https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69831
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Works for me on the trunk:
GNU C++14 (GCC) version 6.0.0 20160215 (experimental) [trunk revision 233436]
(aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu)
compiled by GNU C version 6.0.0 20160215 (experimental) [trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69831
sniderdj at umich dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69740
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, in *.mergephi1 we have:
:
b.0_4 = b;
if (b.0_4 != 0)
goto ;
else
goto ;
:
c[0] = 0;
l1:
c ={v} {CLOBBER};
:
a.1_7 = a;
if (a.1_7 != 0)
goto (l1);
else
goto ;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69801
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 16 08:39:22 2016
New Revision: 233444
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233444=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-02-16 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/69801
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69586
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 16 09:00:32 2016
New Revision: 233445
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233445=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-02-16 Richard Biener
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69805
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69630
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #3)
> should fix the testcase. Will test the patch ASAP.
That patch works for the big program :-) I am looking forward for the committed
fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69801
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69832
Bug ID: 69832
Summary: internal compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69802
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 16 09:12:37 2016
New Revision: 233446
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233446=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/69802
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69827
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
cygwin probably runs into the target hooks querying libc functionality
switch (gimple_call_combined_fn (stmt))
{
CASE_CFN_COS:
CASE_CFN_SIN:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69827
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67709
--- Comment #11 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue Feb 16 09:23:09 2016
New Revision: 233447
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233447=gcc=rev
Log:
Don't call call_cgraph_insertion_hooks in simd_clone_create
2016-02-16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69833
Bug ID: 69833
Summary: Warning during bootstrap of
--with-build-config=bootstrap-asan
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69833
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 37700
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37700=edit
Candidate patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67709
--- Comment #12 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Asked about 4.9/5 backport:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01054.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69741
--- Comment #8 from Nick ---
That is much more informative.
However, how are gcc policies on progressive errors?
I mean the later errors are due to this non-scalar counter. Should they be
silenced in that case?
In any case I think this is much
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69776
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Looks like the fix was too constrained. I have a patch to fix it some more.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69833
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Erm. How can valid load/store motion do this? Is asan instrumentation /
optimization for TREE_TYPE (lhs) misoptimized?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69834
Bug ID: 69834
Summary: Collision in derived type hashes
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69291
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 16 10:53:08 2016
New Revision: 233448
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233448=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-02-16 Richard Biener
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69829
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69834
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69834
--- Comment #2 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Thanks Thomas! Sorry that I missed your PR.
I wonder what, if anything, we should do about it?
Cheers
Paul
On 16 February 2016 at 11:54, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64500
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
sassembly of section .text:
│
│ 00ddaba0 :
│ _Z17push_to_top_levelv():
0.00 │ push %r15
0.03 │ push %r14
│ mov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69833
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64500
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
And it immediately jumps back up again:
│6cc: mov0x10(%rbx),%rbx
│ test %rbx,%rbx
│ ↑ jnec0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69835
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69835
Bug ID: 69835
Summary: [6 Regression] -Wnonnull diagnoses parameter
comparisons with NULL even when those could have
changed
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69805
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Created attachment 37698 [details]
> gcc6-pr69805.patch
>
> Untested fix.
>
As author of the patch that introduces the problem, let me do a review.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69791
--- Comment #2 from Дилян Палаузов ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> How did you configure and call make?
FLAGS as mentioned.
/git/gcc/configure --enable-host-shared --enable-threads=posix
--with-arch=haswell
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69805
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to vries from comment #3)
> This changes the semantics of greater_than_spec_func slightly. Strictly
> speaking not necessary to fix the ICE. But the new semantics will perhaps be
> easier to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69363
iverbin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69836
Bug ID: 69836
Summary: compilation error with constexpr in template types
with redeclared methods
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69363
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
IMHO for consistency you should change the C FE too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69837
Bug ID: 69837
Summary: compilation error with constexpr in template types
with redeclared methods
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69835
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 37703
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37703=edit
gcc6-pr69835.patch
Untested fix, which moves the warning from the FE to early uninit pass (i.e.
shortly after going
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69834
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69815
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69805
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> (In reply to vries from comment #3)
> > This changes the semantics of greater_than_spec_func slightly. Strictly
> > speaking not necessary to fix the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69161
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Any progress with this? If the aarch64 part is approved and arm approval is
not coming soon, please consider applying at least the aarch64 part.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68147
--- Comment #4 from Martin Reinecke ---
Any progress on this?
I fear that this might affect quite many people once strings of allocatable
length become more popular in Fortran ... and I sure hope they will!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69802
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regression] gcc|[4.9/5 Regression] gcc ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22141
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69838
Bug ID: 69838
Summary: [regression] Lra deletes EH_REGION
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69838
--- Comment #1 from Dominik Vogt ---
Created attachment 37705
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37705=edit
Reload dump (broken)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67709
--- Comment #13 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue Feb 16 13:49:22 2016
New Revision: 233450
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233450=gcc=rev
Log:
backport "Don't call call_cgraph_insertion_hooks in simd_clone_create"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69839
Bug ID: 69839
Summary: cross-compiling programs w/-fsanitize=address fails:
ld: warning: libstdc++.so.6, needed by libasan.so, not
found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65821
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69553
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69840
Bug ID: 69840
Summary: two ASAN help nits
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69841
Bug ID: 69841
Summary: Wrong template instantiation in C++11 on armv7l
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69714
--- Comment #23 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Author: bernds
Date: Tue Feb 16 14:42:59 2016
New Revision: 233452
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233452=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix bswap optimization on big-endian (PR69714, 67781).
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69796
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69553
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
So the issue is that
[(const struct B[2] &)p1_2(D)][1]
and
[(const int[2] &)p1_2(D)][1]
are considered equal even though we have int[] vs. B[] and thus different
element sizes and different offsets (but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69776
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 16 15:00:45 2016
New Revision: 233453
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233453=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-02-16 Richard Biener
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #31 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Feb 16 15:11:26 2016
New Revision: 233454
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233454=gcc=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/65932: stop changing signedness in PROMOTE_MODE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714
--- Comment #19 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Feb 16 15:11:26 2016
New Revision: 233454
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233454=gcc=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/65932: stop changing signedness in PROMOTE_MODE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #32 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Tue Feb 16 15:13:05 2016
New Revision: 233455
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233455=gcc=rev
Log:
[ARM] Adjust tests after fix for PR 65932
PR target/65932
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69771
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 16 15:15:40 2016
New Revision: 233456
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233456=gcc=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/69764
PR rtl-optimization/69771
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69764
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 16 15:15:40 2016
New Revision: 233456
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233456=gcc=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/69764
PR rtl-optimization/69771
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69820
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Wrong-code issue fixed, the ICE fix is still pending review.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69553
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Exposes a similar issue in stmt_kills_ref_p which does
2248 /* Just compare the outermost handled component, if
2249 they are equal we have found a possible
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69820
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 16 15:16:48 2016
New Revision: 233457
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233457=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/69820
* tree-vect-patterns.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64748
--- Comment #6 from jnorris at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jnorris
Date: Tue Feb 16 15:29:04 2016
New Revision: 233458
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233458=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/64748
gcc/c/
* c-parser.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69801
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 16 15:34:07 2016
New Revision: 233459
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233459=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/69801
* gcc.dg/pr69801.c: Add empty dg-options.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69842
Bug ID: 69842
Summary: Parameter deduction in polymorphic lambdas
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67709
--- Comment #14 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Tue Feb 16 16:22:28 2016
New Revision: 233465
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233465=gcc=rev
Log:
backport "Don't call call_cgraph_insertion_hooks in simd_clone_create"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67709
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64748
--- Comment #7 from jnorris at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jnorris
Date: Tue Feb 16 16:27:11 2016
New Revision: 233466
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233466=gcc=rev
Log:
Backport from trunk:
PR c/64748
gcc/cp/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67709
--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Marking resolved-fixed.
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69833
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Something like:
#!/bin/sh
.../cc1plus -quiet ...opts... -fsanitize=address -Werror=maybe-uninitialized
pr69833.ii 2>&1 | awk '/may be used uninitialized in this
function/{seen=seen+1;next}/error:/{exit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69833
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Can you delta reduce or creduce tree-vect-patterns.ii with a test that it
> emits
> this warning with -fsanitize=address and does not without it?
I've just done,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69842
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69843
Bug ID: 69843
Summary: C++: Inconsistent treatment of may_alias attribute and
forward declarations
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69833
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Something like:
> #!/bin/sh
> .../cc1plus -quiet ...opts... -fsanitize=address -Werror=maybe-uninitialized
> pr69833.ii 2>&1 | awk '/may be used uninitialized in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69706
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davem at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69456
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 37707
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37707=edit
A patch to fix this.
This patch enables the error message. It regression tests OK.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69843
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69844
Bug ID: 69844
Summary: Possibly bogus error: unknown type name in ObjC code
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69843
--- Comment #2 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Is the forward declaration here in glibc headers?
> If yes, using __attribute__((may_alias)) there too wouldn't hurt.
> Or do you mean users forward declare
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69843
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, while there can't be dereferences, there can be pointers to the struct,
the question is if we can fix them all up to make them ref-all afterwards.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69657
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Feb 16 19:01:49 2016
New Revision: 233470
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233470=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/69657
* name-lookup.c (lookup_qualified_name): Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69714
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, is this fixed now, or are we waiting for a different fix from Thomas?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69843
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For
struct sockaddr;
struct sockaddr *foo (void);
struct __attribute__ ((may_alias)) sockaddr
{
};
struct sockaddr *
foo (void)
{
return (struct sockaddr *) 0;
}
we reject it in C and ICE in C++:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69706
--- Comment #7 from davem at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'm leaning towards fixing both the ICE and the ABI bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69714
--- Comment #25 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
Is Bend's fix okay for gcc-5 branch?
--
John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68147
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
This is seriously strange.
Looking into this...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68147
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
Here's a patch:
Index: frontend-passes.c
===
--- frontend-passes.c (Revision 233410)
+++ frontend-passes.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -153,7 +153,7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69845
Bug ID: 69845
Summary: Expression getting incorrectly optimized after being
rewritten by compiler
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68147
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69835
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 16 20:46:17 2016
New Revision: 233472
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233472=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/69835
* common.opt (Wnonnull-compare): New warning.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69835
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69846
Bug ID: 69846
Summary: empty struct value fails to pass properly
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69845
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69845
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69846
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
For C++98, this is undefined code because dummy is not a POD. For C++11, I
don't know if it is undefined or not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69845
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
Probably extract_muldiv... It does check TREE_OVERFLOW, but for some reason
only aborts if the result is INT_MIN.
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo