https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63813
Bug ID: 63813
Summary: [5 Regression][UBSAN] ICE in ubsan_type_descriptor, at
ubsan.c:346
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63810
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||*-*-darwin*
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63569
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63671
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
There is also code size differnce. I tried to track it down and with
-fno-devirtualize I need to disable all places devirtualization happens:
Index: gimple-fold.c
===
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63748
--- Comment #8 from Alan Modra ---
Thanks! Fix confirmed with gdb sources prior to the workaround Uli committed.
Is the fix appropriate for gcc-4.9? If not, I'll be happy to adjust the target
milestone and close the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60804
--- Comment #11 from ak at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ak
Date: Tue Nov 11 05:10:58 2014
New Revision: 217336
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217336&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Error out for Cilk_spawn or array expression in forbidden places
_Ci
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63812
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This might be an issue in mpfr and not GCC if I read GCC's code correctly.
Depending on how 2.22 is read in as a floating point value.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63811
--- Comment #1 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
The change...
Index: libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_deque.h
===
--- libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_deque.h(revision 217331)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63812
Bug ID: 63812
Summary: Compilation error due to a large floating point
constant truncated to integer
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
cc50-5.0.0-1000/darwin_objdir/x86_64-apple-darwin13.4.0/libstdc++-v3/include
-I/sw/src/fink.build/gcc50-5.0.0-1000/gcc-5-20141110/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++ -O2
-g -std=gnu++0x
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc50-5.0.0-1000/gcc-5-20141110/libstdc++-v3/include/precompiled/stdc++.h
\
-o x86_64-apple-darwin13.4.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63810
--- Comment #1 from Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia ---
Larry said that he's working on a patch to fix this for gcc trunk, and I
suspect he's pretty close to having something since that was about a week ago.
The algorithm for determining what the macr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61407
--- Comment #50 from Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
---
As this bug is now marked as resolved, I've filed #63810 to address the
remaining issues. Lawrence Velázquez is working on a
patch to address the issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63810
Bug ID: 63810
Summary: gcc sets incorrect macro for OS X deployment targets
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61407
--- Comment #49 from Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #45)
> (In reply to Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia from comment #42)
> > The committed patch is incorrect. It makes an invalid assumption which
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63799
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63620
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63620
--- Comment #30 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Nov 10 23:29:59 2014
New Revision: 217325
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217325&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-11 Uros Bizjak
Revert:
2014-10-31 Uros Bizja
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63527
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63620
--- Comment #29 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:33:06 2014
New Revision: 217320
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217320&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-10 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/63620
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63799
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Mon Nov 10 21:33:06 2014
New Revision: 217320
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217320&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-10 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/63620
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63622
--- Comment #26 from Iain Sandoe ---
OK - so two more data points.
( i)
With the alias patch, I can bootstrap x86_64-darwin12
However, there are lots of new fails in Ada (for example) that go away when I
force ipa-icf off.
(ii)
The patch is NO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63748
--- Comment #7 from ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Mon Nov 10 20:43:40 2014
New Revision: 217317
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217317&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-10 Patrick Palka
gcc/
PR middle-end/63748
I have it all working now. Still need to run the test suite, but I
have been able to build perl-5.20.1 and the blead (5.21.6).
The key was to define CONFIG_SHELL before running the configure
script. The second element was getting the compare phase to pass.
Since I did not have GNU cmp installed (b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61407
--- Comment #48 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Created attachment 33932
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33932&action=edit
Patch for gcc 4.8 branch (based on gcc 4.8.3)
This is the patch for GCC 4.8 branch (here based on 4.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61407
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-apple-darwin14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63573
--- Comment #18 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK, in the new testcase we produce thunk that is subsetquently inlined.
Inlining does not drop from_thunk_p flag and thus the call is expanded as
in-thunk call, but after inlining of course the parameters no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63784
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 33931
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33931&action=edit
A testcase
[hjl@gnu-6 pr63784]$ make
./libtool --tag=CXX --mode=compile
/export/build/gnu/gcc/release/usr/gcc-5.0.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61321
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nheghathivhistha at gmail dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63244
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #21 from Cary Couta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63244
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63573
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Nov 10 19:14:17 2014
New Revision: 217307
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217307&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/63573
* calls.c (initialize_argument_information):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63425
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61321
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||riku at multitaction dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63776
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Tom Straub from comment #2)
> Hi Tim,
>
> Okay, a program very similar to this using the Boost REGEX library and ICU
> 4.55 works just fine with this.
>
> According to my understanding, the "
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39336
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63778
--- Comment #9 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Nov 10 18:08:00 2014
New Revision: 217304
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217304&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add a testcase for PR tree-optimization/63778
PR tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61529
--- Comment #11 from Jiong Wang ---
Author: jiwang
Date: Mon Nov 10 17:53:21 2014
New Revision: 217303
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217303&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH] Partially fix PR61529, bound basic block frequency
2014-11-10 R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42978
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||charlet at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63778
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
[hjl@gnu-mic-2 delta-fortran]$ cat foo.f
SUBROUTINE ZUNG2L( M, N, K, A, LDA, TAU, WORK, INFO )
COMPLEX*16 A( LDA, * ), TAU( * ), WORK( * )
IF( M.LT.0 ) THEN
END IF
CALL ZLAR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42978
--- Comment #2 from simon at pushface dot org ---
I posted a patch for this in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-02/msg00325.html, and Arnaud approved
it in the followup message, but it never got applied.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63375
--- Comment #11 from Pranith Kumar ---
Is there any work around for this in the mean time? Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63265
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|paolo.carlini at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61407
howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at bromo dot med
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61018
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Target M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63765
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
Let's go with the one defining _XOPEN_SOURCE only for Solaris until someone
programs David's suggestion of the host-specific configure file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61407
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63765
--- Comment #9 from David Edelsohn ---
I would have expected _XOPEN_SOURCE=500 to be defined in a host-specific
configure file (like libstdc++-v3/config/os/.../os_defines.h) or added to the
compile line in configure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63685
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #24 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
I always thought the major reorganization would be forced whenever Apple
finally fully deprecated the libgcc_s.10.5.dylib stub, the associated
libgcc_s.10.4.dylib symlink pointing at libgcc_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63765
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn ---
> Yes, the single objc failure existed before the patch. But I don't know if
> *other* targets need _XOPEN_SOURCE=500.
True, but now (end of sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63765
--- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn ---
Yes, the single objc failure existed before the patch. But I don't know if
*other* targets need _XOPEN_SOURCE=500.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #23 from Iain Sandoe ---
My take is:
1. It's good we have an upstream patch - if it percolates through that's one
less thing to worry about - although (of course) that will never realistically
be available historically.
2. we have s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63765
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn ---
> If _XOPEN_SOURCE is removed from thr.c completely, the testsuite results
> revert
> to 1 failure.
Did this failure already exist before my pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #22 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #21)
> True, we could also follow this approach again
> (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42333#c55), but it's more of a
> hack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63796
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #21 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
True, we could also follow this approach again
(https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42333#c55), but it's more of a
hack really.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at bromo dot med
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63265
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63778
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63778
>
> --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63778
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62018
--- Comment #19 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #17)
> if it's part of compiler-rt we can just post a patch on llvm-commits and
> that will eventually percolate through to the system.
I've opened an LLVM PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63809
Bug ID: 63809
Summary: Missing warning on extra template
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63808
Bug ID: 63808
Summary: [arm] Invalid register saving in FIQ handler causes
register corruption
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63778
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> I can't reproduce it on x86_64-linux, neither with unreduced zheev.F
> -DSPEC_CPU
> nor with -march=native added. Trying a cross to ppc64-linux (BE).
>
> HJ, please
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63800
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 10 14:31:31 2014
New Revision: 217288
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217288&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-10 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/63800
* tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63806
--- Comment #4 from Yury Gribov ---
Looks like some compilers check integer demotions (e.g. MS checks with their
/RTCc flag). I wonder if it makes sense to add an optional flag for this
(obviously not enabled under normal -fsanitize=undefined).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48293
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48012
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48002
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||charlet at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63805
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.5 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63799
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63796
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63798
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63798
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 10 14:06:56 2014
New Revision: 217287
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217287&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-10 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/63798
* expr.c (exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55479
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63807
Bug ID: 63807
Summary: -Wvarargs doesn't warn when last argument has type
that causes undefined behaviour
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63573
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #15)
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63573
> >
> > --- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
> > (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #12)
> > > This a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61018
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63806
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
No, narrowing conversion is implementation defined, and gcc defines that to the
modulo 2^N wrapping, so this is not undefined behavior, and furthermore,
something you'd complain about in pretty much all the c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63805
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63806
--- Comment #2 from Yury Gribov ---
I think Marat meant that narrowing cast from int to char can be undefined and
it makes sense to emit some check for it as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63771
Aaro Koskinen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aaro.koskinen at iki dot fi
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63806
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62141
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63573
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63573
>
> --- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #12)
> > This also breaks g++.dg/ipa/pr63587-2.C on powerpc -m32, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63806
Bug ID: 63806
Summary: #UBSAN ignores signed char possible overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: saniti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63804
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Please ignore comment 4.
Testcase without implicit functions:
markus@x4 tmp % cat bug169.c
struct brw_context
{
int gen;
} e;
int a, d;
long b;
enum brw_reg_type
{
BRW_REGISTER_TYPE_Q
};
struct br
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63804
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
trippels@gcc2-power8 status % cat freelist_test.ii
template struct A
{
_Tp _M_i;
void
load ()
{
_Tp a;
__atomic_load (&_M_i, &a, 0);
}
};
class B
{
int *ptr;
int tag;
};
class
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48039
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i686-apple-darwin9 |
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48012
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i686-apple-darwin9 |
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48293
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i686-apple-darwin9 |
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48013
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i686-apple-darwin9 |
Host|i686-apple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63748
--- Comment #6 from Ulrich Weigand ---
I guess I can see why there might be an abnormal edge starting at bb 3, or at
least, that the compiler might not be easily able to deduce that it isn't
necessary.
However, I do not understand why any of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48002
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i686-apple-darwin9 |
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61127
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin13.1.0 |
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63805
Bug ID: 63805
Summary: [4.9/4.8/5 Regression] ICE: in extract_insn, at
recog.c:2154 with -mcpu=power8
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63803
Airbak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #7 from Airbak ---
Thank yo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63804
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63803
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
If dereferencing 0 is ok on your platform, you need at least
-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks. I don't know if the isolate pass checks that
flag though (it probably should).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63804
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
