https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96406
--- Comment #6 from Bruce Fleming ---
Yes - that seems to work. Once Fedora move to 11.x, then the fixes will be
available so I don't need workaround?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96385
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> The original pr26324a.o debug info contains reference to xxx. But reference
> to xxx has been removed by LTO. simple_object_copy_lto_debug_sections fails
> to remove the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96385
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48956|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96404
--- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn ---
r11-2445 succeeds. I am testing r11-2447 and then r11-2451.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96406
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
10.2 is the latest released version. GCC 11 is the development version. If
you normally don't build it from source they I suspect you won't have
convenient access to it.
Introducing a local variable and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96406
Bruce Fleming changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|10.1.1 |10.2.1
--- Comment #4 from Bruce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78147
Tillmann Karras changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tilkax at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96406
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-31
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56471
Etienne Pellegrini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||etienne.pellegrini at jpl dot
nasa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96406
--- Comment #2 from Bruce Fleming ---
Created attachment 48974
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48974=edit
preprocessed file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96406
--- Comment #1 from Bruce Fleming ---
Created attachment 48973
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48973=edit
preprocessed file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96406
Bug ID: 96406
Summary: erroneous stringop-overflow warnin
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96404
--- Comment #9 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
valgrind says there is use of uninitialized variable:
==3676055== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==3676055==at 0xDBED3B: vt_find_locations() (var-tracking.c:7230)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96404
--- Comment #8 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Created attachment 48971
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48971=edit
task.S-stage2-stage3.tar.gz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96404
--- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 48970
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48970=edit
stage3 dbgcnt.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96404
--- Comment #6 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 48969
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48969=edit
stage2 dbgcnt.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96404
--- Comment #5 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
Comparing example file:
$ LANG=C cmp --ignore-initial=16 ./stage2-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libgomp/task.o
./stage3-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libgomp/task.o
./stage2-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libgomp/task.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96182
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5f9669d9e23a1116e040c80e0f3d4f43639bda52
commit r11-2473-g5f9669d9e23a1116e040c80e0f3d4f43639bda52
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96404
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96404
--- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn ---
This apparently occurs on x86_64-*-linux, so this is a more general problem.
It does not appear to be due to the debug patch.
--enable-vtable-verify --without-zstd --enable-lto --with-isl
--disable-isl-version-check --enable-default-pie --enable-default-ssp
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 11.0.0 20200731 (experimental) (Gentoo 11.0.0_pre p2, commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96405
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96404
Sergei Trofimovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
---
--enable-lto --with-isl
--disable-isl-version-check --enable-default-pie --enable-default-ssp
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 11.0.0 20200731 (experimental) (Gentoo 11.0.0_pre p2, commit
8011f718e241febd6b7a9dae01cde49817f299c4)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96405
Bug ID: 96405
Summary: Comparing stages 2 and 3: Bootstrap comparison
failure!
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96282
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96385
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
The original pr26324a.o debug info contains reference to xxx. But reference
to xxx has been removed by LTO. simple_object_copy_lto_debug_sections fails
to remove the un-referenced symbol, xxx, from symbol table.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96382
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96382
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8abab28bb5c0cd80063518d47494cb6078767b89
commit r11-2465-g8abab28bb5c0cd80063518d47494cb6078767b89
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
--- Comment #4 from Michael Cronenworth ---
The preprocessed file, even XZ compressed, is too large for attaching here.
https://github.com/mooninite/gcc-bug/blob/master/Unified_cpp_widget_windows0.ii.xz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96395
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96404
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||96383
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96404
Bug ID: 96404
Summary: [10 Regression] AIX Bootstrap failure with DWARF debug
changes
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90928
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Tom de Vries :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3a4a92598014d33ef2c8b8ec38d8ad917812921a
commit r11-2464-g3a4a92598014d33ef2c8b8ec38d8ad917812921a
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96403
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||nvptx
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96403
Bug ID: 96403
Summary: [nvptx] Less optimal code in v2si-cvt.c after setting
TARGET_TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION to false
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96393
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96393
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:239724956d4ef29dcaa7f1b378cc76f5f6a7ad5b
commit r11-2458-g239724956d4ef29dcaa7f1b378cc76f5f6a7ad5b
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Fri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
--- Comment #18 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #8)
> Also, the "'this' pointer null" error wording is not very clear. Should it
> be "'this' pointer is null"? Or "'this' pointer may be null"?
I agree that the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95507
Bug 95507 depends on bug 96003, which changed state.
Bug 96003 Summary: [11 Regression] spurious -Wnonnull calling a member on the
result of static_cast
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:df5cf47a978aaeb53fc2b18ff0b22eb4531a27d8
commit r11-2457-gdf5cf47a978aaeb53fc2b18ff0b22eb4531a27d8
Author: Martin Sebor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96154
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96402
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks, that's a CPU without the LSE instructions so it should be using the
load-exclusive-store-exclusive loop fallback
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96402
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #1)
> Thanks, can you share the hardware you ran it on? Depending on whether LSE
> is present different code paths are taken at runtime...
Well, I tested that on an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96344
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 regerssion] |3rdd case of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96375
--- Comment #1 from akrl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 48968
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48968=edit
pr96375 lob tests patch
Hi Christophe,
The following patch does the job for me. Would you double check is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96385
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
[hjl@gnu-cfl-2 pr26324]$ cat pr15146a.c
extern int xxx;
int
bar (void)
{
return xxx;
}
int
main ()
{
return 0;
}
[hjl@gnu-cfl-2 pr26324]$ cat pr15146b.c
int xxx = 3;
[hjl@gnu-cfl-2 pr26324]$ cat pr15146c.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96385
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96390
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
The following helps with the "S<0>::S()" problem – but then one runs into the
"V<1>::V" problem.
--- a/gcc/omp-offload.c
+++ b/gcc/omp-offload.c
@@ -207,6 +207,12 @@ omp_discover_declare_target_tgt_fn_r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96402
--- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks, can you share the hardware you ran it on? Depending on whether LSE is
present different code paths are taken at runtime...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96401
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
Note that with the proposed TARGET_TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION -> false change (
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-July/549896.html ), we start out
with the same ptx insns, but with the cvt.u16.u32 a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96402
Bug ID: 96402
Summary: [10/11 Regression] Wrong code with -moutline-atomics
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96397
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Macleod ---
if I read this right, the basic premise is:
x = p1 - 4, so if x + 8 doesn't overflow, then p1 - 4 couldn't have
underflowed, and therefore x must be > p1
which is a little more complicated than just back
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96401
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #1)
> Using these changes, I get the desired:
> ...
> .reg.u32 %r22;
> ld.u32 %r22, [%frame];
> st.u16 [%frame+4], %r22;
> ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96395
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks for filing this.
FWIW I've spent the last 4 months rewriting the state-tracking heart of the
analyzer, with a patch kit I hope to land next month. Along with many other
changes, explode-2.c changes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96197
--- Comment #8 from Patrick Palka ---
Fixed for GCC 11 so far, PR remains open to consider backporting the fix to the
10 branch after a while.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96401
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #0)
> In other words, we may emit instead:
> ...
> .reg.u32 %r22;
> ld.u32 %r22, [%frame];
> st.u16 [%frame+4], %r22;
> ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96401
Bug ID: 96401
Summary: [nvptx] Take advantage of subword ld/st/cvt
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0
Summary|[8/9/10/11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
--- Comment #25 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c6ef9d8d3f11221df1ea6358b8d4e79e42f074fb
commit r11-2455-gc6ef9d8d3f11221df1ea6358b8d4e79e42f074fb
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96279
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Fixed by r11-2439 but I want to keep this open because the cross-config is
still wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96360
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96279
--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Sojka ---
I can no longer reproduce this: r11-2420 (BAD), r11-2449 (OK)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96366
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-31
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96390
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
omp-offload.c's omp_discover_declare_target_tgt_fn_r sees the
::S()"
It does not call
((vec *) data)->safe_push (*tp);
to add it to the work list. (→ follow up issue for "V"?)
However, it sets the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
>
> --- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> I guess one question is what will e.g.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96394
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I guess one question is what will e.g. LTO do when merging a DECL_IGNORED
DECL_EXTERNAL FUNCTION_DECL with !DECL_IGNORED definition.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
--- Comment #22 from Eric Botcazou ---
On the other hand, if all it takes to avoid the new DIEs is to set the
DECL_IGNORED_P flag, then it might be simpler to go ahead with the change and
set the flag in Ada more often.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85282
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to S. Davis Herring from comment #9)
> > But it's not a DR, so it only applies to C++17 and not C++14 or older
> > standards.
>
> Isn't it? Its motion does say "accept as Defect Reports".
I'm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96334
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96388
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96398
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96398
--- Comment #2 from Menno Deij - van Rijswijk ---
Ok, thanks for clearing that up. We'll stick to newer versions of the compiler
:)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96398
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78288
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
So var-tracking should be down (still slow) on this testcase now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96369
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0
Summary|[8/9/10/11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96369
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96369
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:10231958fcfb13bc4847729eba21470c101b4a88
commit r11-2450-g10231958fcfb13bc4847729eba21470c101b4a88
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96393
--- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
If its one of the two 6ee874f1353933b1427b5e2953358eb3424090d5 or
7d4ee8bc5843997cdc4408848ab2d9ec82f085b2, then it'll be the former. But doing
a bisect nonetheless.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
>
> --- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> lang_hooks.finalize_early_debug_info ?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96388
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96388
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96400
Bug ID: 96400
Summary: False positive on Wunused-but-set-variable for static
constexpr var used in lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96399
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
lang_hooks.finalize_early_debug_info ?
In the default definition move there just the
/* Emit early debug for reachable functions, and by consequence,
locally scoped symbols. */
struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
>
> --- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96399
--- Comment #1 from Yohei Ueda ---
Output of gcc -v:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/libexec/gcc/s390x-linux-gnu/10.2.0/lto-wrapper
Target: s390x-linux-gnu
Configured with: /usr/src/gcc/configure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96388
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
The partially reduced (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> Created attachment 48962 [details]
> Partially reduced test-case
>
> The reduction is quite stuck at this point.
No longer keys on -fPIC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #17)
> Well, not sure - FEs do quite a good job with unused warnings by
> simply tracking things with TREE_USED so I guess global extern decls
> can be tracked as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96399
Bug ID: 96399
Summary: Arithmetic shift with vector extension becomes logical
right shift on s390x
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
>
> --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Unless we want for C/C++ to emit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So, for Ada, would you like to preserve current behavior rather than what
> Richard's patch does?
> If so, can't we have a langhook that decides that?
> I don't know much about Ada, but would think that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Unless we want for C/C++ to emit DW_AT_external DIEs for all function
prototypes that appear in the TU, we need ME help, because only there we
analyze the callgraph and prune cgraph nodes that are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #12)
> > > So with the attached 'updated patch' I see
> > >
> > > === gnat tests ===
> > >
> > >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #12)
> > So with the attached 'updated patch' I see
> >
> > === gnat tests ===
> >
> >
> > Running target unix/
> > FAIL: gnat.dg/debug11_pkg.adb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96383
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So with the attached 'updated patch' I see
>
> === gnat tests ===
>
>
> Running target unix/
> FAIL: gnat.dg/debug11_pkg.adb scan-assembler-not foreign_imported_func
> FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96398
Bug ID: 96398
Summary: ASSOCIATE with pointer fails in older GCC versions
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
