https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93658
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93658
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93658
--- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner ---
I cannot recreate this with trunk or GCC 9 from today. DO you have extra
patches applied or ???
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93658
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Klose ---
the file from icu 65.1 is built using
g++ -v -Wdate-time -g -O3 -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat
-Werror=format-security -W -Wall -pedantic -Wpointer-arith -Wwrite-strings
-Wno-long-long -std=c++11 -c -o g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93658
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93658
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93658
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93658
--- Comment #6 from Peter Bergner ---
So we are in an infinite loop in process_address() calling process_address_1().
I've hacked in some code to ICE if we loop for too long and I'm currently
using creduce to minimize the test case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93658
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner ---
Here's the minimal test case using options -O3 -mcpu=power8
-fstack-protector-strong:
void bar();
char b;
void
foo (void)
{
char a;
int d = b;
char *e = &a;
while (d)
*e++ = --d;
bar ();
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93658
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93658
--- Comment #9 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> On the #c7 testcase, this started with
> r8-6072-ga3a821c903c9fa2288712d31da2038d0297babcb (so I wonder why this
> isn't a 8/9/10 Regression).
I'm not sure Kelvi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93658
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93658
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
13 matches
Mail list logo