https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89299
--- Comment #6 from paradox_ptr at protonmail dot ch ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> I'm curious about the use case: can you describe what you are using
> the attribute for in C++?
I don't have a meaningful use case for you.
Was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78983
--- Comment #10 from Damian Rouson ---
I see no ICE in testing the code from Comment 3 using fortran 7.3.0, 8.2.0, and
9.0.1. I believe this can be closed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89327
Bug ID: 89327
Summary: Joined options without RejectsNegative
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87689
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On February 13, 2019 6:56:15 AM GMT+01:00, amodra at gmail dot com
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87689
>
>--- Comment #17 from Alan Modra ---
>> On platforms where varargs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89328
Bug ID: 89328
Summary: static chain made mandatory
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89290
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 13 08:45:37 2019
New Revision: 268837
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268837&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/89290
* config/i386/predicates.md (x86_64_immedi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86991
--- Comment #9 from Tilir ---
One more test case:
int b[11], e[11], c, d;
void f() {
unsigned g, h;
for (; g < 11; g += 2) {
c = 2;
for (; c; c += 3) {
h = 1;
for (; h < 11; h++)
e[h] = e[h] + d - b[g];
}
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89328
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83423
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpoulhies at kalray dot eu
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89306
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.2.0, 9.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89329
Bug ID: 89329
Summary: "-O2" optimization causes a infinite loop
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89326
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89326
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89329
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89324
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89324
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matmal01 at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #13)
> So if the two bugs have the same root cause, it seems to be a problem in
> __weak_count::_M_assign, failing to set _M_pi here:
>
> __weak_count&
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89223
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Feb 13 10:02:47 2019
New Revision: 268838
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268838&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-13 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89253
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #57 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Feb 13 10:02:47 2019
New Revision: 268838
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268838&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-13 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89253
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Feb 13 10:02:47 2019
New Revision: 268838
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268838&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-13 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89330
Bug ID: 89330
Summary: IPA inliner touches released cgraph_edges
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89330
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 45690
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45690&action=edit
test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89330
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 45691
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45691&action=edit
test-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88986
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Feb 13 10:34:49 2019
New Revision: 268839
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268839&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2019-02-13 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/88986
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88986
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] ICE: |[7/8 Regression] ICE: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87113
--- Comment #4 from smehringer ---
Thanks for the fix!
Is the fix included only in GCC 9 or also in GCC 7 and 8?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Before fre3 we have:
_24 = malloc (40);
...
MEM[(struct __allocated_ptr *)&__guard clique 9 base 1]._M_ptr = _24;
_15 = __guard._M_ptr;
...
_16 = &MEM[(struct __aligned_buffer *)_15 + 16B]._M_storage
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Those DCE or DSE removals of the store look weird. In the alias info we have:
# PT = null { D.5120 } (escaped, escaped heap)
# ALIGN = 8, MISALIGN = 0
# USE = nonlocal null { D.4247 D.5109 D.5120 D.51
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49054
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Duret-Lutz ---
I revisited this with GCC 8.2.1 (or more precisely the version called
gcc-8.2.0-20 in Debian).
The original code I gave now generate a jump table with no extra comparison:
:
0:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
On:
# .MEM_64 = VDEF <.MEM_63>
MEM[(struct __weak_ptr *)_16]._M_ptr = _16;
stmt_may_clobber_global_p (stmt) returns false.
(gdb) p pt_solution_includes_global
(&cfun->gimple_df->ssa_names->m_vecdata[16]->ssa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Summary|[8/9 Regression] m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89260
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Feb 13 11:24:28 2019
New Revision: 268840
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268840&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Bump LTO_minor_version on GCC-8 branch (PR lto/89260).
2019-02-13 Marti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89331
Bug ID: 89331
Summary: internal compiler error: in build_simple_base_path, at
cp/class.c:589
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89260
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
--- gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c.jj 2019-01-01 12:37:18.738949011 +0100
+++ gcc/tree-ssa-structalias.c 2019-02-13 12:28:54.592256591 +0100
@@ -6412,7 +6412,7 @@ set_uids_in_ptset (bitmap into, bitmap f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89295
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89332
Bug ID: 89332
Summary: Missed detection of dead stores to array in a loop
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89193
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89281
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 13 12:12:09 2019
New Revision: 268841
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268841&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/89281
* optabs.c (prepare_cmp_insn): Use UIN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83700
Bug 83700 depends on bug 78983, which changed state.
Bug 78983 Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] ICE with CAF-DT with allocatable member
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78983
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78983
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89222
--- Comment #8 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #7)
> Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-02/msg00780.html
Updated patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-02/msg00947.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89291
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Installed gcc-5.5.0 and built the identical WRF version.
>
> No ICE encountered with 5.5.0.
Then if you get an ICE with 7.4, it a regression. Did you try 8.2 or trunk.
> Contacted NCAR, the provid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89331
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89100
--- Comment #7 from MarkEggleston ---
Created attachment 45693
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45693&action=edit
Update to option and Extension documentation
Documentation changes in their own difference file so that they ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89324
--- Comment #3 from Matthew Malcomson ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #2)
> The sub3_compare1_imm pattern was introduced for GCC 9. It's probably
> something going wrong with the constraints. Matthew, could you take a look
> please?
On fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88649
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Feb 13 13:04:56 2019
New Revision: 268842
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268842&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix -fdec simplification (PR fortran/88649).
2019-02-13 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89100
MarkEggleston changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45548|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89100
MarkEggleston changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45603|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89100
--- Comment #10 from MarkEggleston ---
Created attachment 45696
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45696&action=edit
Change Log for gcc/testsuite for patch
Replace -fdec-format-defaults with PR fortran/89100.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89100
MarkEggleston changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45550|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89323
--- Comment #4 from Ganesh Babu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> I can confirm that LSAN does not work for -m32 on current trunk. It was
> enabled in:
>
> commit 1e39eaad45fc92b49e189badf0a5a675fbfb4ad0
> Author: Francis Ricci
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89323
--- Comment #5 from Ganesh Babu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> > works for current clang:
> >
> > clang-6.0 -g -fsanitize=address -fno-omit-frame-pointer -m32 asantest.c &&
> > ./a.out
> >
> > AddressSanitizer:DEADLYSIGNAL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88649
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 88649, which changed state.
Bug 88649 Summary: runtime error: load of value 137971008, which is not a valid
value for type 'gfc_intrinsic_op'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88649
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84554
Bennet Fauber changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bennet at umich dot edu
--- Comment #8 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Feb 13 13:32:00 2019
New Revision: 268843
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268843&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-13 Jakub Jelinek
PR middle-end/89303
* tree-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89331
--- Comment #2 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Simplified testcase:
> struct A { char a; };
> struct B : public A { static constexpr int b = __builtin_offsetof (B, a); };
>
> clang rejects this too, not really
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89333
Bug ID: 89333
Summary: [9 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/vect*.adb on darwin
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89286
--- Comment #9 from MarkEggleston ---
Created attachment 45698
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45698&action=edit
GNU extension to intrinsic SIGN
Remove declaration of gfc_check_sign from intrinsic.h has it has been deleted.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89334
Bug ID: 89334
Summary: unsupported size for integer register
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: inline-asm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89333
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89286
MarkEggleston changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45658|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89249
--- Comment #4 from Liviu Ionescu ---
I added a printf() in pex_win32_exec_child() to see why the lto invocation
fails, and here is the result:
>>>>> pex_win32_exec_child (executable='c:/users/ilg/desktop/8.2.1
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89330
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89326
--- Comment #2 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
Btw, I just occasionally noted: godbolt site adds their own highlight to GCC
output, in particular they highlight the whole line with "required from here"
with blue. Maybe something can be borrowed fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89249
--- Comment #5 from Liviu Ionescu ---
The patch is wrong, it should read:
#if defined (__MINGW32__)
// Win32 fails to CreateProcess if spaces are escaped.
#else
lto_wrapper_file = convert_white_space (lto_wrapper_file);
#endif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88847
--- Comment #4 from Tamar Christina ---
Author: tnfchris
Date: Wed Feb 13 14:04:41 2019
New Revision: 268845
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268845&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
AArch64: Allow any offset for SVE addressing modes before reload.
On
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89284
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89335
Bug ID: 89335
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE with LTO -Wsuggest-final-methods:
ICE during IPA pass devirt in types_same_for_odr, at
ipa-devirt.c:391
Product: gcc
Ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86554
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Feb 13 14:22:06 2019
New Revision: 268846
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268846&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-02-13 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89335
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89316
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ak at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89280
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89316
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Guess this is similar to the TLS ICE with -mforce-indirect-call. In this
> case, I think we need to figure out into which register could we load the
> address. Un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89036
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89316
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> > Guess this is similar to the TLS ICE with -mforce-indirect-call. In this
> > case, I think we need to figure out into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89290
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE in |[8 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] memory |[7/8 Regression] memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89281
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88847
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89326
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think it highlights all lines where the location is the main source file, so
they stand out from anything with a location in a header.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89330
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mjambor at suse dot cz
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89307
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 45703
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45703&action=edit
patch for tls counters (incomplete - no runtime bits)
Also I think google's code to reduce cacheline conflicts is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89334
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87113
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
It was fixed for 8.3+ too, but not in 7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87113
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
(GCC 8.3 should be released Feb 22.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87761
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89036
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Wed Feb 13 15:48:37 2019
New Revision: 268847
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268847&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
C++ concepts: fix ICE with requires on dtors (PR c++/89036)
PR c++/890
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88699
--- Comment #10 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Wed Feb 13 15:48:37 2019
New Revision: 268847
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268847&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
C++ concepts: fix ICE with requires on dtors (PR c++/89036)
PR c++/89
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89336
Bug ID: 89336
Summary: internal compiler error when compiling a constexpr
function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89036
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE if |[8 Regression] ICE if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89334
--- Comment #2 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> the same for -m64, but only al/bl/cl/dl for -m32, because there is no
> sil/dil/bpl for -m32.
But why does this matter?
I am perfectly fine with al/bl/cl/dl, neve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89316
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #5)
> > actually since all the bugs seem to be about different targets triggering
> > that assert in different ways, woul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89334
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If you are using inline asm, you need to know what you are doing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-8.2.0/gcc/Simple-Constraints.html#Simple-Constraints
‘r’
A register operand is allowed provided that it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89336
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNC
1 - 100 of 194 matches
Mail list logo
