https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70963
--- Comment #5 from Konstantinos Margaritis ---
Ack, thanks for the heads up on VSX registers, it does print more reasonable
results now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71040
Bug ID: 71040
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error:
invalid operand in unary operation; error: incorrect
sharing of tree nodes) w/ -O3
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71039
Bug ID: 71039
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (error:
definition in block 4 does not dominate use in block
5) w/ -O1 and above
Product: gcc
Version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71038
Bug ID: 71038
Summary: copy_file(...) returns false on successful copy.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71037
Bug ID: 71037
Summary: Exceptions thrown from "filesystem::canonical(...)"
should contain both paths.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71036
Bug ID: 71036
Summary: create_directory(p, ...) reports a failure when 'p' is
an existing directory
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71035
--- Comment #2 from Judy Ward ---
Yes I have a beta copy of EDG
4.11 which has relaxed constexpr and they give an error. Unfortunately some
Boost code (I think inadvertently) relies on not giving a diagnostic.
Yes I see your point that this is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71013
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 38460
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38460&action=edit
Patch
This fixes build failure on hppa64-hpux. Not sure its the right place
or even right fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71035
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68945
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> * In runtime/config/sparc/os-unix-sysdep.c (__cilkrts_getticks) I needed
> different
> 32- and 64-bit versions. I tested the result in standalone program which
> just
> printed the result.
This looks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70947
--- Comment #1 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Mon May 9 23:12:20 2016
New Revision: 236052
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236052&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] Stop regrename twiddling with split-stack prologue
PR targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71014
--- Comment #9 from Keith Lindsay ---
Harald,
Thanks for your tips on validation/sanitizing tools.
I am not sufficiently fluent in standard-ese to know what 'associated
do-loops(s)" means. It doesn't help that BLOCK and ASSOCIATE appear in othe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71032
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70963
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, there is an obvious bug in the define_expand for vsx_xvcvdpsxds_scale. If
the scale factor is 0, wrong code is always generated. I'll get a patch going.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71035
Bug ID: 71035
Summary: GNU does not give error on declaration of non literal
type in template function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70963
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Note also that your asm constraints are wrong. You need VSX registers, not
Altivec registers, so you should be using the "wa" constraint instead of the
"v" constraint. This is why you get some apparently wro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70957
--- Comment #9 from Bill Seurer ---
Systems where I see it fail:
granola
yavin3
Systems where I do not:
bns
All are power7 BE systems. I didn't do anything special on any of the systems.
I ran configure like this on all of them:
/home/seurer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70963
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
The xxswapd's are a bit of a red herring. These are part of the little-endian
normalization code that are required with the funky lxvd2x and stxvd2x
instructions. The problem appears to be the register assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #30 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 02:55:01PM +, fritzoreese at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
>
> --- Comment #29 from Fritz Reese ---
> (In reply to Andreas Schwab from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71034
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I think this is the optimizations that should be done:
> abs(x) < 0 -> x != x
for x=NaN, abs(x) is NaN, and NaN<0 is false. So the current simplification to
false
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71034
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is the optimizations that should be done:
abs(x) < 0 -> x != x
abs(x) >= 0 -> x u== x
abs(x) == 0 -> x == 0
abs(x) <= 0 -> x == 0 (since this is an ordered comparison)
abs(x) u< 0 -> false
abs(x)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71034
Bug ID: 71034
Summary: abs(f) u>= 0. is always true
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70988
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|missing buffer overflow |missing buffer overflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70626
--- Comment #6 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cesar
Date: Mon May 9 20:42:47 2016
New Revision: 236049
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236049&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport trunk r235651:
2016-04-29 Cesar Philip
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71014
--- Comment #8 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Keith Lindsay from comment #6)
> Harald,
>
> The problem does go away if I add a PRIVATE(i) clause to the OMP directive.
>
> However, my understanding of OpenMP in fortran is that all loop iter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69363
--- Comment #8 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cesar
Date: Mon May 9 20:23:31 2016
New Revision: 236047
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236047&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport trunk r235290:
2016-04-20 Ilya Verbin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71033
Mateusz Forc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71027
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Yes, you are right, and probably in real programs the subroutine would
not be optimized away.
Thank you for the explanation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71033
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
x86 ABI requires that %ebx is preserved across function call. So, you need to
save it to stack in f.s and restore it before function returs. Or, you can use
%edx instead, which can be clobbered in function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71033
Bug ID: 71033
Summary: Segmentation fault c + intel assembly, unable to use
EBX
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71014
--- Comment #7 from Keith Lindsay ---
The Linux system that I'm working on has multiple versions of gcc/gfortran
installed. I've compiled and run my example program with different versions and
have found the following:
Versions 4.9.0, 4.9.1, 4.9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71032
Bug ID: 71032
Summary: explicit interface and must not have attributes
generates gfortran: internal compiler error: Abort
trap: 6 (program f951)
Product: gcc
Vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71014
--- Comment #6 from Keith Lindsay ---
Harald,
The problem does go away if I add a PRIVATE(i) clause to the OMP directive.
However, my understanding of OpenMP in fortran is that all loop iteration
variables, even inner nested loops, in an OpenMP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71030
Mateusz Forc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71031
Bug ID: 71031
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE in
extract_range_from_binary_expr_1, at tree-vrp.c:2535
w/ -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71030
--- Comment #2 from Mateusz Forc ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
> Please provide f.i.
f.i is not generated using -save-temps, how am I supposed to get this file?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71013
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2016-05-09 7:29 AM, John David Anglin wrote
> LLONG_MAX is not defined in hpux11.11. It comes from fixed limits.h:
> ./lib/gcc/hppa64-hp-hpux11.11/5.3.1/include-fixed/limits.h:# undef LLONG_M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71029
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71030
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70796
--- Comment #2 from TC ---
It occurred to me that one issue here is whether initialization of the
parameter object (of the constructor) is considered a "value computation [or]
side effect associated with" an initializer-clause. If not, then the c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71030
Bug ID: 71030
Summary: Strange segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71028
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71027
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71029
Bug ID: 71029
Summary: large fold expressions compile slowly with -Wall
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66146
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
*** Bug 71025 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71025
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71014
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71028
Bug ID: 71028
Summary: [7 regression] ICE in redirect_jump, at jump.c:1560
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70955
--- Comment #11 from Domani Hannes ---
I can confirm that this patch works for windows as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71027
Bug ID: 71027
Summary: -fsanitize=address catches out of bounds access on
assumed size array only with -O0
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71010
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70955
--- Comment #10 from zenith432 at users dot sourceforge.net ---
(In reply to vries from comment #8)
> Created attachment 38453 [details]
> tentative patch
vries, thank you very much. I verified and looks good.
Built GCC 6.1.0 with patch from re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70904
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71026
Bug ID: 71026
Summary: Missing division optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70894
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Statu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71014
--- Comment #4 from Keith Lindsay ---
Thanks for taking a look. I've attached the output from the command
gfortran -v -fopenmp openmp_nested_loops.f90 -o openmp_nested_loops
on two different systems where I'm seeing the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71014
--- Comment #3 from Keith Lindsay ---
Created attachment 38455
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38455&action=edit
output from gfortran -v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71014
--- Comment #2 from Keith Lindsay ---
Created attachment 38454
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38454&action=edit
output from gfortran -v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70955
Domani Hannes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ssbssa at yahoo dot de
--- Comment #9 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71014
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69699
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
There is no such macro.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226
--- Comment #29 from Fritz Reese ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #25)
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/dec_union_4.f90 -O0 execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/dec_union_4.f90 -O1 execution test
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/dec_union_4.f90 -O2 exec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71025
--- Comment #1 from Vojtech Fried ---
I am sorry, probably duplicate of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66146
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52162
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrestelli at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70953
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70957
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Looks like it also did not fail in the latest gcc-testresults Power7 BE run.
Going to stop looking at this unless/until it shows up again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71002
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Note that ultimatively the error is still that is_short () accesses the wrong
union member.
I'll still see whether there is a bug in optimize_bit_field_compare.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60483
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrestelli at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71002
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70957
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71023
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71025
Bug ID: 71025
Summary: std::call_once aborts instead of propagating an
exception (AIX 6.1)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71004
--- Comment #6 from Eric Fiselier ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> (In reply to Eric Fiselier from comment #1)
> > recursive_directory_iterator it;
> > assert(it.recursion_pending() == false);
> > assert(it.recursio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71024
Bug ID: 71024
Summary: Missing warning for contradictory attributes
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71023
Bug ID: 71023
Summary: Problem with associate and function returning derived
type
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71002
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 9 May 2016, tavianator at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71002
>
> --- Comment #5 from Tavian Barnes ---
> > But if it is not POD then assuming it ge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71022
Bug ID: 71022
Summary: GCC prefers register moves over move immediate
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71021
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nsz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70955
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71002
--- Comment #5 from Tavian Barnes ---
> But if it is not POD then assuming it gets copied correctly when
> init-constructing a POD union where they placed such object is
> an interesting assumption...
Hrm? They seem to always copy it manually w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71021
Bug ID: 71021
Summary: [libatomic testsuite] Test program compilation fail
(missing -pthread flag)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70826
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|amodra at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70826
--- Comment #10 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Mon May 9 12:35:25 2016
New Revision: 236033
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236033&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[RS6000] Fragile testcase breaks with -frename-registers
PR testsu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70785
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||riad93 at mail dot ru
--- Comment #6 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71018
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70985
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70985
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 9 12:23:11 2016
New Revision: 236032
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236032&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-09 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/70985
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71002
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 9 May 2016, tavianator at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71002
>
> --- Comment #3 from Tavian Barnes ---
> Because their long_t is not POD. I don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68945
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #38221|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71002
--- Comment #3 from Tavian Barnes ---
Because their long_t is not POD. I don't know why that is though. It could be
POD if they removed the default/copy constructors and assignment operator.
Actually they're probably worried about custom alloc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71020
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71004
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon May 9 11:50:01 2016
New Revision: 236028
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236028&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libstdc++/71004 fix recent additions to testcase
PR libstdc++/71
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71004
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Eric Fiselier from comment #1)
> recursive_directory_iterator it;
> assert(it.recursion_pending() == false);
> assert(it.recursion_pending() == true);
N.B. This test is undefined,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71020
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71013
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2016-05-09, at 4:26 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71013
>
> Richard Biener changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71020
Bug ID: 71020
Summary: SSA corruption: Unable to coalesce ssa_names 2 and 13
which are marked as MUST COALESCE.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71018
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Possibly related to PR70760 or PR70785. Can't reproduce with GCC 6 branch head
(so I'd say 70785), building GCC 6.1.0 right now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71004
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.4
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71016
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71016
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kuganv at linaro dot org
--- Comment #2
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
