https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66211
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 20 May 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66209
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||64928
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65961
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It might be mitigated for the testcase in question but the underlying problem
didn't get fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66211
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65961
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com ---
As of trunk 20150520, this bug looks fixed to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #16 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #15)
Thanks for a quick look!
However, I think that the emit_move_insn could also be a source of hidden
problems. For instance, if the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #15 from Douglas Mencken dougmencken at gmail dot com ---
I'm going to surround calls to gcc_[checking_]assert (in gcc/hash-table.*) with
#ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING {--disable-checking is in my config already}. Let's see
where it lands.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #26 from Chung-Kil Hur gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr ---
Thanks for the detailed explanations.
The C standard only guarantees that you can convert a pointer to uintptr_t
and back, it doesn't guarantee that you can convert a modified
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66212
--- Comment #1 from Andri Yngvason andri.yngvason at marel dot com ---
I've now compiled the same toolchain for i686 and I have the same issue there,
so I assume that I'm doing something wrong. It's hard to pin down what I'm
doing wrong though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 20 May 2015, dougmencken at gmail dot com wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #14 from Douglas Mencken dougmencken at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66215
Bug ID: 66215
Summary: [4.8/4.9/5/6 Regression] Wrong after label NOP
emission for -mhotpatch
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66213
Bug ID: 66213
Summary: unsigned char value range can be greater than sizeof
unsigned char
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66214
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.1.0
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #27 from Chung-Kil Hur gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr ---
(In reply to Chung-Kil Hur from comment #26)
Thanks for the detailed explanations.
The C standard only guarantees that you can convert a pointer to uintptr_t
and back, it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35575
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35575action=edit
Lightweight __throw_out_of_range_fmt for non-verbose builds
This is what I had in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #14 from Douglas Mencken dougmencken at gmail dot com ---
sizeof(hashval_t) = 4, CHAR_BIT = 8
Just checked it manually. Built with patch subset, genmatch problem is here
again. It isn't related to changes in hash_table_mod1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66212
Bug ID: 66212
Summary: Exception handling broken on powerpc
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #16 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
After, = 32 triggers assert (-- failure).
This is backwards. The failure case is sizeof (hashval_t) * CHAR_BIT 32.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66213
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #17 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
Thanks a lot guys for working on this! I'm really glad you're doing this :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66214
Bug ID: 66214
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE verify_type failed with -O0 -g via
gen_type_die_with_usage's dwarf2out.c:20250
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66213
--- Comment #2 from zh__ z.hege...@t-systems.com ---
Yep, sorry. My bad.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #28 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 20 May 2015, gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #27 from Chung-Kil Hur gil.hur at sf dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38265
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #15 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #14)
I think the check operands[1] / operands[2] check should go into the
preparation statement. operands[0] is dying after this peephole, so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60936
Markus Eisenmann meisenmann@fh-salzburg.ac.at changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66193
--- Comment #10 from Gerhard Steinmetz gerhard.steinmetz.fort...@t-online.de
---
Perhaps it's better to make one factor larger.
Maybe the following will help.
$ cat zz1.f90
program p
real :: z(2)
z = 10 + [real :: 1, 2]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Chung-Kil Hur from comment #24)
(In reply to schwab from comment #23)
gil.hur at sf dot snu.ac.kr gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org writes:
Since hello is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62231
--- Comment #16 from Andri Yngvason andri.yngvason at marel dot com ---
Sorry, Joseph, I wasn't sure if this issue was fixed or not since the status is
NEW. I'll report a new issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66211
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So we fold (and did fold before) 1 0 ? x : y to (float) x (thus an rvalue).
Then later we call ocp_convert on that requesting a conversion to int which
does
810
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52742
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66218
Bug ID: 66218
Summary: [c++-concepts] inconsistent deduction for ‘auto’
with a partial-concept-id in a deduction constraint
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52144
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66214
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=62216
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66220
Bug ID: 66220
Summary: -Wmisleading-indentation false/inconsistent warning
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66211
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66220
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=66215
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška marxin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Following testcase is wrongly compiled event with -O2 optimization level.
$ cat o2-test-case.c
static int a;
int t(int tt)
{
switch (tt)
{
case 1: return a;
}
return 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66217
Bug ID: 66217
Summary: PowerPC rotate/shift/mask instructions not optimal
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66216
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||52144
--- Comment #29 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65835
tprince at computer dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66215
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška marxin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
Following testcase is wrongly compiled event with -O2 optimization level.
$ cat o2-test-case.c
static int a;
int t(int tt)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66216
Bug ID: 66216
Summary: Defaulted Operators and contructors not working with
aligned attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66215
Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #53 from Bill Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm not a fan of a tree-level unroller. It's impossible to make good decisions
about unroll factors that early. But your second approach sounds quite
promising to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52144
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||59884
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59884
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66211
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Perhaps just guard this particular match.pd pattern with GIMPLE guard for now
(until the delayed C++ folding is committed)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66219
Bug ID: 66219
Summary: The gcc generated section start/stop pointers become
undefined when option -flto is used
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56926
--- Comment #11 from asmwarrior asmwarrior at gmail dot com ---
Today, I did the same test as in comment 6 with a more recent gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66146
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
NetBSD 5 and DragonFly BSD fail the test too. I'm going to make libstdc++
assume pthread_once is not exception-aware unless specifically told otherwise
for targets where we know it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66078
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ping? I think this is now the only thing preventing me from throwing the
switch to default C++14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66215
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66221
Bug ID: 66221
Summary: [CHKP, 6 regression] lto1: error: type variant has
different TYPE_ARG_TYPES
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66180
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If I change foo1.cpp from comment5 to:
#include memory
namespace first{
class A {
int i;
};
}
using namespace first;
class G {
std::unique_ptrA foo() const;
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66215
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
IMHO the nops should go immediately before the first real instruction in the
function. The point of not emitting it earlier is so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66223
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=66223
Bug ID: 66223
Summary: Diagnostic of pure virtual function call broken,
including __cxa_pure_virtual
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39478
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Daniel Frey from comment #3)
instead. I'd still like to see GCC to hint at the loop when trying to
complete types where the completion of A requires a completed B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66078
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66220
David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66078
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed May 20 17:11:03 2015
New Revision: 223449
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223449root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/66078
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39478
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Frey d.frey at gmx dot de ---
I don't know if it is possible for GCC to know, but it feels like it should
know. If one type needs to instantiate another type, this goes on until either
everything worked or GCC stops to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66145
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=66038
--- Comment #18 from Douglas Mencken dougmencken at gmail dot com ---
try without --disable-checking
Okay, doing it now.
Meanwhile. Why ``sizeof (hashval_t) * CHAR_BIT'' cannot be checked at configure
time, not at buildtime nor runtime?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66222
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39478
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Frey d.frey at gmx dot de ---
Just a reminder that the error message is basically still the same with GCC 4.9
and does not help to understand the cause of the error. Especially real-world
cases are therefore extremely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Douglas Mencken from comment #18)
try without --disable-checking
Okay, doing it now.
Meanwhile. Why ``sizeof (hashval_t) * CHAR_BIT'' cannot be checked at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66224
David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc*-*-*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66222
--- Comment #1 from Tong Liu mshzhb at gmail dot com ---
//av.h
/*av.h
*
*Copyright (c) 1991-1999, Larry Wall
*
*You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
*License or the Artistic License, as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66222
Bug ID: 66222
Summary: gcc error: invalid use of '__builtin_va_arg_pack ()'
at -O2 and up pass at noopt
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66220
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks.
I ran into a variant of this whilst testing -Wmisleading-indentation on the
linux kernel, where a preprocessor macro conditionalizes the if/else; here's
the test case I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66224
Bug ID: 66224
Summary: PowerPC _GLIBCXX_READ_MEM_BARRIER too weak
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65730
--- Comment #2 from jcmvbkbc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jcmvbkbc
Date: Wed May 20 18:56:14 2015
New Revision: 223452
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223452root=gccview=rev
Log:
Fix PR target/65730
2015-05-20 Max Filippov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39478
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66225
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed May 20 21:39:40 2015
New Revision: 223463
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223463root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR 66225 fix
Modified:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66229
Bug ID: 66229
Summary: LTO fails with -fauto-profile on mcf
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66230
Bug ID: 66230
Summary: Using optimizations causes program to segfault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66227
Bug ID: 66227
Summary: [OOP] EXTENDS_TYPE_OF n returns wrong result for
polymorphic variable allocated to extended type
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #18 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #16)
Also arguments of emit_move_insn must have the same integer modes.
if (reg_overlap_mentioned_p (operands[1], operands[2]))
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66226
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66212
--- Comment #2 from Jim Wilson wilson at gcc dot gnu.org ---
libgcc should be built with debug info by default, but the one in /lib is
probably stripped. Try setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH to point at the gcc-5.1
libraries that you built, instead of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66228
Bug ID: 66228
Summary: Compiling simple program with -flto -O1 causes mad
behaviour
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66225
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The proposed patch allows the big endian powerpc build to build and install.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66229
Dehao Chen dehao at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dehao at google dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63810
--- Comment #25 from Lawrence Velázquez vq at larryv dot me ---
(In reply to m...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #22)
Though I approved it on list, you should feel free to update with the review
points others have and post that version if you wish.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #20 from Douglas Mencken dougmencken at gmail dot com ---
I'm lost. “Vanilla” 5.1.0 configured without --disable-checking went thru
stage2 w/o any issue...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66226
Bug ID: 66226
Summary: Incorrect code generation ppc, later assignment causes
calling argument corruption
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66216
--- Comment #2 from James Almer jamrial at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
And now it gives an ICE on trunk, so it's regressed from rejects-valid to
ice-on-valid-code:
a.cc:1:7: internal compiler error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66225
Bug ID: 66225
Summary: libgcc/config/rs6000/morecore.S will not build on
systems with an older assembler
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66225
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35580
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35580action=edit
Proposed patch to fix the problem
I just wrote this patch, and I'm starting a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65730
jcmvbkbc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66225
Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66225
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66225
--- Comment #4 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: amodra
Date: Wed May 20 23:55:08 2015
New Revision: 223464
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223464root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libgcc/66225
*
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
