https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61335
Bug ID: 61335
Summary: [4.10 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fbounds-check
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61335
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61336
Bug ID: 61336
Summary: ICE on alpha: in print_operand_address, at
config/alpha/alpha.c:5454
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
--- Comment #12 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jack Howarth from comment #6)
I would also add that you are playing with fire here. Currently no company
has a motivation to expend money or resources for fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61123
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It seems that Tag_ABI_PCS_wchar_t is emitted from the C-family frontends only
via config/arm/arm-c.c (as opposed to any other Tags). Probably because
the option is c-family
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61337
Bug ID: 61337
Summary: Wrong indexing and runtime crash with unlimited
polymorphic array.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61334
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61334
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61335
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61044
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed May 28 08:42:25 2014
New Revision: 210999
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210999root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/61044
* doc/extend.texi (Local
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61044
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed May 28 08:44:23 2014
New Revision: 211000
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211000root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/61044
* doc/extend.texi (Local
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61335
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Wow, really old serious bug in VRP.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61044
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed May 28 08:48:03 2014
New Revision: 211001
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211001root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/61044
* doc/extend.texi (Local
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61044
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed May 28 08:50:18 2014
New Revision: 211002
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211002root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/61044
* doc/extend.texi (Local
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61335
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32870
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32870action=edit
patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61044
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61338
Bug ID: 61338
Summary: too many permutation in a vectorized reverse loop
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61334
Thomas Schwinge tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61338
--- Comment #1 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch ---
if I write it reverse
void foo2() {
for (int i=511; i=0; --i)
x[1023-i] += y[1023-i]*z[512-i];
}
its ok
__Z4foo2v:
LFB1:
leaq2048+_x(%rip), %rdx
xorl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61339
Bug ID: 61339
Summary: wide-int.h: 3 * mismatched tags
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61340
Bug ID: 61340
Summary: ipa-pure-const.c, ipa-reference.c: possible missing
switch cases ?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61152
--- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed May 28 09:33:04 2014
New Revision: 211004
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211004root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR libgcc/61152
* config/dbx.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61152
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gjl
Date: Wed May 28 09:35:19 2014
New Revision: 211005
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211005root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR libgcc/61152
* config/dbx.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Some comments:
original shell: 1:1.86:2.9
+ -Ofast : 1:1.37:1.8
(gcc 4.10.0 r210749). Does this mean that there is a problem with -Ofast and
-fopenmp?
The Wallclock
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
... (gcc 4.10.0 r210749) ...
Forgot to say: Target: x86_64-apple-darwin13, Corei7, 4 cores, 8 threads,
2.8Ghz
(turbo 3.8Ghz), cache 8Mb. Note that the turbo mode may make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60245
Florent Hivert florent.hivert at lri dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.8.1 |4.9.0
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61339
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is a really stupid warning that only exists because the MS compiler has
(or had) a bug that treats 'struct' and 'class' differently. GCC (and Clang)
correctly implement the C++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60430
Florent Hivert florent.hivert at lri dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.8.1 |4.9.0
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60967
--- Comment #1 from Florent Hivert florent.hivert at lri dot fr ---
The problem doesn't occur anymore with the released version (I was using the
cilkplus branch development version). Should this be closed as invalid or
should someone find if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note, libgomp is optimized for Linux futexes, it has bare support for other
targets, so unless somebody steps up and submits and maintains a port for other
OSes, those will keep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
BTW, having a user-base without developers coming out of that user-base is
useless. If no one from apple-darwin is interested in developing GCC, then
it doesn't matter how
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61341
Bug ID: 61341
Summary: internal compiler error: in tsubst, at cp/pt.c:11313
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61338
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61341
--- Comment #1 from Ivan Sorokin vanyacpp at gmail dot com ---
Reduced case:
templateclass ...T
struct X
{};
templateclass ...T
void foo(XT, T.. a);
void test()
{
foo(Xint, int, double(), Xdouble, int, double());
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61339
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61340
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61335
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 28 11:07:06 2014
New Revision: 211012
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211012root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-05-28 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61045
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
/* Put the constant on the side where it doesn't overflow and is
of lower absolute value than before. */
cst = int_const_binop (TREE_CODE (arg0) == TREE_CODE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61342
Bug ID: 61342
Summary: Segfault when using default clause and VLA in OpenMP
task
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61335
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
--- Comment #14 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #13)
In my paranoid days I have the feeling that I don't exist on the gcc
lists!-(although I am only interested by gfortran and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61300
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #1)
So, the writes way past this is writing into the parameter save area.
compare_kr is assuming that it was called with a parameter save
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61256
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61306
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Preud'homme thomas.preudhomme at arm dot com ---
I finally managed to find the root cause for the bootstrap failure with my
current fix. I shall be able to improve my fix and should hopefully be ready
tomorrow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58483
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61300
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com ---
You could do that, but smaller stack frames is one of the nice features of the
ELFv2 ABI! What I called the quick and dirty fix seems to be the way to go,
as the scheme I had in mind to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61340
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #1)
GCC's -Wswitch does not catch this?
On checking the gcc trunk build logs, yes.
Only clang can find the problem, not trunk gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61314
Georg Koppen gk at torproject dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Building GCC 4.9.0 breaks |Building GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61045
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 28 12:44:11 2014
New Revision: 211018
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211018root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-05-28 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61045
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 28 12:46:39 2014
New Revision: 211019
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211019root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-05-28 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60979
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60979
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 28 12:46:39 2014
New Revision: 211019
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211019root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-05-28 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61010
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 28 12:46:39 2014
New Revision: 211019
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211019root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-05-28 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61300
--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com ---
Actually, to work the patch in comment #3 would need to be
- if (!prototype_p (fun) || stdarg_p (fun))
+ if (1)
return true;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333
--- Comment #11 from Jack Howarth howarth.at.gcc at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
Also, benchmarking -O0 code is weird.
Is gcc really optimizing that low by default? Certainly it is at least doing
-O1 when not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61343
Bug ID: 61343
Summary: [C++11] Missing default initialization for class with
default constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Is gcc really optimizing that low by default? ...
AFAIK the default optimization in gcc is -O0. Now before drawing conclusions
you should answer my question in comment 8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60982
Yuriy Chernyshov georgthegreat at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60430
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.9.0 |4.8.1
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61328
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #0)
Maybe
if (!source_expr2)
return NULL_TREE;
if (n1.size != n2.size)
return NULL_TREE;
would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333
--- Comment #13 from Jack Howarth howarth.at.gcc at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #12)
Is gcc really optimizing that low by default? ...
AFAIK the default optimization in gcc is -O0. Now before drawing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61160
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61325
Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61242
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed May 28 15:55:03 2014
New Revision: 211024
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211024root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/61242
* call.c (build_aggr_conv):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57543
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61343
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47202
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed May 28 16:38:23 2014
New Revision: 211026
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211026root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/47202
gcc/cp/
* decl.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47202
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61336
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57543
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61337
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60853
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59344
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61044
--- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Senthil Kumar Selvaraj from comment #3)
The primary reason I added the diff relocs was to prevent linker relaxation
messing up DWARF line number information - as you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61333
--- Comment #14 from Jack Howarth howarth.at.gcc at gmail dot com ---
Without optimization flags on a 24-core x86_64 Fedora 15 box, the timings for
one, two and four OMP processes are…
clang-3.4.0 (clang-omp/openmp) 69.988439 sec: 34.962212
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
--- Comment #11 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, weird, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
Jack Howarth howarth.at.gcc at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Because they are not ignored and are not useless.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Because they are not ignored and are not useless.
See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-05/msg00332.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
--- Comment #15 from Mike Stump mikestump at comcast dot net ---
Short answer, error checking. Remove them and one removes some error checking.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
--- Comment #16 from Jack Howarth howarth.at.gcc at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Mike Stump from comment #15)
Short answer, error checking. Remove them and one removes some error
checking.
Will the current fix have any impact on our having
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61344
Bug ID: 61344
Summary: Wswitch does not work with enum bitfields
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53874
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61202
Carrot carrot at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
--- Comment #17 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The changelog was wrong. This is why bugzilla didn't catch the commit. It
should have said:
PR bootstrap/61146
instead of
PR bootstrap/PR61146
It would be nice to have a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
--- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Revision 211023
Author:fxcoudert
Date:Wed May 28 15:17:29 2014 UTC (4 hours, 39 minutes ago)
Log Message:
PR bootstrap/PR61146
* wide-int.cc: Do not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
--- Comment #19 from Mike Stump mikestump at comcast dot net ---
Nope.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61345
Bug ID: 61345
Summary: [4.10 Regression] ICE (segfault) in combine while
compiling the linux kernel
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61345
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61345
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|target
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61345
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Caused by:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg01543.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55585
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61346
Bug ID: 61346
Summary: VRP chooses bad bounds for variable
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61346
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
Created attachment 32872
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32872action=edit
test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61346
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Was this before or after revision 211012? There was a bug in VRP which was
also exposed by Fortran bounds checking: bug 61335.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61346
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
This was before 211012. It may be fixed. I will check.
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
