On 12/1/18 1:15 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/26/18 7:02 AM, Torbjorn SVENSSON wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Attached is a small patch that, in case of inline assembler code,
>> indicates that the function stack usage is uncertain due to inline
>> assembler.
>>
>> The test suite are using "nop" as an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88396
--- Comment #5 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Filed the bug on binutils side as well:
https://sourceware.org/PR23958
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88396
--- Comment #4 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Created attachment 45175
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45175=edit
gcc-lto-616038.tar.gz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88396
--- Comment #3 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >I'm not sure if it's an ld or gcc bug.
>
> Since it works with gold, this is more likely an BFD ld issue.
>
> What version of binutils are you trying
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88398
--- Comment #2 from Jiangning Liu ---
memcmp doesn't return the position where they differ.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80203
Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88398
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88398
Bug ID: 88398
Summary: vectorization failure for a small loop to do byte
comparison
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88396
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Maybe at one point related to
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12319 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35532
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski ---
> 1. build and install Glibc --prefix=/tmp/foo
Since glibc is not able to build this way any more, I doubt this can be
supported.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35532
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|WAITING
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32497
--- Comment #15 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Valeriy E. Ushakov from comment #11)
> Created attachment 44668 [details]
> Diff against gcc-6.4.0
>
> This is essentially the same diff except gcc now provides its own
> HOST_WIDE_INT_C()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88397
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
> noreturn
See the FIXME right above it:
/* FIXME: logically, noreturn attributes should be listed as
"false, true, true" and apply to function types. But implementing this
would require all the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88397
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39222
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to xiaoyuanbo from comment #6)
> total root
What did you mean by this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38093
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
Created attachment 45174
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45174=edit
uudecoded
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #1)
> > That patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37637
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35532
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79604
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65725
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Please always say how you configured GCC.
Reporter has since done this; does this bug still need to stay in WAITING?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88397
Bug ID: 88397
Summary: attribute malloc ignored on function pointers when
alloc_size is accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59447
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at codesourcery dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88271
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
I have results from Callgrind. Cycle estimation for MoveRows function (without
children) is 58.29%. This is for app without test instruction. So in synthetic
benchmark for this function only speed change
On 12/6/18 2:33 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 06:27:00PM -0800, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
I disagree completely. I assume the idea of -fdec-pad-with-spaces is to
accomodate some old dec fortran code. The only reason to use some other
character is if someone is writing new dec
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 05:21:32PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
> Here's an alternative patch that would reject a subroutine
> with an alternate return dummy argument with the bind(c)
> attributes. I'm still trying to determine if the code
> should be legal. The c.l.f thread I started isn't
On 12/05/2018 03:33 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
Sorry for my late follow-up; had a lot of catch up to do back then.
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 11:47:31 +0200, Richard Biener
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:14 PM Indu Bhagat wrote:
Done. Attached is updated patch.
Patch is tested on x86_64
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 02:08:54PM -0500, Fritz Reese wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 7:03 PM Steve Kargl
> >
> > > RE:
> > > >PR fortran/88139
> > > >* dump-parse-tree.c (write_proc): Alternate return.
> > > I dissent with this patch. The introduced error is meaningless and, as
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88146
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||87814
--- Comment #9 from Alexandre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87814
--- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-12/msg00423.html
On 12/3/18 11:04 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 12/3/18 2:47 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
[snip]
Attached is my proposed update. The user's email suggested going
into a lot of detail that I'm not sure would be helpful. I think
it's safer to keep it simple than to try to carefully outline tricky
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85569
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #12 from Alexandre
Hi
This got stuck in my stack of patches for LTO debug support, and I forgot to
ping it…
> On 22 Aug 2018, at 14:20, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 2:56 PM Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 20 Aug 2018, at 11:01, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 9:00
This patch started out from the testcase in PR88146, that attempted to
synthesize an inherited ctor without any args before a varargs
ellipsis and crashed while at that, because of the unguarded
dereferencing of the parm type list, that usually contains a
terminator. The terminator is not there
tsubst_expr and tsubst_copy_and_build are not expected to handle
DEFERRED_NOEXCEPT exprs, but if tsubst_exception_specification takes a
DEFERRED_NOEXCEPT expr with !defer_ok, it just passes the expr on for
tsubst_copy_and_build to barf.
This patch arranges for tsubst_exception_specification to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88271
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
One more note: this particular function creates matrices with all possible
permutations of row order of original matrix, which satisfies some additional
criteria. So this optimization may be applicable to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88396
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>I'm not sure if it's an ld or gcc bug.
Since it works with gold, this is more likely an BFD ld issue.
What version of binutils are you trying with?
Radu Ometita writes:
> Hello everyone!
>
> We are working on writing a paper about testing the reliability of C
> compilers by using Csmith (a random C99 program generator).
>
> A previous testing effort, using Csmith, found 79 GCC bugs, and 25 of
> those have been marked by developers as P1
>
sameeran joshi writes:
> Hi,
> I have a random C program as a test case, for which I need to do
> source code coverage on gcc.
> I have used the gcov tool and further the lcov tool. The percentage of
> source code coverage which I get after using gcov, Is that the final %
> which I need to do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88271
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Average for version with test is 246.313ms, I deleted too many digits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88271
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
How to use perf? I did not have change to use it yet, I usually use time
command or callgrind.
I have run my app compiled with AVX2 instructions on Xeon E5-2683 v3, CentOS
7.6, on idle CPU. I run it 3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85593
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 6 23:41:04 2018
New Revision: 266881
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266881=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/85593
* final.c (rest_of_handle_final): Don't call
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 05:41:49PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> PR85770 is fixed by Segher's combiner patch to avoid combining hard
> regs. Presumably it helps because it gives the allocators more freedom.
>
> I'm adding the testcase from the PR to the regression suite.
>
> Jeff
> commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85770
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 6 23:39:12 2018
New Revision: 266880
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266880=gcc=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/85770
* gcc.target/i386/pr85770.c: Require
On 12/5/18 7:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018, Jeff Law wrote:
On 12/4/18 6:16 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
This tries to make bugs like that in PR88317 harder to create by
introducing a bitmap_release function that can be used as
pendant to bitmap_initialize for non-allocated
On Dec 5, 2018, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Hmm, I'm uncomfortable with how this depends on the specific
> implementation of tentative_firewall.
*nod*
> What do you think of this alternate approach (untested other than with
> the testcase)?
If that won't drop any other deferred access checks that
On 12/6/18 4:34 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The only documented supported content of naked functions is basic asm
> statement(s). Those don't have clobbers though, so we should ignore
> naked functions for IPA-RA; if they are written the only supported way,
> they will appear not to
Hi!
The only documented supported content of naked functions is basic asm
statement(s). Those don't have clobbers though, so we should ignore
naked functions for IPA-RA; if they are written the only supported way,
they will appear not to clobber any registers at all and IPA-RA will then
assume
Hi!
Apparently the length decls corresponding to allocatable scalars with
character type are also GFC_DECL_GET_SCALAR_ALLOCATABLE; the OpenMP
clause handling code was relying on those to have POINTER_TYPEs, but
the lengths are integrals and should be handled normally.
Bootstrapped/regtested on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88377
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 6 23:29:04 2018
New Revision: 266879
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266879=gcc=rev
Log:
PR fortran/88377
* trans-openmp.c (gfc_omp_clause_default_ctor,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88367
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 6 23:28:04 2018
New Revision: 266878
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266878=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/88367
* tree-vrp.c (extract_range_from_binary_expr): For
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 09:50:56PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 03:49:26PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 11/28/18 3:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > Whenever we need to clone a cdtor (either because the target doesn't
> > > support
> > > aliases the way we need,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87506
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Dec 6 23:25:10 2018
New Revision: 266877
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266877=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/87506
* constexpr.c (adjust_temp_type): Handle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88396
Bug ID: 88396
Summary: -flto -Wl,--whole-archive causes "multiple definition"
errors in elfutils (only for bfd, not gold)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86747
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Dec 6 23:18:40 2018
New Revision: 266875
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266875=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR86747] tsubst friend tpl ctxt before looking it up for dupes
When a member
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86397
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Dec 6 23:18:30 2018
New Revision: 266874
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266874=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR86397] resolve nondependent noexcept specs early in C++1[14]
On 12/6/18 2:26 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 01:21:58PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
Bug 88372 - alloc_size attribute is ignored on function pointers
points out that even though the alloc_size attribute is accepted
on function pointers it doesn't have any effect on Object Size
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 08:02:43PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> >>> PR fortran/88139
> >>> * dump-parse-tree.c (write_proc): Alternate return.
> >> I dissent with this patch. The introduced error is meaningless and, as
> >> mentioned by comment #3 in the PR, avoiding the ICE in
"Segher Boessenkool" wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 02:19:14AM +0100, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> "Paul Koning" wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, that's a rather nasty cut & paste error I made.
>>
>> I suspected that.
>> Replacing
>> !(den & (1L<<31))
>> with
>> (signed short) den >= 0
>> avoids
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:27:12 +0100
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 07:38:04PM -0400, Julian Brown wrote:
> > 2018-09-20 Cesar Philippidis
> > Julian Brown
> >
> > gcc/
> > * omp-low.c (maybe_lookup_field_in_outer_ctx): New function.
> >
Snapshot gcc-7-20181206 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/7-20181206/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 7 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-7
On Dec 6, 2018, at 11:52 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
> During 8.x, the rs6000 target-specific mangling was reorganised which
> uncovered
> a long-standing bug in Darwin’s mangling for ‘IBM’ long double. Now the
> symbols
> are correctly mangled, and we end up with a bunch of test link fails.
>
On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 22:22:46 +
Julian Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 21:42:14 +0100
> Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > ..., where the "Invalid read of size 8" happens, and which
> > eventually would try to "free (tgt)" again, via
> > libgomp/target.c:gomp_unmap_tgt:
> >
> >
On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 21:42:14 +0100
Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> [...]
> ..., where the "Invalid read of size 8" happens, and which eventually
> would try to "free (tgt)" again, via libgomp/target.c:gomp_unmap_tgt:
>
> attribute_hidden void
> gomp_unmap_tgt (struct target_mem_desc *tgt)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88316
--- Comment #3 from pc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: pc
Date: Thu Dec 6 22:14:55 2018
New Revision: 266870
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266870=gcc=rev
Log:
[rs6000] Enable x86-compat vector intrinsics testing
The testsuite tests for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88316
--- Comment #2 from pc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: pc
Date: Thu Dec 6 22:11:01 2018
New Revision: 266869
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266869=gcc=rev
Log:
[rs6000] Fix x86-compat vector intrinsics testcases for BE, 32bit
Fix general
Hello everyone!
We are working on writing a paper about testing the reliability of C compilers
by using Csmith (a random C99 program generator).
A previous testing effort, using Csmith, found 79 GCC bugs, and 25 of those
have been marked by developers as P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88316
--- Comment #1 from pc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: pc
Date: Thu Dec 6 22:03:25 2018
New Revision: 266868
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266868=gcc=rev
Log:
[rs6000] x86-compat vector intrinsics fixes for BE, 32bit
Fix general endian
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #30 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Is already included in sol2.h (ASAN_CC1_SPEC).
OK. Then unwind info is needed in the epilogue?
On 12/4/18 9:47 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
I'd like to ping
PR87506 - https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg01758.html
You've acked the patch with the asserts but that FAILs as mentioned
in the above mail. The following has been bootstrapped/regtested
and works, can it be
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 01:21:58PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Bug 88372 - alloc_size attribute is ignored on function pointers
> points out that even though the alloc_size attribute is accepted
> on function pointers it doesn't have any effect on Object Size
> Checking. The reporter, who is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87861
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:14 AM Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> Looks good to me. Independently, do you see a reason not to disable the
> old demangler entirely?
Like so. Does anyone object to this? These mangling schemes haven't
been relevant in decades.
commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88136
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Dec 6 21:17:08 2018
New Revision: 266867
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266867=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/88136 - -Wdeprecated-copy false positives
Deprecating the copy
-Wdeprecated-copy does find some real bugs, but it also complains
about a lot of reasonable code for which the implicitly declared copy
ctor/op= are fine oven though the class has a user-defined destructor:
this situation is only problematic if the destructor releases
resources held in one of the
Since pvt was removed, it's bugged me that to pretty-print a vec I
needed to write out "call debug($)". So this patch adds a generic
command "pp" to print anything handled by a debug overload.
OK for trunk?
commit 2dd2501e3abbd9d0b70119534fa5a93e957432bf
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Tue Nov 20
Hi Chung-Lin!
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 21:11:58 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang
wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> this patch removes large portions of plugin/plugin-nvptx.c, since a lot of it
> is
> now in oacc-async.c now. The new code is essentially a NVPTX/CUDA-specific
> implementation
> of the new-style
Hi Chung-Lin!
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 21:09:49 +0800, Chung-Lin Tang
wrote:
> This patch is a re-organization of OpenACC asynchronous queues.
Thanks!
> The previous style of implementation
> was essentially re-defining the entire async API inside the plugin-interface,
> and relaying all such
>
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 01:08:34PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> > I hope we can still say that pointer wrapping even with
> > -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks is UB, so this patch differentiates between
> > positive offsets (in ssizetype), negative offsets (in ssizetype) and zero
> > offsets and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88271
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Daniel Fruzynski from comment #3)
> What about adding new pass at the end? It would look for various possible
> optimizations, which were missed earlier because they are cross-basic block.
We do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88372
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor
Bug 88372 - alloc_size attribute is ignored on function pointers
points out that even though the alloc_size attribute is accepted
on function pointers it doesn't have any effect on Object Size
Checking. The reporter, who is implementing the feature in Clang,
wants to know if by exposing it under
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #29 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #28 from Eric Botcazou ---
[...]
>> -fno-delayed-branch made no difference.
>
> What about -fasynchronous-unwind-tables?
Is already included in sol2.h (ASAN_CC1_SPEC).
Thanks to Martin we now have a test that exercises (cp) cloning
machinery during the WPA stage of LTO.
Also, during debugging I found that print_all_lattices would trigger
an assert if I tried to call it inside decide_whether_version_node.
Finally I've attached some comment spelling fixes as a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88240
--- Comment #10 from Thomas De Schampheleire ---
I was able to further investigate and reduce the problem.
Qemu is now out of the picture, I can reproduce the issue directly on a real
CPU. All I need to do is enable the 'underflow' exception bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87380
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Thu Dec 6 20:09:26 2018
New Revision: 266866
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266866=gcc=rev
Log:
Darwin - fix PR c++/87380
This is [intentionally] broken C++ ABI, that was catering
On 12/5/18 11:45 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> If we consider -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks as a way to support e.g. AVR
> and other targets which can validly place objects at NULL rather than a way
> to workaround UBs in code, I believe the following testcase must pass if
> there is e.g.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #28 from Eric Botcazou ---
> For a quick check, I just tried it on
> c-c++-common/asan/heap-overflow-1.c at -O0
>
> #0 0x11258 in main
> /vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/asan/heap-overflow-1.
> c:21
>
>
Hi,
During 8.x, the rs6000 target-specific mangling was reorganised which uncovered
a long-standing bug in Darwin’s mangling for ‘IBM’ long double. Now the symbols
are correctly mangled, and we end up with a bunch of test link fails.
This patch adds the necessary subset of the Linux long double
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 02:08:54PM -0500, Fritz Reese wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 7:03 PM Steve Kargl
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 04:48:28PM -0500, Fritz Reese wrote:
> [...]
> > > RE:
> > > > PR fortran/88228
> > > > * expr.c (check_null, check_elemental): Work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86393
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88373
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88373
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Dec 6 19:43:17 2018
New Revision: 266865
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266865=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/88373 - wrong parse error with ~.
* parser.c
On 12/6/18 11:33 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
This patch fixes a bogus parse error with ~ in a template-argument-list. We
have
S>
and cp_parser_template_argument just tries to parse each argument as a type,
id-expression, etc to see what sticks. When it sees ~value, it tries to parse
it
On 12/6/18 12:23 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 06/12/18 16:11, Jason Merrill wrote:
2- Unfortunately I have to fix another buglet I recently introduced,
completely similar to c++/88222 fixed by Marek. Well, at least we will
not print anymore an empty '' when the unqualified_id is null
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88271
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
What about adding new pass at the end? It would look for various possible
optimizations, which were missed earlier because they are cross-basic block.
In my case this example code is part of tight loop.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85145
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
Hi
I applied the following as discussed with Jonathan on the PR and IRC,
will back port to 8.x and 7.x in due course.
Some of Darwin's headers use always_inline so don't test that
Because Darwin system headers use always_inline rather than
__always_inline__ the libstdc++ test
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 08:02:43PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> >>> PR fortran/88139
> >>> * dump-parse-tree.c (write_proc): Alternate return.
> >> I dissent with this patch. The introduced error is meaningless and, as
> >> mentioned by comment #3 in the PR,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #58 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Thu Dec 6 19:21:32 2018
New Revision: 266863
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266863=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix PR libstdc++/64883 Darwin headers use always_inline so don't test that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84345
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Do we actually care about these now that we have gcc_qsort?
1 - 100 of 746 matches
Mail list logo
