https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93820
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d0eff1793dc844c2a9532d8ef1a07ba137cfb4e6
commit r9-8281-gd0eff1793dc844c2a9532d8ef1a07ba137cfb4e6
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93934
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
I think regstack is fine as x87 only supports computations in its native 80-bit
format and conversions to/from ieee float/double happen only on memory
loads/stores.
> I suppose a fldt followed by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93047
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jiu Fu Guo
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0ce89ea10d93a583854f02bc115e05cfd9d818e4
commit r9-8282-g0ce89ea10d93a583854f02bc115e05cfd9d818e4
Author: Jiufu Guo
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93943
Bug ID: 93943
Summary: IRA/LRA happily rematerialize (un-CSEs) loads without
register pressure
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93907
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93820
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4d213bf6011ed2b30b9d0ca70069a5dbc294b5d7
commit r10-6860-g4d213bf6011ed2b30b9d0ca70069a5dbc294b5d7
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93945
Bug ID: 93945
Summary: [9/10 Regression] memset of non-zero constant followed
by bitfield read big-endian miscompilation since
r9-547
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93820
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8edd406bd7515833905d6bba8fb9195af392008c
commit r8-10083-g8edd406bd7515833905d6bba8fb9195af392008c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93820
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93934
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|missed-optimization |wrong-code
--- Comment #4 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93939
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93934
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov ---
Ah, indeed. fld won't raise FE_INVALID for 80-bit long double, but here
'result' is stored on the stack in 64-bit format.
So: fcmov and 80-bit fldt don't trap, 32-bit flds and 64-bit fldl do.
Somehow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #123 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #121)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #120)
> >
> > That's a huge task which is why I prefer fixing issues on the fly.
>
> I thought
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #124 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #123)
> I will just do that for the default kernel now. But I won't trigger a full
> archive rebuild. Just report issues once I see them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93942
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Component|web
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93944
Bug ID: 93944
Summary: Undocumented side effect in operand evaluations
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93905
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5de338f001eb2a821f40e599bd55119d43e0ae7e
commit r10-6859-g5de338f001eb2a821f40e599bd55119d43e0ae7e
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93934
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89164
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87544
--- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. in case somebody does want to backport it, the fix for this depends on the
fix for PR 78448.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90281
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93941
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93934
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Or the issue is in regstack handling all stack vars as 80bit and thus
introducing the conversion step in the first place.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93820
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ce25177f505ea75b3c0833c3f3f0072b97ee1b44
commit r10-6861-gce25177f505ea75b3c0833c3f3f0072b97ee1b44
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93942
Bug ID: 93942
Summary: [Extended-Asm] Last code snippet in 6.47.2.3 Output
Operands is unsafe
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93943
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93905
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c6b81c451983f1b9a6e184f137819abf4978eddd
commit r9-8280-gc6b81c451983f1b9a6e184f137819abf4978eddd
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93835
markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93935
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93934
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93903
Frédéric Recoules changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||frederic.recoules@univ-gren
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29186
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
For the division when GCC doesn't know the divident is not zero I think we
actually fixed the bug but yes, in general FP operation reordering wrt FP
env access isn't fixed.
But GCC needs to consider that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93905
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f4335f978249a2991620f38e118adf790e677968
commit r8-10082-gf4335f978249a2991620f38e118adf790e677968
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93939
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
typedef long T;
also generates a comparison with 24.
The main issue is that b is used outside of the branch controlled by if(b==8),
so a naive substitution misses it. Repeating 3*b in the branch is useless,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93934
Zoltan Vajda changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93930
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87544
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93940
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93940
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> __atomic_fetch_add_8 (&__gcov0._ZN1g1iE1a[2], 1, 0);
>
> I wonder what the type of __gcov0._ZN1g1iE1a is.
It's correct.
unit-size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93940
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93942
--- Comment #2 from Frédéric Recoules
---
You are right, it is not strictly speaking wrong per-say but, I would say the
context is a little bit misleading.
Yet, I may be too x86 oriented... as a matter of personal curiosity, do you
known an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93942
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
M68K has memory to memory moves.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93945
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For 9.x all we need is add && multiple_p (ref->size, BITS_PER_UNIT) because the
code doesn't attempt to handle loads or stores that aren't byte aligned and
whole byte sized.
I found this by code inspection
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93681
--- Comment #4 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
Instead of "-m32 -march=i686", one can also compile with "-mfpmath=387". This
is useful if one does not have the 32-bit libs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93946
Bug ID: 93946
Summary: Bogus redundant store removal
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93946
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91947
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:761696abfe0a772315449e3d2b57de76756f5953
commit r8-10085-g761696abfe0a772315449e3d2b57de76756f5953
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81091
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:56b6c2ba3a45c768a33f726b130a56fc19cca650
commit r8-10084-g56b6c2ba3a45c768a33f726b130a56fc19cca650
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93936
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91947
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:56b6c2ba3a45c768a33f726b130a56fc19cca650
commit r8-10084-g56b6c2ba3a45c768a33f726b130a56fc19cca650
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93944
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93942
Frédéric Recoules changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93947
Bug ID: 93947
Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault (in
symtab_node::ultimate_alias_target)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78552
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:26b070a3f6e5c7ccee7491fb758dba4c72bd7026
commit r8-10086-g26b070a3f6e5c7ccee7491fb758dba4c72bd7026
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93945
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93945
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93942
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Frédéric Recoules from comment #2)
> Yet, I may be too x86 oriented... as a matter of personal curiosity, do you
> known an architecture that allows such dual memory constraint?
Yes s390, mvc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93944
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90811
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
estimate_stack_frame_size is definitely the wrong spot to change DECL_ALIGN of
variables, that is a routine for inlining heuristics and shouldn't have such
side-effects.
It can be done in some other pass of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93910
--- Comment #10 from stephane.goujet at wanadoo dot fr ---
(In reply to stephane.goujet from comment #9)
> 2. There are inconsistencies in the Warning:
Another inconsistency:
2.c The documentation of the packed attribute says "This attribute,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93919
Bug 93919 depends on bug 93843, which changed state.
Bug 93843 Summary: [10 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93843
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93944
Frédéric Recoules changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93843
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93871
--- Comment #26 from Thomas Henlich ---
Created attachment 47914
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47914=edit
Demonstration of range reduction
There is a danger of some inaccuracy in the degree trigonometric functions
(sind,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90811
Kito Cheng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kito at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93843
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b6268016bf46dd63227dcbb73d13c30a3b4b9d2a
commit r10-6863-gb6268016bf46dd63227dcbb73d13c30a3b4b9d2a
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93945
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #24 from Oleg Endo ---
Adrian, have you had a chance to apply the test patch in comment #22 and re-run
it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #125 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #122)
>
> The build process is. Fixing broken packages isn't.
>
> Everything is around 13.000 source packages.
>
> And, finally, the buildd capacity is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90546
Bug 90546 depends on bug 86521, which changed state.
Bug 86521 Summary: [8 Regression] GCC 8 selects incorrect overload of
ref-qualified conversion operator template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86521
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86521
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93803
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d6ff22074126d38829f25981de9d6940cd2a234c
commit r10-6865-gd6ff22074126d38829f25981de9d6940cd2a234c
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93949
Bug ID: 93949
Summary: Register const local var will not compile
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93562
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:30cb4c78ea6563177c43f897e480d9993c38c0ed
commit r9-8285-g30cb4c78ea6563177c43f897e480d9993c38c0ed
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93948
Bug ID: 93948
Summary: Surprising option processing of -fdec and -fdec-math
in combination with -std
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92922
Joel Hutton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joel.hutton at arm dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78552
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|8.4
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #25 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #24)
> Adrian, have you had a chance to apply the test patch in comment #22 and
> re-run it?
I hadn't seen this patch, sorry. I will try that tonight.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93905
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93877
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo ---
I can't reproduce the first case with a standalone sh-elf compiler (GCC 9).
The compile flags mention
-specs=/usr/share/dpkg/pie-compile.specs
... what's in that specs file?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92376
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88380
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93812
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The problem is that c-format.c assumes that when the "format" attribute is
present, handle_format_attribute has already verified it and it was ok.
Unfortunately, that is not the case, because if the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93862
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93936
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8ce13842b50cbd2676f2e322995182af20df31fe
commit r10-6871-g8ce13842b50cbd2676f2e322995182af20df31fe
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93936
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93676
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:38e1002657828150b2cda9f80c1f752184286e80
commit r10-6872-g38e1002657828150b2cda9f80c1f752184286e80
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93948
Thomas Henlich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93938
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78552
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:84a5534ce2f8233e6fe9c957ec51a2328bfe60e3
commit r9-8283-g84a5534ce2f8233e6fe9c957ec51a2328bfe60e3
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93947
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93812
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93059
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93059
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|gcc 10.0|
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93944
--- Comment #4 from Frédéric Recoules
---
I do apologise for the inconvenience, but I am still really convinced that an
explicit note wouldn't hurt so much.
At least I've learned something today and I am thankful for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92376
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1b522a79133037f04c8ffcdfbe6c885ccb3ddcd3
commit r9-8284-g1b522a79133037f04c8ffcdfbe6c885ccb3ddcd3
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89831
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93059
--- Comment #35 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #26)
> (In reply to fdlbxtqi from comment #2)
> > Also find a bug of __memmove
> >
> > /*
> >* A constexpr wrapper for __builtin_memmove.
> >* @param
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92376
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:499ea2e31fba0ff6e4492f0a62e3ffb2bdba465e
commit r8-10087-g499ea2e31fba0ff6e4492f0a62e3ffb2bdba465e
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93877
--- Comment #11 from James Clarke ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #10)
> I can't reproduce the first case with a standalone sh-elf compiler (GCC 9).
>
> The compile flags mention
>
> -specs=/usr/share/dpkg/pie-compile.specs
>
>
1 - 100 of 197 matches
Mail list logo