https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88430
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 11 07:45:47 2018
New Revision: 266972
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266972=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/88430
* quadmath_weak.h (__qmath2): Add __quadmath_throw.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88444
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88437
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88437
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88261
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
For G++ versions, where this was accepted with -fpermissive, the code was
wrong:
struct str { int len; char s[]; };
int foo()
{
struct str b = { 2, "b" };
return sizeof(b);
}
=>
movl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33315
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80520
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue Dec 11 04:56:54 2018
New Revision: 266971
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266971=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/80520
* gimple-ssa-split-paths.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87951
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88444
Bug ID: 88444
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name,
have integer_cst in live_on_edge, at tree-vrp.c:468;
or ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name, have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88139
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #4)
> Record F2018 constraint.
>
> C1554 If proc-language-binding-spec is specified for a procedure, each
>of its dummy arguments shall be an interoperable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88139
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87922
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87922
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue Dec 11 02:34:44 2018
New Revision: 266969
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266969=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-12-10 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/87922
* io.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86196
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84774
Bug 84774 depends on bug 86196, which changed state.
Bug 86196 Summary: [9 Regression] Bogus -Wrestrict on memcpy between array
elements at unequal indices
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86196
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86196
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Tue Dec 11 01:22:08 2018
New Revision: 266967
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266967=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/86196 - Bogus -Wrestrict on memcpy between array elements
at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88433
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Then again, the "problem" would disappear if the middle-end could be made to
understand that memcmp(, , sizeof p) is the same thing as p == q for any
integer or pointer types p and q. So maybe it is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug ID: 88443
Summary: [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wstringop-overflow warnings
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88442
Bug ID: 88442
Summary: Misleading error message with duplicated struct
definitions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88441
Bug ID: 88441
Summary: missing warning on a buffer overflow with non-constant
offset and constant size
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I thought I had a dup of this bug somewhere which was asking for this
optimization to moved to -O2 (and -Os) and above rather than keep it at -O3 and
above.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88434
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440
Bug ID: 88440
Summary: size optimization of memcpy-like code
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85570
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note typedef has a similar issue and you don't even need to have main or an use
of test to show the issue:
void func() {}
};
template
struct C : public A {
typedef A TheA;
};
template
void test1() {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88439
Bug ID: 88439
Summary: missing -Wrestrict on memcpy with a variable offset
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87951
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87950
--- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor ---
*** Bug 87951 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88438
Bug ID: 88438
Summary: A pointer function reference can denote a variable in
any variable definition context.
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86979
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 45204
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45204=edit
tarball for gcc9 -S -da
/opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr69102.c -Og
-fschedule-insns2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86979
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 45203
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45203=edit
auto-host.h
> Any particular tuning option (what -march/-mtune is the default)?
Target:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88437
Bug ID: 88437
Summary: Excessive struct alignment on x86_64
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88435
--- Comment #2 from pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I don't see it in the current V9, rev 266823.
./xgcc -B. -O2 -S ~/Documents/pr88435.c -m10
cat pr88435.s
.text
.even
.globl _pollConsole
_pollConsole:
mov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88422
--- Comment #4 from Jim Wilson ---
I used a cross compiler, so ulong_type is easy enough to check. For
simple-object-elf.i I see
__extension__ typedef unsigned long long uint64_t;
...
__extension__ typedef uint64_t ulong_type;
which looks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88436
Bug ID: 88436
Summary: [9 regression] r265421 causes
gcc.target/powerpc/pr54240.c to fail
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88435
--- Comment #1 from Mattis Lind ---
The very same bug is present in 9.0
The problem goes away if you change to pdp-11/40 rather than pdp-11/10 using
-m40 option.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88271
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Here is possible code transformation to equivalent form, where this
optimization can be simply applied. This change also has a bit surprising side
effect, second nested while loop is unrolled.
[code]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88435
Bug ID: 88435
Summary: Compiling with optimizations causes the compiler to
fail.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86608
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88434
Bug ID: 88434
Summary: operator< should take precedence over template
argument in basic.lookup.classref
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87951
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87951
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's not a useless warning. If I call your function from comment 7 like this, I
get undefined behaviour:
CoverMyBases( Enum{2} );
Your switch is undefined for this code. That's what GCC is warning you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52869
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88269
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88269
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Dec 10 20:03:32 2018
New Revision: 266962
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266962=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-12-10 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/88269
* io.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87951
--- Comment #11 from Askar Safin ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> I wish people would just learn how enums work, it's not that complicated.
Okey, now I understand everything. Now I see that, well, -fstrict-enums
silences
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88216
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88269
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Dec 10 19:26:43 2018
New Revision: 266960
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266960=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-12-10 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/88269
* io.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86979
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Any particular tuning option (what -march/-mtune is the default)?
Can you attach your auto-host.h?
Perhaps could you attach a tarball with -da dumps with the above options, so I
can try to figure out why I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86979
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88397
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
The problem with attribute noreturn is tracked separately in bug 79604 (the C
front end seems to do the right thing there, as do Clang and ICC in both C and
C++ modes).
For attributes alloc_align and malloc,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86979
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86196
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88433
Bug ID: 88433
Summary: wrong code for printf after a pointer cast from a
pointer to an adjacent object
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88269
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Dec 10 18:05:37 2018
New Revision: 266959
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266959=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-12-10 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/88269
* io.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87369
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|samtebbs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88430
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
The expected mechanism to apply the attributes is by using the new copy
attribute. (It's been on my to-do list to look into these.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88430
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The change occurred between r265975 (no warning) and r266035 (warnings).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88430
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45202
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45202=edit
gcc9-pr88430.patch
For quadmath_weak.h it can be easily handled with the attached patch.
There are additional 166
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84345
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I thought the main argument for the qsort checking was to avoid different code
generation between different hosts (e.g. with cross-compilers etc.).
Some of the comparator issues were just easy bugs in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84345
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
I think gcc_qsort doesn't really change things here, validation failure implies
a logic issue in the comparator, so some step is not always working as the
author intended.
And even with gcc_qsort it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86004
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka ---
Thanks a lot for looking into this. Indeed disabling the tests is
probably good idea, so the patch looks good to me. Somewhere we should
document minimal binutils release supporting incremental link...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88413
--- Comment #9 from brennan at umanwizard dot com ---
There is an open issue from Oct. 2017 on the ABI standard's official website
(which is a Github repo):
https://github.com/itanium-cxx-abi/cxx-abi/issues/38
It appears to be the exact thing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88413
--- Comment #8 from brennan at umanwizard dot com ---
Yes that is the literal srN string and in fact GCC does output that sometimes,
for example on the following program which made it a lot clearer to me what is
going on.
template
struct S1 {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85777
--- Comment #6 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
But this cannot apply to projects that use GNU Automake, which does not
generate such rules. And with Automake, things are more complex in practice,
because in the rules, there are additional options for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85459
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85777
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That can be dealt in the Makefile rules, for sanitization use something like
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(WARNOPTS) -S -o /dev/null $<
$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(SANITIZEOPTS) -c -o $@ $< 2>/dev/null
or similar.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85777
--- Comment #4 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> If you care about warnings as well as sanitization, I'd suggest separate
> builds for warnings and for sanitization, the latter perhaps with -w.
This is fine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88418
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Dec 10 15:47:16 2018
New Revision: 266958
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266958=gcc=rev
Log:
PR target/88418
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_sse_cmp):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88290
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|testsuite |libstdc++
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86004
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88290
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88432
--- Comment #3 from alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I considered a number of solutions, but they all had issues:
1) Place the RTL for the stack guard inside the prologue, giving:
*function prologue rtl
*stack guard code (__stack_chk_guard)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88393
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88432
--- Comment #2 from alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 45200
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45200=edit
Final assembly dump for the .cc file with dwarf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88432
--- Comment #1 from alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 45199
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45199=edit
rtl final dump for the .cc file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87675
--- Comment #8 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Tanaya Patil from comment #7)
> Should we expect this fix to be in Binutil 2.32?
Yes. :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88432
Bug ID: 88432
Summary: Dwarf line numbering inadequate when using
-fstack-protector-strong
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88430
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88431
Bug ID: 88431
Summary: link errors on build
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: d
Assignee: ibuclaw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87957
--- Comment #15 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> That would be the
> gcc_checking_assert (TREE_TYPE (name) == t);
> assert then. So, what is TREE_TYPE (name) and what is t when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88427
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88427
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Dec 10 13:56:51 2018
New Revision: 266955
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266955=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-12-10 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/88427
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85777
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The expectations that sanitization doesn't change generated warnings is a wrong
one, the runtime instrumentation affects the code generation so much that
necessarily some further warnings will be emitted and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80726
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Honza, have you managed to look at this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87955
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87955
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 10 13:30:49 2018
New Revision: 266954
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266954=gcc=rev
Log:
PR ipa/87955
* gcc.target/i386/pr87955.c: Add -msse2 -mfpmath=sse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87957
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88430
Bug ID: 88430
Summary: -Wmissing-attributes warnings when including
libquadmath headers
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88290
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65725
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth ---
[...]
>> > 2. stage2 vs. stage3 diffs
[...]
> When trying a mainline bootstrap, I've run into quite a number of issues
> (libcc1 and ada not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88214
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56431
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66955
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu|x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88214
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Mon Dec 10 12:45:47 2018
New Revision: 266953
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266953=gcc=rev
Log:
[PR 88214] Check that an argument is a pointer
2018-12-10 Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88369
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88369
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Dec 10 12:42:05 2018
New Revision: 266952
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266952=gcc=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/88369
* gcc.dg/vect/vect-ivdep-1.c: Prune versioning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88429
Bug ID: 88429
Summary: Ada bootstrap fails with --disable-shared
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88415
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[7/8/9
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
