http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57711
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57718
Bug ID: 57718
Summary: ICE in execute_todo, passes.c:2002 at -O3 (both -m32
-m64)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57719
Bug ID: 57719
Summary: wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57720
Bug ID: 57720
Summary: [C++11]Crash when Delegating Constructors throw
exceptions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57716
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57637
--- Comment #7 from zhenqiang.chen at linaro dot org ---
Created attachment 30364
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30364action=edit
update patch
Please try the updated patch. Local tests: x86-64 and pandaboard bootstrap OK.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57711
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57714
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think what happens is that the preprocessor is trying to avoid breaking up a
valid token like in:
void foo(void) {re\
turn;
}
It would be an improvement if it ignored the \
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57714
--- Comment #10 from David Krauss potswa at mac dot com ---
I don't plan on fixing this in GCC, but I did implement the feature today in my
own preprocessor, http://code.google.com/p/c-plus/source/list . It does require
a handshake between phases
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57719
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57653
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57653
--- Comment #21 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Once you are in trunk, you can ask the release managers to backport it to the
GCC 4.8 branch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57712
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57637
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to zhenqiang.chen from comment #7)
Created attachment 30364 [details]
update patch
Please try the updated patch. Local tests: x86-64 and pandaboard bootstrap
This fixes the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57474
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57721
Bug ID: 57721
Summary: wrong error message with bounds checking.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57720
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57239
--- Comment #3 from etherice scottbaldwin at gmail dot com ---
Status is still unconfirmed... How long does it typically take to confirm a
bug?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57239
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Until someone analyses it and convinces themselves it's a bug.
Not providing a complete testcase doesn't help. Code missing headers, even
standard ones, is not complete, and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57722
Bug ID: 57722
Summary: Floating point problems when building with no-sse and
no-mmx
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57239
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
N.B. Clang trunk aborts on Daniel's testcase and your first one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57721
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57721
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29800
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
-unknown-linux-gnu/4.9.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ./configure --enable-languages=c,c++ --program-suffix=-4.9.0
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20130626 (experimental) (GCC)
commit 944f42fc29289812416f34d7b0c497ee79065396
command line:
g++-4.9.0 -std=c++11 -O3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57723
--- Comment #1 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30365
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30365action=edit
test case source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57723
--- Comment #2 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30366
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30366action=edit
gcc amd64 disassembly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57723
--- Comment #3 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30367
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30367action=edit
clang amd64 disassembly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29800
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2007-02-16 16:08:18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57239
--- Comment #6 from etherice scottbaldwin at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
Until someone analyses it and convinces themselves it's a bug.
Not providing a complete testcase doesn't help. Code missing headers,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57723
--- Comment #4 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Ooops, the test case won't perform the freeing completely, since the recursive
call is not inside the 'down' traversal loop, so only the first node on the
given level would be recursively freed, but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57723
--- Comment #5 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30368
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30368action=edit
fixed test case (correct recursive traversal)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57724
Bug ID: 57724
Summary: wrong error: returning a value from a constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57724
Fanael fanael4 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fanael4 at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57239
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57724
--- Comment #2 from Jörg Richter joerg.rich...@pdv-fs.de ---
You mean the special case for 'void' does not apply in this case?
What a pity.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57724
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm inclined to say this is a Clang bug too.
[stmt.return]/3 A return statement with an expression of type void can be used
only in functions with a return type of cv void; and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57725
Bug ID: 57725
Summary: conflicting language extensions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57725
--- Comment #1 from jbeulich at novell dot com ---
Created attachment 30370
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30370action=edit
main source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57725
--- Comment #2 from jbeulich at novell dot com ---
Created attachment 30371
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30371action=edit
auxiliary source (initialized data)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57725
--- Comment #3 from jbeulich at novell dot com ---
Created attachment 30372
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30372action=edit
auxiliary source (uninitialized data)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57239
--- Comment #8 from etherice scottbaldwin at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
(In reply to etherice from comment #6)
2) My example was complete except for needing a couple #includes [...]
So it was not complete
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57726
Bug ID: 57726
Summary: LTO verify_flow_info: error: control flow in the
middle of basic block
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57726
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška marxin.liska at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30373
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30373action=edit
onyx_if.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57239
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
By the way, much more generally, I'm under the impression that often bug
submitters attach way too much importance to the status change unconfirmed -
confirmed: I think it would
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57703
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška marxin.liska at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30374
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30374action=edit
syscall.cc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57703
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška marxin.liska at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30375
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30375action=edit
Preprocessed syscall.cc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29800
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-06/msg00135.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57689
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
It's going to be hard for me to solve this using a cross-compiler. I would
need a full glibc to get to the point of failure. Can you try building the
compiler without optimization to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57723
Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57727
Bug ID: 57727
Summary: RaspberryPi gcc internal compiler error unrecognisable
insn
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57727
--- Comment #1 from Themos Tsikas themos.tsikas at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30376
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30376action=edit
preprocessed source exhibting bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57711
--- Comment #4 from Dmitry Kabanov kabanovdmitry at gmail dot com ---
@Dominique:
a) I get the following error:
make all
gfortran -c vode.f
gfortran -c fcns.f90
gfortran -c main.f90
main.f90:8.75:
call vode(istate, lambda_fcn, dummy_jac,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57602
Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at ucw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57602
--- Comment #4 from Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30377
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30377action=edit
Untested patch that corrects the cleanup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57239
--- Comment #10 from etherice scottbaldwin at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #9)
By the way, much more generally, I'm under the impression that often bug
submitters attach way too much importance to the status change
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57711
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dmitry Kabanov from comment #4)
Regarding the bug in JAC/DUMMY_JAC: I think for one-dimensional arrays there
is no difference between ASSUMED-SIZE and ASSUMED-SHAPE.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57728
Bug ID: 57728
Summary: Explicit template instantiation with defaulted method
causes missing symbol
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57729
Bug ID: 57729
Summary: Always inline: indirect function call with a yet
undetermined callee
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57729
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška marxin.liska at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30379
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30379action=edit
RegExp.cpp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57729
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška marxin.liska at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30380
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30380action=edit
jsapi.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57729
Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57239
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to etherice from comment #10)
Isn't it defeating the purpose of having a 'status' field if it's not being
used?
What makes you think it isn't used? Paolo is saying that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57729
Martin Liška marxin.liska at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57727
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57698
Martin Liška marxin.liska at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin.liska
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57728
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57728
--- Comment #2 from Bruce Merry bmerry at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
The explicit instantiation declaration suppresses the definition of
Aint::A() in defaulted.o, but the explicit instantiation definition
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57728
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It's a bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57727
--- Comment #3 from Themos Tsikas themos.tsikas at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #2)
Reproduced with GCC 4.6.4.
However, this is fixed on all currently maintained versions of GCC, it
worked for me with 4.7.4, 4.8.1 and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57727
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57239
--- Comment #12 from etherice scottbaldwin at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
(In reply to etherice from comment #10)
Isn't it defeating the purpose of having a 'status' field if it's not being
used?
What
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57730
Bug ID: 57730
Summary: class/struct mismatch for std::hash
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14192
Chris King colanderman at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||colanderman at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57730
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57727
--- Comment #5 from Themos Tsikas themos.tsikas at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
(In reply to Themos Tsikas from comment #3)
Thanks, I will see if a more recent version is available in my distro.
You really
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57627
--- Comment #1 from Harald van Dijk harald at gigawatt dot nl ---
I just realised the very similar example
void f4(char *dst, char *src)
{ __builtin_memcpy(dst, src, sizeof(src)); }
void f5(unsigned char *dst, unsigned char *src)
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57727
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Themos Tsikas from comment #5)
Then change your compiler's message and I might know how to do the right
thing!
It is up to the distro to change the message. If the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57727
--- Comment #7 from Themos Tsikas themos.tsikas at gmail dot com ---
I knew this was going to be my fault. Habe a good day sir.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46487
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49588
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57239
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Curious, I understand, assuming they don't take new as a solid indication that
a fix is forthcoming. assigned normally is more reliable for that, still not
much more, unless,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29800
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: burnus
Date: Wed Jun 26 15:39:25 2013
New Revision: 200425
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=200425root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-06-26 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29800
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27766
Bug 27766 depends on bug 29800, which changed state.
Bug 29800 Summary: -fbounds-check: For derived types, write not also compound
name
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29800
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29800
--- Comment #7 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #6)
(Finally) FIXED on the GCC 4.9 trunk.
Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36041
--- Comment #11 from Cristian Rodríguez crrodriguez at opensuse dot org ---
Not to be annoying, but compiling the test case attached to this bug report
with clang 3.3 produces code in where
inline u32 popcount64_1(u64 x) { return
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47803
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47803
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47040
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47803
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47040
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47040
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Nothing - it just needs to be packaged.
Do you want me to do it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57725
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
I'd say that in the presence of those extensions, it should be considered
unspecified whether pointers to distinct objects at the same address
compare equal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57730
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57730
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56627
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d.frey at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36041
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30381
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30381action=edit
IFUNC proof of concept patch
Sadly, libgcc is compiled with gcc and not g++ so we can't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57724
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36041
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #12)
Created attachment 30381 [details]
IFUNC proof of concept patch
I think it is a bad idea to use ifunc for such a function as most of
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
