https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86732
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #5)
> And FWIW, I think we should be using __builtin_trap rather than
> __builtin_unreachable in many more places because of the security concerns.
It would be better t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50360
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|dominiq at lps dot ens.fr |
--- Comment #4 from Domin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86798
Chung-Ju Wu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919
--- Comment #14 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #13)
> I think this needs to defer to gcc-9.
It's gcc-9 now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81932
--- Comment #28 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #27)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #26)
> > The demangled names are not in a canonical/standardized format, or
> > unambiguous, or portable between different
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79959
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> Should be possible to fix this. Mine.
For gcc 9?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86837
Bug ID: 86837
Summary: Optimization breaks an unformatted read with implicit
loop on Mac OS X
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86770
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86836
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
commit 357b96452a5fc70011df4f27b5d4dffc5e2f2603
Author: jason
Date: Tue Nov 15 05:22:28 2016 +
Various C++17 decomposition fixes.
* tree.c (bitfield_p): New.
* cp-tree.h:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86836
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86732
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86732
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86705
Jozef Lawrynowicz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86836
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86836
--- Comment #1 from Christian Shelton ---
Created attachment 44496
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44496&action=edit
preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86836
Bug ID: 86836
Summary: internal compiler error on structured bindings with
shadow parameter on templated function
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86705
--- Comment #4 from jozefl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jozefl
Date: Thu Aug 2 20:54:02 2018
New Revision: 263279
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263279&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-08-02 Jozef Lawrynowicz
Backport from mainlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86448
--- Comment #4 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
There are aspects of Michael's recent comment that I may not fully understand.
I checked the source for milc, and it is C, so I added -fgnu89-inline to the
list of OPTIMIZE options. Then I reran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86828
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Would be nice to know what fixed this (or maybe know if it just went latent).
Bisection indicates that the segfault disappeared at r254526.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86705
--- Comment #3 from jozefl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jozefl
Date: Thu Aug 2 20:36:14 2018
New Revision: 263277
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263277&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-08-02 Jozef Lawrynowicz
Backport from mainlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86835
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86835
Bug ID: 86835
Summary: [8/9 Regression] Bogus "is used uninitialized" warning
with -ffast-math
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55815
--- Comment #9 from landave ---
I am on Fedora with gcc 8.1.1, and it seems this issue has not been resolved
yet.
I have attached an example for a multicollision, as well as a small program
that inserts the strings into an std::unordered_set. Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86386
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
I am testing this patch
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
index ee409cfe7e4..9971b369f45 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
@@ -13281,8 +13281,7 @@ ix86_fin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86571
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55815
landave changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||blog at landave dot io
--- Comment #8 from lan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86834
Bug ID: 86834
Summary: [9 regression] several tests fail with ICE starting
with r263245
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86833
Bug ID: 86833
Summary: No Warning for uninitilized array unless optimization
on
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86790
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86772
Bug 86772 depends on bug 86790, which changed state.
Bug 86790 Summary: m68k port needs updating for CVE-2017-5753
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86790
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86832
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-w64-mingw32
--- Comment #1 from A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85644
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||shane at isara dot com
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86762
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86790
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Aug 2 17:50:16 2018
New Revision: 263272
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263272&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/86790
* config/m68k/m68k.c (TARGET_HAVE_SPECULATI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30552
Dave Pagan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30552
--- Comment #12 from Dave Pagan ---
Yes, it did. I had assumed the bug status would get updated, but it wasn't.
I'll set it to resolved.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86784
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86772
Bug 86772 depends on bug 86784, which changed state.
Bug 86784 Summary: H8 port needs updating for CVE-2017-5753
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86784
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86784
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Aug 2 17:24:59 2018
New Revision: 263270
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263270&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/86784
* config/h8300/h8300.c (TARGET_HAVE_SPECULA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86820
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86820
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab ---
Author: schwab
Date: Thu Aug 2 17:23:13 2018
New Revision: 263269
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263269&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix invalid cc_status after [const_][us]mulsi3_highpart
Backpor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80744
--- Comment #5 from Jonny Grant ---
Created attachment 44493
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44493&action=edit
Better test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81239
--- Comment #3 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #2)
> Created attachment 44492 [details]
> Better test case
wrong ticket. please ignore
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81239
--- Comment #2 from Jonny Grant ---
Created attachment 44492
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44492&action=edit
Better test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80744
--- Comment #4 from Jonny Grant ---
Hi Martin
Thank you for your reply.
I appreciate that GCC isn't a static analyser
But I think (C) is probably easier to follow though if GCC was extended, and
(A) std::string harder, as needs knowledge o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86512
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86512
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86512
--- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Thu Aug 2 16:50:07 2018
New Revision: 263267
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263267&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
arm - correctly handle denormal results during softfp subtraction
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86828
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> I can't reproduce it with gcc version 7.3.1 20180609.
Just made a fresh build off today's 7-branch:
gcc version 7.3.1 20180802 [gcc-7-br
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80744
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86832
Bug ID: 86832
Summary: GCC v8.2.0 tries to use native TLS with
-fstack-protector-strong on Windows (mingw-w64)
Product: gcc
Version: lto
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86552
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, that's also (partly) why I submitted a solution for pr71625 comment 15:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg01884.html
With that patch applied as well the strlen call is diagnosed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86702
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Nesterovskiy ---
I've noticed performance regressions on different targets and with different
compilation options, not only highly optimized like "-march=skylake-avx512
-Ofast -flto -funroll-loops" but with "-O2" too
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86772
Bug 86772 depends on bug 86813, which changed state.
Bug 86813 Summary: xstormy16 port needs updating for CVE-2017-5753
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86813
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86813
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86813
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton ---
Author: nickc
Date: Thu Aug 2 16:13:32 2018
New Revision: 263266
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263266&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/86813
* config/stormy16/stormy16.c (TARGET_HAVE_S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86772
Bug 86772 depends on bug 86810, which changed state.
Bug 86810 Summary: v850 port needs updating for CVE-2017-5753
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86810
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86810
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86660
--- Comment #16 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu Aug 2 15:59:01 2018
New Revision: 263265
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263265&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[nvptx] Ignore c++ exceptions
The nvptx port can't support exceptions usi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86810
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton ---
Author: nickc
Date: Thu Aug 2 15:57:06 2018
New Revision: 263264
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263264&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/86810
* config/v850/v850.c (TARGET_HAVE_SPECULATI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86190
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek ---
Thanks for taking the time to report the bug!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86827
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86803
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86772
Bug 86772 depends on bug 86803, which changed state.
Bug 86803 Summary: rx port needs updating for CVE-2017-5753
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86803
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86190
--- Comment #12 from Tony E Lewis ---
I confirm that Godbolt's GCC trunk now handles my testcase correctly.
Thanks very much for all work on this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 in the testsuite exhibits the same
problem as comment 0, I think. It also contains Fortran array operations and
fails with "-march=skylake-avx512 -Ofast
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86831
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> "nan_inf_fmt" suggests that the 'fast' part in -Ofast might be the issue.
> So try -O3 -march=native instead?
All three tests pass with those flags.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86803
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton ---
Author: nickc
Date: Thu Aug 2 14:35:10 2018
New Revision: 263263
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263263&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/86803
* config/rx/rx.c (TARGET_HAVE_SPECULATION_S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86797
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86772
Bug 86772 depends on bug 86797, which changed state.
Bug 86797 Summary: msp430 port needs updating for CVE-2017-5753
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86797
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86831
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
"nan_inf_fmt" suggests that the 'fast' part in -Ofast might be the issue. So
try -O3 -march=native instead?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86763
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[7/8/9 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86763
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Aug 2 14:25:57 2018
New Revision: 263261
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263261&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-08-02 Richard Biener
PR c++/86763
* class.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86505
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86831
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #0)
> FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/intrinsic_nearest.f90 execution,
> -Ofast -march=native
> FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/nan_inf_fmt.f90 execut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86831
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #0)
> Running "make check-fortran" with this mod on a skylake-avx512 CPU yields
> the following failures:
None of them fails with -march=native alone.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86797
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton ---
Author: nickc
Date: Thu Aug 2 14:02:32 2018
New Revision: 263259
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263259&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/86797
* config/msp430/msp430.c (TARGET_HAVE_SPECU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86831
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #0)
> Running "make check-fortran" with this mod on a skylake-avx512 CPU yields
> the following failures:
>
> FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 exec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86772
Bug 86772 depends on bug 86791, which changed state.
Bug 86791 Summary: mcore port needs updating for CVE-2017-5753
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86791
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86791
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86791
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton ---
Author: nickc
Date: Thu Aug 2 13:30:40 2018
New Revision: 263258
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263258&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/86791
* config/mcore/mcore.c (TARGET_HAVE_SPECULA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86831
Bug ID: 86831
Summary: three failures in gfortran.fortran-torture with
"-Ofast -march=native" on skylake-avx512
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86828
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86816
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86816
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Aug 2 13:19:50 2018
New Revision: 263257
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263257&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-08-02 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/86816
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86830
Bug ID: 86830
Summary: Contiguous array pointer function result not
recognized as contiguous
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86829
--- Comment #3 from Giuliano Belinassi ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
>
> Do you have a copyright assignment (https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html) ?
No. Sorry, but I think I may need help getting this right. Are there any tips?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86789
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86772
Bug 86772 depends on bug 86789, which changed state.
Bug 86789 Summary: m32r port needs updating for CVE-2017-5753
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86789
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86789
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton ---
Author: nickc
Date: Thu Aug 2 12:31:29 2018
New Revision: 263256
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263256&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/86789
* config/m32r/m32r.c (TARGET_HAVE_SPECULATI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
--- Comment #20 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #19)
> Created attachment 44489 [details]
> Source file causing ICE on aarch64
>
> With your patch, GCC crashes with target aarch64-none-linux-gnu
> aarch64-no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86828
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Would be nice to know what fixed this (or maybe know if it just went latent).
I think I remember having some intermediate versions during the reductio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86787
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
Author: nickc
Date: Thu Aug 2 12:14:52 2018
New Revision: 263255
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263255&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/86787
* config/iq2000/iq2000.c (TARGET_HAVE_SPECU
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
--- Comment #5 from Christophe Lyon ---
I think in the "ok" version we have:
add ip, sp, #60
...
ldm ip, {r0, r1}
...
add r2, sp, #72
ldm r2, {r0, r1}
in the "ko" version we have:
ldr r1, [sp, #64]
...
ldr r1, [sp, #76]
So in the "ko" version w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
--- Comment #4 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 44488
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44488&action=edit
Good code
This is with r263197 and r263067 (your patch) reverted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86828
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86771
--- Comment #3 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 44487
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44487&action=edit
Wrong code generated
This is with trunk @r263197
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86829
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization, patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86772
Bug 86772 depends on bug 86782, which changed state.
Bug 86782 Summary: frv port needs updating for CVE-2017-5753
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86782
What|Removed |Added
--
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo