https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63623
Bug ID: 63623
Summary: Lots of functions get -fvar-tracking silently turned
off unnecessarily
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63603
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58726
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.7.4 |4.8.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55969
--- Comment #7 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Oct 23 03:34:02 2014
New Revision: 216573
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216573&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Commit old ChangeLog entry forgotten in commit of actual change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63497
--- Comment #5 from Tim Shen ---
Author: timshen
Date: Thu Oct 23 03:15:52 2014
New Revision: 216572
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216572&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/63497
include/bits/regex_executor.h (_Executor::_M_word_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63615
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra ---
Breakpoint 1, simplify_plus_minus (code=code@entry=PLUS,
mode=mode@entry=SImode, op0=op0@entry=0x76d4b558,
op1=op1@entry=0x76d483a8) at /src/gcc-virgin/gcc/simplify-rtx.c:3967
(gdb) p debug_rtx(op0)
(plu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63615
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #77 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 33788
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33788&action=edit
another reduced test case of compiler/vam
This is an another test case got from compiler/vam test.
The gener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #76 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 33787
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33787&action=edit
a reduced test case of SCiBE compiler/vam test
compiler/vam is a test which is an example of code size regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
--- Comment #19 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Evandro from comment #16)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #15)
> > Using -Ofast is not any different from -O3 -ffast-math when compiling
> > non-Fortran code. As comment 10 shows, both loops are vecto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
Evandro changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33774|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
--- Comment #17 from Evandro ---
Created attachment 33785
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33785&action=edit
Simple matrix multiplication
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
--- Comment #16 from Evandro ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #15)
> Using -Ofast is not any different from -O3 -ffast-math when compiling
> non-Fortran code. As comment 10 shows, both loops are vectorized, however
> LLVM unrolls twice and use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61915
--- Comment #10 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-05/msg00160.html
Note currently it is not possible to use FP registers for spilling using the
hooks - basically you still end up with in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63620
--- Comment #2 from Stupachenko Evgeny ---
Created attachment 33784
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33784&action=edit
patch making the test and darwin bootstrap pass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63603
--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Oct 22 21:42:48 2014
New Revision: 216568
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216568&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-22 Richard Biener
Tobias Burnus
PR lto/6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5694
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63618
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Ignore my last comment. I found the official submission in my queue. Somehow
I missed it when I first went looking.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63619
--- Comment #3 from Teodor Petrov ---
We already use -Werror=delete-incomplete, so it will be easier for us, because
it will just work.
But if you ask me (as a user) it is best to just change the standard to force
these two as errors. I know thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63618
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63573
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61915
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wdijkstr at arm dot com
--- Comment #9 from Wilc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45729
Andre Goddard Rosa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andre.rosa at lge dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63603
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Oct 22 20:51:00 2014
New Revision: 216566
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216566&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-22 Richard Biener
Tobias Burnus
PR lto/6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
--- Comment #36 from Stupachenko Evgeny ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #35)
> (In reply to Stupachenko Evgeny from comment #33)
> > Created attachment 33769 [details]
> > patch includes 3 patches fixing darwin bootstrap
>
> > Do you h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #35 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63622
Bug ID: 63622
Summary: [5.0 Regression] Bootstrap fails on
x86_64-apple-darwin1[34] after revision r216305
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63621
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28901
petschy at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||petschy at gmail dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63621
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i686-pc-cygwin |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
unicode
--disable-bootstrap --enable-shared --disable-sjlj-exceptions --enable-gomp
--enable-cloog-backend=isl LTLDFLAGS=-no-undefined
lt_cv_deplibs_check_method=pass_all
Thread model: win32
gcc version 5.0.0 20141022 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-L/tmp/winsup/i686-pc-cygwin/w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
--- Comment #15 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Evandro Menezes from comment #14)
> Compiling the test-case above with just -O2, I can reproduce the code I
> mentioned initially and easily measure the cycle count to run it on target
> using perf.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63619
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The simplest fix would be:
--- a/gcc/cp/decl2.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/decl2.c
@@ -478,7 +478,7 @@ delete_sanity (tree exp, tree size, bool doing_vec, int
use_global_delete,
/* Deleting ptr to void is undefined b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63619
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61502
--- Comment #13 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014, Keith.S.Thompson at gmail dot com wrote:
> Do you believe that the authors of the standard meant it the way you do?
The "authors of the standard" are an amorphous grou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61502
--- Comment #12 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> I can't reproduce your findings with any of the specified GCC version nor
> with any other I tried (I tried on x86_64-linux and x86_64-linux with -m32).
> Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
--- Comment #14 from Evandro Menezes ---
Compiling the test-case above with just -O2, I can reproduce the code I
mentioned initially and easily measure the cycle count to run it on target
using perf.
The binary created by GCC runs in about 44700
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63620
--- Comment #1 from Stupachenko Evgeny ---
The issue reproduced only if patch from PR63618 is applied.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63574
--- Comment #3 from Jiong Wang ---
finally, reproduced on latest gcc revision 216547 on chrome book native build
git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@216547
./cc1plus -O2 natUnsafe.ii
Performing interprocedural optimizations
<*free
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63620
Bug ID: 63620
Summary: RELOAD lost SET_GOT dependency on Darwin
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63619
Bug ID: 63619
Summary: warning: deleting ‘void*’ is undefined has no -W flag
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63618
--- Comment #2 from Stupachenko Evgeny ---
Created attachment 33781
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33781&action=edit
leave SET_GOT while pic_offset_table_rtx is pseudo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63530
--- Comment #4 from carrot at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: carrot
Date: Wed Oct 22 15:56:59 2014
New Revision: 216562
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216562&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/63530
tree-vect-data-refs.c (vect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63613
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to dmalcolm from comment #7)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> > Let's keep this open for a fix includes solution.
>
> Does anything in gcc's bootstrap or testsuite actually use dejag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63613
--- Comment #8 from dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to dmalcolm from comment #7)
[...]
> (B) GCC release notes, for some kind of 5.0 porting guide (i.e.
> "what does an end-user need to know about the gnu11 change?")
...and I se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63613
--- Comment #7 from dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Let's keep this open for a fix includes solution.
Does anything in gcc's bootstrap or testsuite actually use dejagnu.h? (other
than my jit.exp on th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63609
--- Comment #2 from dccmmccd1 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Please don't set severity=blocker just because you think it's quite
> important to you. We're not going to block a GCC release for this issue,
> esp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63613
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63618
--- Comment #1 from Stupachenko Evgeny ---
Created attachment 33780
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33780&action=edit
Reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63618
Bug ID: 63618
Summary: CSE at IRA pass delete SET_GOT which is used later
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63614
--- Comment #3 from dyle at dyle dot org ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to dyle from comment #0)
> > Is this a gcc bug? Is it possible that std::this_thread::get_id() SIGSEVs?
>
> Yes it's possible if you don't use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63614
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to dyle from comment #0)
> Is this a gcc bug? Is it possible that std::this_thread::get_id() SIGSEVs?
Yes it's possible if you don't use -pthread to link to libpthread.
> (Yes, there's a race co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63600
--- Comment #4 from Kirill Yukhin ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> I would have expected VI instead of IV in the iterator name, but I never
> understood the rules for i?86 iterator names.
> And, you want the testcase in the tests
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63617
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63600
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I would have expected VI instead of IV in the iterator name, but I never
understood the rules for i?86 iterator names.
And, you want the testcase in the testsuite too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63615
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #12 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to steveren from comment #11)
> So assuming it's not actually beyond somebody completely unfamiliar with the
> innards of gcc, what would be the response to a patch which changed #pragma
> me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63609
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #11 from steveren ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #10)
> (In reply to steveren from comment #6)
> > Seems the consensus is that it's not contrary to Standard, but it's agreed
> > to be confusing and undesirable by ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63613
--- Comment #5 from dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
FWIW I've reported this on the DejaGnu mailing list here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/dejagnu/2014-10/msg00011.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63617
Bug ID: 63617
Summary: Crash in libstdc++ on AIX.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63614
dyle at dyle dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|minor
--- Comment #1 from dyle at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63600
--- Comment #2 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Created attachment 33779
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33779&action=edit
Patch is under testing now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63616
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 33778
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33778&action=edit
_.178r.cprop1 and _.179r.pre RTL dumps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63616
Bug ID: 63616
Summary: PRE failure
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to steveren from comment #6)
> Seems the consensus is that it's not contrary to Standard, but it's agreed
> to be confusing and undesirable by everyone except the gcc maintainers :-)
Not sur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63615
Bug ID: 63615
Summary: [i686][5 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/i386/addr-sel-1.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
--- Comment #13 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #10)
> > The loops shown are not the correct inner loops for those options - with
> > -ffast-math they are vectorized. LLVM unrolls 2x b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63614
Bug ID: 63614
Summary: With gcc-4.8.3 and -stdgnu++0x call to
std::this_thread::get_id() creates SIGSEV
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63223
--- Comment #12 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed Oct 22 10:46:11 2014
New Revision: 216551
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216551&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/63223
* config/avr/lib1funcs.S (__do_global_dtors): Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63574
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57248
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 57248, which changed state.
Bug 57248 Summary: string parameter to constexpr functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57248
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213
--- Comment #22 from Matheus Izvekov ---
Apologies, it was a problem on my end!
The fault was just clang and gcc having different default binary names on msys,
'a.out' vs 'a.exe', and me using a stale exe when testing gcc...
Sorry!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63612
--- Comment #6 from steveren ---
(In reply to Dietmar Schindler from comment #5)
> In news:comp.std.c there is a thread "#pragma are considered statements" -
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.std.c/A1rhyQ5zB7g/discussion -
Thanks D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213
--- Comment #21 from Paolo Carlini ---
As a matter of fact, I can't reproduce the issue with 4.9.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213
--- Comment #20 from Paolo Carlini ---
This is already fixed in mainline, though. I'm adding the testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63424
--- Comment #2 from Renlin Li ---
VEC_COND_EXPR with V2DI mode is generated as aarch64 target supports it
(vcond). The VEC_COND_EXPR expression will further folded into
MIN_EXPR/MAX_EXPR expression in the dom pass.
However, aarch64 min/max expan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63223
--- Comment #11 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke from comment #10)
> Created attachment 33768 [details]
> patch for dtor direction
>
> I have this patch for fixing the direction of the dtor execution,
> but I got stu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63603
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63603
>
> --- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63603
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #4)
> That means that
> /* We pass any -flto flags on to the linker, which is expected
>to understand them. In practice, this means it had better be collect2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61502
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #4)
> That's an interesting argument. You may well be right that the original
> code, strictly speaking, does not prove that GCC has a bug, but I do think
> GCC has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Maybe we should also warn about
if (...)
#pragma STDC ...
foo ();
both if we are treating the #pragma as stmt and if not. That is, if the
#pragma appears in a place where that would make a differenc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63613
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63613
--- Comment #3 from dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Aha. Thanks.
Indeed, "git bisect" just confirmed that r216247 is the first commit in which
my testcase stops working:
commit b2601928b5bf34a817b5a9a2a371c476018e634d
Author: mpolacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
--- Comment #28 from Yury Gribov ---
(In reply to Paul H. Hargrove from comment #26)
> (In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #25)
> > Can we close this?
>
> Just tried to build the released 4.8.3 and still see the original problem
> (see error m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63613
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That means dejagnu.h assumes the GNU inline semantics, but doesn't use
__gnu_inline__ attribute. So, either compile with -fgnu89-inline, or get
dejagnu.h fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63613
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
C11 inline semantics vs gnu89 ones. Not a gcc bug. A fix includes is needed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63613
Bug ID: 63613
Summary: Regression: Unable to link .c file using
API (inline functions not appearing)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63594
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for AVX2, for AVX512{F,BW,VL} I'm keeping this open, as something needs
to be done about those patterns, Kyrill, can you please take care of that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63542
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
92 matches
Mail list logo