http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57306
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #10)
Putting this inside a subroutine, one gets:
class(c), pointer :: px = x
1
Error: Pointer initialization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58054
Bug ID: 58054
Summary: 11.3 Friends, example from standard not compiled
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58054
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Looks like they changed how base classes are handled in C++ for C++11.
98 says this:
[class.friend]/2
Also, because the base-clause of the friend class is not
part of its member
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58054
--- Comment #2 from Evgeniy Dushistov dushistov at mail dot ru ---
Yes, for C++ 2003 this is invalid code(page 212):
class A {
class B { };
friend class X;
};
class X : A::B { // ill-formed: A::B cannot be accessed
// in the base-clause for X
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #14 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
Martin,
Your patch is of course OK, but the MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT is probably wrong too.
At least in targets with neon processor it should be raised to 64 bits.
If the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58049
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58044
--- Comment #1 from Jérôme Pouiller jerome.pouiller at gmail dot com ---
AVX instructions seems to not been generated by assembler. Compiler directly
generate these instructions. Since -mavx2 is specified, compiler behaviour can
be considered
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58052
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Not having spent a lot of time on this, I doubt it's a bug: the latest clang
and icc behave exactly like gcc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58049
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58055
Bug ID: 58055
Summary: [meta-bug] RVO / NRVO improvements
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58055
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58050
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58051
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58048
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58048
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that with -O0:
d.c: In function ‘div3’:
d.c:102:3: error: inconsistent operand constraints in an ‘asm’
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54537
--- Comment #3 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #1)
Given the OK by Paolo, I retested the patch from:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg01166.html
It needed a small change to the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37140
--- Comment #8 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #7)
Any news on this?
Sorry Paolo, no news. I will look into it after I resurrect some stage one 1
material patches on using decls (comming after
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58056
Bug ID: 58056
Summary: ld segfaults when -undefined dynamic_lookup is set
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58048
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
Note that with -O0:
d.c: In function ‘div3’:
d.c:102:3: error: inconsistent operand constraints in an ‘asm’
Just replace 32 with 32.0 as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58048
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Right, thanks, but then the ICE doesn't occur, so this makes it pretty much ICE
on invalid. Reduced nevertheless...
void
div3 (void)
{
double tmp1;
asm volatile (fscale:=t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58048
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
...and -O is everything that's needed to trigger that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58040
fabien at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58057
Bug ID: 58057
Summary: gcc lexer cannot parse extern \x43 void blah();
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58010
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58056
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58040
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58057
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58057
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58048
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Looking a bit into this problem:
A reload reg is inserted before fscale asm, but the chosen alternative can
move an immediate to memory directly.
Inserting insn reload before:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48341
--- Comment #4 from Vincent Lefèvre vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net ---
I can see the same problem under Linux (gcc110.fsffrance.org).
According to the C standard (C99 and C11), the *_EPSILON values are the
difference between 1 and the least value
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48341
--- Comment #5 from Vincent Lefèvre vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #4)
I can see the same problem under Linux (gcc110.fsffrance.org).
In case this wasn't clear, the architecture is also a PowerPC. The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58010
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58008
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58047
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Let's have this at hand, just c++98:
template int N
struct print_arg { };
struct const_holder {
static const int CONSTANT = 42;
};
template typename T
struct identity {
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58047
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fabien at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58047
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Seems closely related to PR37140.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48341
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #5 from Vincent Lefèvre vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #4)
I can see the same problem under
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57408
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48341
--- Comment #7 from Vincent Lefèvre vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #6)
Certainly not: IRIX isn't PowerPC but MIPS!
OK, that wasn't clear because the original but report mentioned:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48341
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #7 from Vincent Lefèvre vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #6)
Certainly not: IRIX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58057
schnoerr at mailzone dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58057
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Weird, even with -std=c++0x I still see no failures at all.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58057
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57987
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
OK, so eventually I have posted the patch to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00074.html
Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58058
Bug ID: 58058
Summary: Memory leak with transfer function
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #15 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I have submitted the patch to the mailing list for review:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00082.html
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #14)
What I mean is,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58057
schnoerr at mailzone dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58057
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|schnoerr at mailzone dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58057
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Among the compilers I have at hand, only the latest Icc accepts this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58056
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |other
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58052
--- Comment #2 from Hubert Tong hstong at ca dot ibm.com ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #1)
Not having spent a lot of time on this, I doubt it's a bug: the latest clang
and icc behave exactly like gcc.
I had a vague recollection
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58010
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
r189527 is probably a red herring. That just changed the cost model to be
turned on by default at -O3. Somebody who's actively working on the vectorizer
should probably have a look
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58058
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #185 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I merged in some patches intended to reduce memory of Firefox LTO and also
updated firefox tree. Some more involved patches are on the way, so it is
summary where we stand now.
WPA
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58059
Bug ID: 58059
Summary: gcc-4.7.2-r1 - g++: internal compiler error:
Segmentation fault (program cc1plus)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58059
--- Comment #1 from Jacob McIntosh nacitar at ubercpp dot com ---
Created attachment 30590
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30590action=edit
preprocessed output
Generating this file crashed too:
$ gcc -v -save-temps -std=c++11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58059
--- Comment #2 from Jacob McIntosh nacitar at ubercpp dot com ---
Oh, and of course, compilation yields nothing more than this:
$ g++ -std=c++11 gcc_crash.cc
g++: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (program cc1plus)
Please submit a full
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57546
mib.bugzilla at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mib.bugzilla at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57546
--- Comment #2 from mib.bugzilla at gmail dot com ---
I rerun this test today and the program segfaults.
Also get the same behavior (segfault) if the template is removed. I'll attach
the non-templated test case
g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58060
Bug ID: 58060
Summary: separate compilation of gnu multiversioning gives
undefined/multiple defined symbols at link time
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58060
--- Comment #1 from mib.bugzilla at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 30593
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30593action=edit
test case part 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58058
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think the following should be enough to fix it:
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/trans-intrinsic.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57431
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #20 from Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
After thinking it over some more, I think you are right, Martin. We should go
ahead with the optimization with the corrected alignment attached to the type.
Please go ahead with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58057
--- Comment #9 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
I think I need to test for keyword in addition to testing for macro in
libcpp/lex.c
I'll look at this.
I'll also look at getting a better error.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #23 from Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #22)
We should be very wary of generating unaligned accesses during optimization
for targets that define SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS. And note
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #21 from Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
My only comment on the patch would be to please add commentary indicating why
the change is being made, and referencing this PR. Something along the lines
of:
/* Ensure the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58058
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58061
Bug ID: 58061
Summary: internal compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #186 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
oprofile of merging
6764713.0501 lto1 inflate_fast
38682 7.4624 lto1 compare_tree_sccs_1(tree_node*,
tree_node*, tree_node***)
32365
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57548
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
What happened to the patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57708
Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org|jamborm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56014
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53756
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jogojapan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #25 from Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yep, that's terrific. Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58062
Bug ID: 58062
Summary: [C++11] bogus __func__ lookup in lambda body
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58062
--- Comment #1 from Hubert Tong hstong at ca dot ibm.com ---
Compiler invocation was:
g++ -std='c++11' main.cpp -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58057
--- Comment #10 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
No, I remember now. This code *cannot* be right.
With the addition of user-defined literals in C++11 and DR1473
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57548
--- Comment #3 from Sriraman Tallam tmsriram at google dot com ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #2)
What happened to the patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg00426.html
Patch has been submitted on Jun 7 in rev. 199842
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58057
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Ed, your analysis matches my intuition, but the error message is still very
poor: to the user something like ... before STRING_USERDEF... makes no sense
at all. Can we improve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57548
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #26 from Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Martin's patch bootstrapped on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu with no new
regressions.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58054
--- Comment #3 from Evgeniy Dushistov dushistov at mail dot ru ---
Here history of changes of C++ standard that related to this bug:
http://wg21.cmeerw.net/cwg/issue372
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58063
Bug ID: 58063
Summary: default arguments evaluated twice per call
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57885
--- Comment #7 from François Dumont fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I had a try and the result is not good. I attached the modified implementation
if you want to have a try even if it is not perfect cause there are some
exception safety issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57840
François Dumont fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fdumont at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57840
--- Comment #2 from François Dumont fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30596
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30596action=edit
The modified hashtable implementation
To replace hashtable.h in include/bits
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57885
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Francois, you attached to the wrong bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58064
Bug ID: 58064
Summary: Cannot compile gcc-4.8.1 by gcc-3.4.6
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58065
Bug ID: 58065
Summary: ARM MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT is wrong
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58065
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
Created attachment 30598
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30598action=edit
test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58065
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
Created attachment 30599
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30599action=edit
compiler output without this patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58065
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
Created attachment 30600
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30600action=edit
correct compiler output with patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58065
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
Created attachment 30601
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30601action=edit
Proposed patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #16 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #15)
Anyway, the policy of GCC
seems to be that the default of MALLOC_ABI_ALIGNMENT is ultra-safe and
targets should override it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
Bug ID: 58066
Summary: GCC mis-compiles access to TLS variable with -fPIC on
x86_64
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57994
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
---
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
