI incompatibility (stdexcept)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91393
Bug ID: 91393
Summary: lto1: internal compiler error: decompressed stream:
Destination buffer is too small
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91388
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 Regression] -MF |[9 Regression] -MF clashes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
--- Comment #40 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Wed Aug 7 16:15:35 2019
New Revision: 274176
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274176&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR driver/91130 Use CL_DRIVER when handling of COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91330
--- Comment #1 from Tom Tromey ---
This is pretty easy to fix in gcc/jit/docs/conf.py:
diff --git a/gcc/jit/docs/conf.py b/gcc/jit/docs/conf.py
index 3e630db47ef..1224bdcc07d 100644
--- a/gcc/jit/docs/conf.py
+++ b/gcc/jit/docs/conf.py
@@ -244,7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90121
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.2 |---
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.2 |---
--- Comment #24 from Eric Gallager
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91386
--- Comment #17 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Created attachment 46686
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46686&action=edit
candidate patch
Could you try this patch please? So far only very lightly tested.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91392
Bug ID: 91392
Summary: g++: internal compiler error: Aborted (program
cc1plus)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91386
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rearnsha at gcc dot
gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91285
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Note that all the standard C pragmas are even more restricted than GCC's
statement-like pragmas - the standard pragmas (which aren't implemented in
GCC) are defined by the C standard to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91391
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
...except when it's:
void
fn (int *a, int b, int c)
{
a[b < c, b > c]; // should warn
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91334
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
[hjl@gnu-mic-1 build_base_lto.]$
/export/gnu/import/git/gcc-test-spec-lto/usr/bin/g++ -S -DSPEC_CPU -DNDEBUG
-DAPP_NO_THREADS -DXALAN_INMEM_MSG_LOADER -I. -Ixercesc -Ixercesc/dom
-Ixercesc/dom/impl -Ixercesc/s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91380
--- Comment #3 from Barry Revzin ---
In case it's at all helpful, here's the clang review that Tim found for this
diagnostic: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51333
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91388
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91379
--- Comment #2 from Clinton Bunch ---
As I stated, I've tried to compile 4.9.4, 5.3.0, 5.5.0, 6.1.0, 6.5.0 and 8.3.0
I get the same error on all of them. I reported on 9.1.0 as it is the current
version. I can't get a gcc more recent than 4.9.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91391
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91391
Bug ID: 91391
Summary: Bogus -Wcomma-subscript
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91386
--- Comment #15 from Richard Earnshaw ---
From looking at the dumps it would appear that one of the STP generating
peepholes might have bailed out, but that some of the changes have not been
undone.
From the pass before, we have:
(insn/f:TI 802
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91227
--- Comment #17 from Martin Sebor ---
Just to be clear: my suggestion to fold the relational expressions is only for
incoming pointers with addresses of local variables that GCC already assumes
cannot be synthesized (I assume it does that on the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91346
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91346
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Aug 7 14:20:40 2019
New Revision: 274169
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274169&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/91346 - Implement P1668R1, allow unevaluated asm in cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79618
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
It doesn't. -Wformat-diag runs after adjacent string literals have been
concatenated. Detecting these kinds of issues would mean enhancing the
preprocessor.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91389
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Don't do it then? The no fallthru early discovery isn't perfect and with the
sanitizer instrumentation it gets even harder.
Looks like a dup of PR86899 to me anyway.
If I do a small modification like:
class
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91332
--- Comment #2 from Madarpok . ---
I can confirm that raising the stack limit with ulimit -s unlimited does not
prevent this crash.
Something inside gfortran is breaking/overflowing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91390
Bug ID: 91390
Summary: treatment of extra parameter in a subroutine call
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91389
Bug ID: 91389
Summary: [7/8/9/10 Regression] error: control reaches end of
non-void function with -fsanitize=thread since r219201
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Aug 7 13:45:06 2019
New Revision: 274163
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274163&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-08-07 Bernd Edlinger
PR tree-optimization/91109
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
--- Comment #39 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #34)
> So like the following then.
>
> Index: gcc/lto-wrapper.c
> ===
> --- gcc/lto-wrapper.c (revis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91386
--- Comment #14 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #13)
> >
> > The key question is how does one dump rtl with -flto? It doesn't work at
> > all, making debugging this difficult...
>
> It does, look:
>
> marxin@marxinbox:/tm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91386
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
>
> The key question is how does one dump rtl with -flto? It doesn't work at
> all, making debugging this difficult...
It does, look:
marxin@marxinbox:/tmp> gcc -c main.c -flto
marxin@marxinbox:/tmp> gcc m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91386
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12 from Wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91375
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc-bugzilla at tobias dot
goedder
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91387
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91387
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91388
Bug ID: 91388
Summary: -Wreturn-type "no return statement" warning in
function that is already ill-formed
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91379
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91387
Bug ID: 91387
Summary: Segfault using -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90796
--- Comment #11 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #10)
> >It's the only affine functions that don't progress with each iteration.
> > I
> >think, at least :)
>
> Hm. At least we analyze wrapping ones, but I guess
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91386
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
And I can also verify that adding -fno-peephole -fno-peephole2 to CFLAGS helps
to resolve the issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91386
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
I'm attaching all tree and rtl dumps for the problematic LTRANS unit:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CW4cWvpm1VVXFIP80XCf1IzYXWwTsynZ/view?usp=sharing
I can confirm what Andreas sees:
(note 8303 8031 7890
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
--- Comment #38 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #37)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #36)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #35)
> > > Yeah, plus removing " according to LANG_MASK" from
> > > get_o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
--- Comment #37 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #36)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #35)
> > Yeah, plus removing " according to LANG_MASK" from
> > get_options_from_collect_gcc_options function comment. B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
--- Comment #36 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #35)
> Yeah, plus removing " according to LANG_MASK" from
> get_options_from_collect_gcc_options function comment. But Martin claims it
> doesn't work.
Yes, I needed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
--- Comment #35 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah, plus removing " according to LANG_MASK" from
get_options_from_collect_gcc_options function comment. But Martin claims it
doesn't work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91386
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91382
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
--- Comment #34 from Richard Biener ---
So like the following then.
Index: gcc/lto-wrapper.c
===
--- gcc/lto-wrapper.c (revision 274111)
+++ gcc/lto-wrapper.c (working copy)
@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86675
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
cat >86675.cc /dev/null | grep return
The first GDB session breaks at:
3 return 31415;
The second at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91386
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
So if one can reproduce a way for a smaller testcase (likely only for trunk
then) is to -fdump-tree-optimized-gimple and make a GIMPLE FE testcase from
main()
(adding relevant typedefs from the preprocessed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91386
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
I'm reducing the LTO files that are needed to expose the problem..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91386
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
So I can't reproduce with a cross easily (w/o a libc I can only
do a partial link). Nevertheless I see some
58: 910e63e6add x6, sp, #0x398
...
90: a90008c2stp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |driver
--- Comment #33 from Richard E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86675
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91386
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #4)
> R8 is the register used for the address of the return value location when
> the result cannot be stored in registers. Are you sure that this isn't a
> prob
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91386
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
R8 is the register used for the address of the return value location when the
result cannot be stored in registers. Are you sure that this isn't a problem
in the caller?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91386
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
Created attachment 46683
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46683&action=edit
Preprocessed sources with Makefile, part 3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91386
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab ---
Created attachment 46682
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46682&action=edit
Preprocessed sources with Makefile, part 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91386
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
Created attachment 46681
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46681&action=edit
Preprocessed sources with Makefile, part 1
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
