https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67128
Szőts Ákos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||szotsaki at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89297
Bug ID: 89297
Summary: ICE: unexpected expression 'id' of kind overload
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89296
Bug ID: 89296
Summary: tree copy-header masking uninitialized warning
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #4 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 45661
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45661=edit
ivopt patch v1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #3 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I added iv-use for MASKED_LOAD_LANE and the result is
cmp w3, 0
ble .L1
sub w5, w3, #1
mov x4, 0
lsr w5, w5, 1
add w5, w5, 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88993
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63793
--- Comment #20 from Eric Gallager ---
Should this really have the middle-end for its component? It seems like this is
more of a target issue...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84626
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87689
--- Comment #12 from Alan Modra ---
A little more sophisticated.
* fortran/trans-types.c (gfc_get_function_type): Use a varargs decl
unless we have args other than hidden ones.
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-types.c
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87689
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Memory corruption on Power |PowerPC64 ELFv2 function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87761
--- Comment #5 from Paul Hua ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Can you please recheck with current trunk, many RA improvements related to
> r265398 change went into trunk since then.
all those test still fails on trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89294
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88147
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88147
--- Comment #21 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Feb 12 01:09:31 2019
New Revision: 268789
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268789=gcc=rev
Log:
linemap_line_start: protect against location_t overflow (PR lto/88147)
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89294
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89295
Bug ID: 89295
Summary: [9 regression] compilation of
gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t001_x.c takes 30 times as long
after r268404
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89144
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89241
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Feb 11 23:05:16 2019
New Revision: 268784
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268784=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89241 - ICE with __func__ in lambda in template.
When we're
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89241
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86252
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Another testcase, reduced from Boost.Rational:
template
struct sfinae
{
static const bool value = false;
static T zero() { return T(); }
};
template
struct enable_if { typedef T type; };
template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86252
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88299
--- Comment #5 from Harald Anlauf ---
Patch passed regtesting and was submitted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-02/msg00097.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42970
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
My apologies, I forgot about this bug. I will have a look this week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88299
--- Comment #4 from Harald Anlauf ---
I'm currently regtesting the following patch:
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/resolve.c (revision 268778)
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88752
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Feb 11 21:49:37 2019
New Revision: 268783
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268783=gcc=rev
Log:
Revert "PR c++/88752 - ICE with lambda and constexpr if."
This reverts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89294
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-pc-solaris2.11 |i386-pc-solaris2.11,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89241
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89292
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
So, dup of https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89271?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89294
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Build: i386-pc-solaris2.11
Between 20190210 (r268749) and 20190211 (r268774), a couple of Ada testcases
regressed on Solaris/x86 (both 32 and 64-bit):
+FAIL: gnat.dg/vect1.adb (test for excess errors)
+FAIL: gnat.dg/vect1.adb 3 blank line(s) in output
+UNRESOLVED: gnat.dg/vect1.adb scan-tree-dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> + /* Preserve REINTERPRET_CAST_P. */
> + if (code == NOP_EXPR && REINTERPRET_CAST_P (org_x))
> + {
> + if (TREE_CODE (x) == NOP_EXPR &&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66970
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84135
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
$ cat z1.f90
> program p
>integer :: i
>integer, dimension(3) :: x[2,*]
>data (x(i:i+2:i+1), i=1,2) /1,2,3/
This should be caught, there is no normal dimension
here, just a codimension.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'll try to copy & adjust (mostly kill almost everything) copy_tree_body_r and
use that in register_constexpr_fundef. As we don't need to remap decls or
types,
I think we just need copy_statement_list for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53036
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Bug 85723 deals with the problem mentioned in comment 5.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85723
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89266
--- Comment #8 from Harald Anlauf ---
It's not as trivial as I had hoped.
The point is that gfc_element_size() and gfc_target_expr_size()
are returning size 0 for the source expression, which is an entirely
correct value. However, they also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58074
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #0)
> The deleted default constructor should not prevent type Trivial of being
> trivial (Maybe this part of the problem is related to bug 52707, but I'm not
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89293
Bug ID: 89293
Summary: libphobos: core.atomic should have fallback for no
atomic library
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89292
--- Comment #1 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-simode2.c also fails after this revision:
# of expected passes2
# of unexpected failures1
FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-simode2.c scan-assembler mtvsrwz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89212
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE in |[8 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88977
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89212
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Feb 11 20:03:43 2019
New Revision: 268781
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268781=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89212 - ICE converting nullptr to pointer-to-member-function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88977
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 11 20:00:16 2019
New Revision: 268780
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268780=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/88977
* pt.c (convert_nontype_argument): Pass true as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88147
--- Comment #20 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #19)
> (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #17)
> > Created attachment 45660 [details]
> > Selftest coverage
> >
> > The attached reproduces the problem via a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89290
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89290
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89291
--- Comment #2 from zwieflhofer ---
Installed gcc-5.5.0 and built the identical WRF version.
No ICE encountered with 5.5.0.
Attempted to extract a reduced test version but this is non-trivial due to the
large source code base and complex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89292
Bug ID: 89292
Summary: [9 regression] test case
gcc.target/powerpc/rs6000-fpint.c fails after r268705
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89288
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code, patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89289
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89286
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89291
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89288
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89291
Bug ID: 89291
Summary: internal compiler error: in gfc_trans_use_stmts
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81983
--- Comment #5 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I would be inclined to just skip the bsearch when the count is zero.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89267
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86637
--- Comment #14 from Wilco ---
Author: wilco
Date: Mon Feb 11 18:14:37 2019
New Revision: 268777
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268777=gcc=rev
Log:
[COMMITTED] Fix pthread errors in pr86637-2.c
Fix test errors on targets which do not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53036
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, so one problem is that while we save the inline bodies of functions before
cp_fold_function, cp_fold_function is destructive and clobbers the saved copy.
cp_fold itself is (hopefully) not destructive and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53181
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|6.0 |6.3.0, 7.3.0, 8.2.0, 9.0
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89267
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Feb 11 17:57:41 2019
New Revision: 268776
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268776=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89267 - change of error location.
* pt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #20 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #19 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon Feb 11 17:44:05 2019
New Revision: 268775
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268775=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/88771 - Misleading -Werror=array-bounds error
gcc/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89267
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89222
--- Comment #7 from Wilco ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-02/msg00780.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89287
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
This doesn't seem to ever work with G++ (even 4.8 rejects it).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87996
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[8/9 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87996
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon Feb 11 17:35:17 2019
New Revision: 268774
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268774=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/87996 - size of array is negative error when SIZE_MAX/2 < sizeof(array)
<=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89290
Bug ID: 89290
Summary: [8/9 Regression] ICE in change_address_1, at
emit-rtl.c:2286
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89289
Bug ID: 89289
Summary: ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2310
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88147
--- Comment #19 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #17)
> Created attachment 45660 [details]
> Selftest coverage
>
> The attached reproduces the problem via a minimal selftest, and is also
> fixed by attachment 45653
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80936
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89288
Bug ID: 89288
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in tree_code_size, at tree.c:865
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88147
--- Comment #18 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #15)
> During the bug investigation I noticed a strange thing in line-map.c:
>
>700if (line_delta < 0
>701|| (line_delta > 10
>702
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88147
--- Comment #17 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 45660
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45660=edit
Selftest coverage
The attached reproduces the problem via a minimal selftest, and is also fixed
by attachment 45653.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Bisected that to the finish_id_expression change, reverting the penultimate and
antepenultimate hunk of
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/gcc/cp/semantics.c?limit_changes=0=267272=267271=267272
makes gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88560
--- Comment #15 from Tamar Christina ---
Author: tnfchris
Date: Mon Feb 11 16:54:18 2019
New Revision: 268772
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268772=gcc=rev
Log:
Arm: Update tests after register allocation changes. (PR/target 88560)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89287
Bug ID: 89287
Summary: Array declaration fails to use template conversion
operator
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88147
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #14)
> Created attachment 45653 [details]
> Patch candidate
>
> Patch candidate that survives both reduced and not reduced test-cases.
> David does the patch make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Though, I wonder if something isn't wrong with the r267272 commit, I'd have
thought that constexpr evaluation should be done on the pre-cp_folded bodies
and cp_fold could be removing REINTERPRET_CAST_Ps.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88920
--- Comment #24 from Bill Schmidt ---
Why does this end up showing up after a test is run, rather than early like all
the other target-supports checks? It would be less surprising if it acted like
the others (and I would probably not have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think it's valid (but the constructor can't be used in a constant
expression).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88920
--- Comment #23 from Andrew Stubbs ---
It's caused by the llvm_binutils check, which is used by pretty much every test
to determine whether to complain about blank lines in compile output, or not.
Right now the easiest way to determine if it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89286
--- Comment #4 from MarkEggleston ---
Missed some changes that should've gone in the change log. These included a
couple of line that shouldn't have been there.
Fixing patch and change log and will replace attachments when done.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89286
--- Comment #3 from MarkEggleston ---
Created attachment 45659
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45659=edit
Change Log for gcc/testsuite for patch
Date to added later.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89286
--- Comment #2 from MarkEggleston ---
Created attachment 45658
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45658=edit
Change log for gcc/fortran for patch
Date to added later.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88920
--- Comment #22 from Bill Schmidt ---
It also seems odd to me that all the other checks happen when reading
powerpc.exp, prior to running my tests, but this one happens late:
Running
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87689
--- Comment #10 from Alan Modra ---
Replying to comment #4, yes, the function decl is wrong. It should have the
full parameter list, or have none (ie. tree.c:prototype_p return false). The
powerpc ELFv2 ABI works fine with non-prototyped
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88920
--- Comment #21 from Bill Schmidt ---
Well, perhaps this is business as usual, but I'd still like to understand this
a little better.
What causes us to run the effective-target check for this thing in the first
place?
I've restricted my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89286
--- Comment #1 from MarkEggleston ---
Created attachment 45657
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45657=edit
GNU extension to intrinsic SIGN
Includes change to Intrinsic documentation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89286
Bug ID: 89286
Summary: Intrinsic sign and GNU Extension
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87689
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88920
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Various effective targets are checked already in the initialization of various
*.exp, etc. E.g. struct-layout-1.exp checks
check_effective_target_short_enums, gomp.exp checks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88920
--- Comment #19 from Bill Schmidt ---
Specifially, I asked to compile only srad-modulo.c, but I end up with a
compilation of offload_gcn7262.c in my log when I do not configure in any way
to test for this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88920
--- Comment #18 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> I don't see why this should be reopened. Many of the effective target
> procedures leave some output in the log files, that is completely normal.
> Why should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88920
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Stubbs ---
If this is going to annoy a lot of people then I suppose I could add an
additional message stating that the error can safely be ignored?
Or, maybe there's a way to silence/hide the output from
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
