trunk -v
gcc version 9.0.1 20190408 (experimental) [trunk revision 270202] (GCC)
#correct output#
$ gcc-trunk -g abc.c
$ gdb -x cmds -batch a.out
Breakpoint 1 at 0x4004a5: file abc.c, line 15.
Breakpoint 1, main () at abc.c:15
15optimize_me_not();
$1 = 0
#wrong output#
$ gcc-trun
On 2019年04月08日 22:21, Jeff Law wrote:
On 4/8/19 12:34 AM, mingli...@windriver.com wrote:
From: Mingli Yu
Initialize struct stat to fix the below
build failure when -Og included in compiler flag.
|
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 6:47 PM Yu, Mingli wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2019年04月08日 22:21, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 4/8/19 12:34 AM, mingli...@windriver.com wrote:
> >> From: Mingli Yu
> >>
> >> Initialize struct stat to fix the below
> >> build failure when -Og included in compiler flag.
> >> |
> >>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
Bug ID: 90018
Summary: [8 Regression] r265453 miscompiled 527.cam4_r in SPEC
CPU 2017
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Different Go packages can have the same package name, but the sorting
done when generating export data was only sorting by package name.
This could cause nondeterministic output. This patch fixes the
problem by extending the sort comparison function. Bootstrapped and
ran Go testsuite on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=448
--- Comment #44 from coypu ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #31)
> GCC: some NetBSD targets (netbsd-stdint.h only used for x86 / x86_64),
Speaking for NetBSD only:
as of https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision=253323 ,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89991
--- Comment #22 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 10:17:00PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> (In reply to kargl from comment #19)
> > I get the expected. So, if you're on a system that has
> > _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_COMPLEX, you
This fixes both callers in tsubst_requires_expr to
tsubst_constraint_variables to wrap their respective
trees in PARM_CONSTR_PARMS. This is to get the correct
parmeter constraints from the tree before calling
tsubst_constraint_variables like other callers
in constraint.cc and to fix the bug id,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #14 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 46104
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46104=edit
testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #15 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #11)
> There is also something odd with the way the loop iterates, this doesn't
> look right:
>
> whilelo p0.s, x3, x4
> incwx3
> ptest
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 1:10 PM Jim Wilson wrote:
> The testcase has to be fixed, but there is a locale issue that has me
> confused at the moment, because this testcase is actually working on one
> of my machines and failing on another one.
Confusion sorted. Turns out one of the trees I was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90019
Bug ID: 90019
Summary: [8 regression] Bogus ambiguous overload error for NTTP
pack of disjoint enable_ifs unless there is an
unsupplied default argument
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020
--- Comment #1 from eggert at cs dot ucla.edu ---
Created attachment 46107
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46107=edit
gcc -O2 -Os compiled output for x86-64
The attached x.s file shows the incorrect generated code, compiled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864
--- Comment #40 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Are there any news on this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90018
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
On trunk, r265457 fixed 527.cam4_r in SPEC CPU 2017 with:
-march=native -Ofast -funroll-loops
201 - 216 of 216 matches
Mail list logo
