https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81012
--- Comment #2 from Gergö Barany ---
Created attachment 41672
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41672&action=edit
Smaller test case
Added a smaller test case:
int fn3(int p1, int p2) {
int a = p2;
if (p1)
a *= 10.0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81290
--- Comment #4 from Arseny Solokha ---
This fixes the ICE for x86_64 and 32-bit BE powerpc, but not powerpcspe. Do you
want me to attach loop2_unroll or any other dump files for working and
non-working powerpc targets?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80986
--- Comment #5 from linzj ---
Is the following patch okay? Or should I add the new bit to indicate not to
remove an attribute?
diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.c b/gcc/cp/pt.c
index f8436b30b37..97bc82272af 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/pt.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/pt.c
@@ -73
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81302
Bug ID: 81302
Summary: Segmentation fault in diagnose_tm_1 at trans-mem.c
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81301
Bug ID: 81301
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed (error:
non-cold basic block 13 dominated by a block in the
cold partition (8)) on 32-bit BE powerpc target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81300
Bug ID: 81300
Summary: -fpeephole2 breaks __builtin_ia32_sbb_u64,
_subborrow_u64 on AMD64
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81299
Bug ID: 81299
Summary: Spurious "set but not used" warning with constexpr
variable
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66967
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81298
--- Comment #8 from tkoenig at netcologne dot de
---
Am 03.07.2017 um 23:40 schrieb ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81298
>
> Eric Botcazou changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81298
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81297
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
Ah, no, only the gimple code drops overflow, the generic code doesn't :-(
I am still convinced the fix will not be in match.pd.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81281
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81297
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Strange, gimple_resimplify2 already calls drop_tree_overflow, and I am calling
it myself everywhere else in this transformation... I'll have to check how
exactly that OVF flag appears.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81293
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81298
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81298
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab ---
configure.ac:33: error: Please use exactly Autoconf 2.64 instead of 2.69.
../config/override.m4:12: _GCC_AUTOCONF_VERSION_CHECK is expanded from...
configure.ac:33: the top level
autom4te: m4 failed with exi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81297
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81292
--- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Created attachment 41671
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41671&action=edit
Proposed patch
This is the patch I'm testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81295
--- Comment #6 from Matthias Klose ---
PR81298 mentions a related issue, reproducible on x86_64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81295
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81298
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||81295
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81298
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Could be a duplicate of PR 81298.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81298
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
Summary|Bootstrap fails d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81298
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 41670
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41670&action=edit
Output of make -j4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81298
Bug ID: 81298
Summary: Bootstrap fails during stage1-bubble on
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with --enable-maintainer-mode
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81294
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
It looks like (now fixed) bug in the documentation. So, following patch should
sync gcc with the fixed docs:
--cut here--
Index: adxintrin.h
===
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81292
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81295
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Klose ---
bootstraps with the trunk, still fails with r249929 on the branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65775
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65775
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Jul 3 18:10:52 2017
New Revision: 249935
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249935&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2017-07-03 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/65775
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79843
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79866
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79866
--- Comment #3 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Mon Jul 3 18:03:51 2017
New Revision: 249934
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249934&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-07-03 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/79866
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53157
bartek 'basz' szurgot changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at baszerr dot eu
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58894
bartek 'basz' szurgot changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at baszerr dot eu
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79843
--- Comment #2 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Mon Jul 3 17:56:08 2017
New Revision: 249933
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249933&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-07-03 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/79843
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81297
Bug ID: 81297
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in get_single_symbol
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81033
--- Comment #13 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Mon Jul 3 17:42:54 2017
New Revision: 249930
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249930&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-07-03 Dominique d'Humieres
PR target/81033
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81292
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81292
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81295
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81285
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81295
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81296
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81296
Bug ID: 81296
Summary: derived type I/o problem
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81295
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81295
Bug ID: 81295
Summary: [7 Regression] bootstrap broken on powerpc-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81294
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81033
--- Comment #12 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Mon Jul 3 15:53:56 2017
New Revision: 249926
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249926&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-07-03 Dominique d'Humieres
PR target/81033
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81294
Bug ID: 81294
Summary: _subborrow_u64 argument order inconsistent with
intrinsic reference, icc
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70676
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|WAITING
--- Comment #10 from Georg-Jo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40528
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81273
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81273
--- Comment #5 from LdB ---
Okay I understand all that and accept my apology and I will try to follow the
rules exactly in future.
I had to change the alignment command slightly to be valid on ARM 6.3.1
struct __attribute__((__packed__,aligned(_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81290
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Jul 3 14:40:46 2017
New Revision: 249924
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249924&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/81290
* predict.c (force_edge_cold): Be mor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81278
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, I believe this has been introduced in r244974 from PR71433.
We have 5 asserts for SSA_NAME 66 in the problematic function:
(gdb) p *asserts.m_auto.m_vecdata[0]
$49 = {bb = , e =
37)>, si = {ptr = 0x7fff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70676
night_ghost at ykoctpa dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resoluti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81214
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Fixed by Rainer's commit r249912.
Is this a real fix? IMO introducing ifunc on targets that do not support it
does not look as a good idea!-(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81033
simon at pushface dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||simon at pushface dot org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81033
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The last patch in comment 8 exposes another problem: buf[128] is too small.
The following patch which uses the trick proposed in IRC by Richi to split
assemble_name_raw seems to work
--- ../_clean/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81273
--- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to LdB from comment #3)
> I am stunned you could not build the code the only requirement is you
> include the stdint.h so the uint32_t types are defined. I will fix the typos
> are you really say
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81273
--- Comment #3 from LdB ---
I am stunned you could not build the code the only requirement is you include
the stdint.h so the uint32_t types are defined. I will fix the typos are you
really saying you can't compile this?
#include
struct __attri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81040
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 60510, which changed state.
Bug 60510 Summary: SLP blocks loop vectorization (with reduction)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60510
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81033
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #8)
>
>
> Looking into the error I suppose problem is:
> ___cold_sect_of_allocate:
> __ZN9__gnu_cxx16bitmap_allocatorIcE8allocateEmPKv.cold.42:
>
> and bit later
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60510
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60510
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jul 3 13:44:13 2017
New Revision: 249919
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249919&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-07-03 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/60510
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81214
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #6)
> At revision r249851 I see the following regression on darwin
>
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/mvc6.c (test for excess errors)
> UNRESOLVED: gcc.target/i386/mvc6.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81040
--- Comment #15 from Andrey Ryabinin ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #14)
> Fixed on trunk.
Thanks.
However there is slight problem with this. Instrumentation is missing without
-fsanitize-address-use-after-scope option.
IMO, it shou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81293
Bug ID: 81293
Summary: sanitized g++ crashes heap-use-after-free
gcc/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_common_int
erceptors_format.inc:543 in printf_common
Product: gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81290
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81291
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81292
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80751
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca ---
After downloading trunk 249883 I can confirm the bug disappeared.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81290
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81278
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems a different order in release_ssa_name in that function, in one case it is
198, 2, 199, 23, 40, in the other case 199, 2, 40, 23, 198. Used
--- tree-ssanames.c.xx 2017-07-01 10:15:12.0 +0200
+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81290
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81285
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81285
--- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #9)
> Maybe it's also worthwhile to commit testcase from PR81284?
I don't think this is necessary because the ICEs when building libgcc, even
with
--disable-bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81285
--- Comment #9 from Arseny Solokha ---
Maybe it's also worthwhile to commit testcase from PR81284?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81278
--- Comment #15 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #14)
> Well, I've just noticed that the revision I identified is problematic
> because of compilation errors like:
>
> /home/trippels/gcc_test/usr/local/include/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81285
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Jul 3 12:17:59 2017
New Revision: 249904
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249904&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/81285
* loop-doloop.c (add_test): Update pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81278
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
Well, I've just noticed that the revision I identified is problematic because
of compilation errors like:
/home/trippels/gcc_test/usr/local/include/c++/8.0.0/type_traits:143:12: error:
‘value’ is not a membe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81278
--- Comment #13 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #12)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #11)
> > Unfortunately the bisection was unsuccessful (no wonder
> > given that the failure is not 100% repro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81278
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #11)
> Unfortunately the bisection was unsuccessful (no wonder
> given that the failure is not 100% reproducible (GC related)).
Well, I can help you with that. A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81292
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Likely r249880.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81285
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Yes, your patch fixes the problem. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81040
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81278
--- Comment #11 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Unfortunately the bisection was unsuccessful (no wonder
given that the failure is not 100% reproducible (GC related)).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81040
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Mon Jul 3 11:48:47 2017
New Revision: 249903
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249903&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
ASAN: handle addressable params (PR sanitize/81040).
2017-07-03 Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81278
--- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> > The bisection looks weird, that is the point before which the unreduced
> > testcase obviously will fail to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81278
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> The bisection looks weird, that is the point before which the unreduced
> testcase obviously will fail to compile, but that doesn't mean it is the
> point where th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81292
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81286
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jakub at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81286
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
irect-function --with-tune=generic
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.0 20170703 (experimental) [trunk revision 249892] (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81285
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
Hi,
does the following patch fix ppc/ia64 (I have checked that it fixes the
arm testcase mentioned earlier).
honza
Index: loop-doloop.c
===
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81286
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Created attachment 41666 [details]
> gcc7-pr81286.patch
>
> Untested fix. gpc_reg_operand allows in some cases a SUBREG of a REG, but
> REGNO is not valid in tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81278
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems to be between loop and loopinit passes, will need to watch carefully the
SSA_NAME freeing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81278
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Anyway, I've reproduced it on x86_64-linux with the unreduced testcase, trying
to find which pass starts the differences on
_ZNK4llvm12DenseMapBaseINS_8DenseMapIPNS_26DIGlobalVariableExpressionENS_6detail13De
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo