https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66830
pleuba at swissonline dot ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pleuba at swissonline dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66372
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66959
--- Comment #1 from Роман Донченко dpb at corrigendum dot ru ---
Created attachment 36025
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36025action=edit
Preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64401
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66957
Bug ID: 66957
Summary: irregular is protected within this context error
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component:
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: antoine.balestrat at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Hello !
The following testcase appears to make a freshly built GCC fail at -O3.
$ xgcc --version
gcc (GCC) 6.0.0 20150721 (experimental)
$ cat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66959
Bug ID: 66959
Summary: Bad code generated for union type punning of NEON
intrinsic types on ARM64
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66468
--- Comment #9 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at redhat dot com ---
On 07/20/2015 03:14 PM, jason at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66468
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66958
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66959
--- Comment #2 from Роман Донченко dpb at corrigendum dot ru ---
... I should probably add that the zero return code is the expected one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66951
Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ysrumyan at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66217
David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66930
--- Comment #5 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
As expected, r223346 went as far as r222550 and ran into the same bug which is
PR/65979.
I am now building r225710, however with -O2 and not -O1 unlike what's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66468
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #9)
Do you think perhaps we could diagnose this sort of problem earlier so
it doesn't show up (confusingly) in dwarf2out land?
I'm not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66961
--- Comment #1 from Alex Khripin akhripin at bostondynamics dot com ---
Created attachment 36027
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36027action=edit
Error output from gcc 4.8.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66956
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Jul 21 17:29:47 2015
New Revision: 226047
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226047root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from 2015-07-21 trunk r226046.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66960
Bug ID: 66960
Summary: Add a builtin to get the address of the current stack
frame
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66956
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Jul 21 17:25:48 2015
New Revision: 226046
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226046root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/66956
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66961
Bug ID: 66961
Summary: Error parsing multiple template arguments in member
initializer via assignment operator
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63293
--- Comment #7 from ctice at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ctice
Date: Tue Jul 21 17:32:17 2015
New Revision: 226049
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226049root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport patch from GCC FSF to fix stack problem for aarch64:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66926
--- Comment #4 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com ---
I have a fix in my local area which cures ICE and perform outer-loop
vectorization:
vect-pr40979.f90:8:0: note: LOOP VECTORIZED
vect-pr40979.f90:8:0: note: OUTER LOOP VECTORIZED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66830
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to pleuba from comment #0)
Is this problem already known ?
Yes, it has been known for a long time, but it's not an ideal situation and
there is currently no better
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66957
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20397
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
FWIW for the original testcase G++ now says:
a.cc:9:8: error: ‘class A A::A’ is inaccessible within this context
int c(A *a) { return 7; }
^
a.cc:1:9: note: declared here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66956
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Jul 21 17:31:22 2015
New Revision: 226048
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226048root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backport from 2015-07-21 trunk r226046.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66956
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52595
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66961
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66961
--- Comment #2 from Alex Khripin akhripin at bostondynamics dot com ---
Here's a more bare bones test case, for brevity's sake
template class T1, int value struct NumTemplate
{
NumTemplate(int) {}
};
struct Test
{
enum { SIZE_1 = 1 };
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66468
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #10)
I tried adding
gcc_checking_assert (cgraph_function_possibly_inlined_p (decl));
in gen_inlined_subroutine_die to make the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714
--- Comment #22 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #21)
How about
+ else
+ gcc_unreachable ();
?
That makes sure you run into all the unhandled cases.
Good idea.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61657
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
Just confirmed adding
printf(up=%li down=%li up-down=%li\n, up,down,up-down);
before line 2670.
Output is
up=123 down=-9223372036854775808 up-down=-9223372036854775685
You could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:49:42PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
It would have been helpful if you had included a diff
for your assert in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66963
Bug ID: 66963
Summary: __builtin_constant_p and __builtin_choose_expr do not
agree on what is a constexpr with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66962
Bug ID: 66962
Summary: [concepts] overloaded function causing memory blow-up
and ICE
Product: gcc
Version: c++-concepts
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66837
--- Comment #2 from Matt Grochowalski MatthewS.Grochowalski at ge dot com ---
Created attachment 36029
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36029action=edit
Fix for this case
Barring a more general method, this seems to fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
I confirm the patch works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:05:05AM +, zeccav at gmail dot com wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu ---
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 07:42:17PM +, zeccav at gmail dot com wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20397
--- Comment #18 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #17)
FWIW for the original testcase G++ now says:
a.cc:9:8: error: ‘class A A::A’ is inaccessible within this context
int c(A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66424
--- Comment #8 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Tue Jul 21 19:54:23 2015
New Revision: 226053
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226053root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-07-21 Vladimir Makarov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52595
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||akhripin at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61657
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
I am having the same problem in 5.2.0:
/* must be compiled with -O[1] -funroll-loops -foptimize-sibling-calls
-finline-small-functions */
/* target x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu */
/*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66960
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66830
--- Comment #3 from pleuba at swissonline dot ch ---
Is this problem/behavior referenced or documented somewhere? I did not find any
explanation on the internet.
It take me some time to understand it, and if we can avoid others to spend this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66868
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hm. I compiled it as stated and I see a bunch of code that appears to be
storing the .disk/ string. So it doesn't look like dead code elimination.
Perhaps a branch is short
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66762
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #2)
What are the precise circumstances that you see this, please?
[Book15] f90/bug% gfc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60970
Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60970
Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714
--- Comment #21 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to cesar from comment #20)
Created attachment 36030 [details]
replace block vars fix
Tom, thanks for your detailed analysis and reduced test case. As you
suspected,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20397
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #18)
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #17)
FWIW for the original testcase G++ now says:
a.cc:9:8: error: ‘class A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66963
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I thought this is documented somewhere but __builtin_choose_expr only really
accept constant literals and not constexprs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714
cesar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cesar at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66963
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
I thought this is documented somewhere but __builtin_choose_expr only really
accept constant literals and not constexprs.
And the main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66963
--- Comment #3 from Nicolai Stange nicstange at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
I thought this is documented somewhere but __builtin_choose_expr only really
accept constant literals and not constexprs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66963
--- Comment #4 from Nicolai Stange nicstange at gmail dot com ---
Sorry, misunderstanding at my side. You probably did not mean constexprs in the
sense of C99, 6.6, but constexprs in the sense of constant folded expressions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey Walton noloader at gmail dot com ---
This issued caused Crypto++ to remove -Wall (and above) under GCC. Crypto++ is
C++ with lots of interfaces, and it performs a fair amount of intermediate
calculations used in an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66929
--- Comment #5 from Jürgen Reuter juergen.reuter at desy dot de ---
Maybe stressing again: this is pretty much a blocker for us because it is in a
'standard' module which we don't want to modify, and on which all parts of our
code depend. We'd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66948
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66916
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66952
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66954
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66915
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66915
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Jul 21 08:26:32 2015
New Revision: 226028
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226028root=gccview=rev
Log:
[match.pd] PR middle-end/66915 Restrict A - B - A + (-B) to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Yes, this fixes the testsuite failure for me.
For me too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62258
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
No.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66933
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gjl at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66933
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #57 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mikael
Revision: 225926
Modified property: svn:log
Modified: svn:log at Tue Jul 21 10:07:29 2015
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66035
--- Comment #8 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Tue Jul 21 10:36:06 2015
New Revision: 226037
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226037root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
2015-07-21 Andre Vehreschild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66956
Bug ID: 66956
Summary: [avr] Using 32*32=64 multiplicatiion (umulsidi3) for
32=32*32 without MUL.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66956
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66930
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |5.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66915
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66956
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66903
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #58 from Mikael Morin mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mikael
Date: Tue Jul 21 11:33:15 2015
New Revision: 226038
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226038root=gccview=rev
Log:
Fix r225926's broken testcase
gcc/testsuite/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66160
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66929
--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter juergen.reuter at desy dot de ---
No, Dominique, not yet. Will have to see when I find time for this :(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66869
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66083
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
Did you put the gcc_assert line in the source?
If you have not a sanitized version you will not see the null pointer
dereferencing
Anyway this is what you asked me: (please not the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66929
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Maybe stressing again: this is pretty much a blocker for us because it is
in a 'standard' module which we don't want to modify, and on which all parts
of our code depend.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64220
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #56 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
BTW there is a typo in gfortran.dg/derived_constructor_comps_6.f90 which leads
to several
UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/derived_constructor_comps_6.f90 -O*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66314
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hpa at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66899
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66908
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66948
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66948
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jul 21 14:04:12 2015
New Revision: 226042
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226042root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-07-21 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66948
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
1) No explicit options, just the default ones, -S will suffice.
2) Sorry, I did not specify the target is x86-64, but I got the same with -m32
3) sub is not needed, the code should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |6.0
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66945
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66929
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |6.0
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66899
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66160
zhykzhykzhyk at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhykzhykzhyk at gmail dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66946
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Comment on attachment 36021
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36021
minimal example
written == ((wchar_t) 0xfffd)
Will ever be true or is there some sign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66946
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ok. This just looks like a missing jump threading.
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
