https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89823
--- Comment #2 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ibuclaw
Date: Tue Apr 2 05:23:20 2019
New Revision: 270074
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270074=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/po/ChangeLog:
2019-04-02 Iain Buclaw
PR d/89823
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89915
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89912
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87695
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #5)
> (In reply to Donna Ory from comment #3)
> > Sooo...what does that mean?
> > Do I still have a 3D printer that won't print because the problem lies with
> > the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #12 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #11)
> (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #10)
> > (In reply to anlauf from comment #9)
> >
> > > If you start from the full testcase, and remove - starting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89911
JunMa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||JunMa at linux dot alibaba.com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89909
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81721
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
--- Comment #20 from Thomas Koenig ---
Sometimes life can be easy.
We need to make -fzero-initialized-in-bss the default for
gfortran.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87695
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||allegra.vincent at outlook dot
fr
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89918
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89918
Bug ID: 89918
Summary: Tried compile something simple on arduino ide
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89915
--- Comment #2 from Roland Illig ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> params should be considered as internal options
When I read the above, I first thought: Yay, less strings for me to translate.
Just exclude them from gcc.pot.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89917
Bug ID: 89917
Summary: [8/9 Regression] ICE with lambda in variadic template
hierarchy
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89917
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89916
Bug ID: 89916
Summary: New test case gcc.dg/pr86928.c fails on 64 bit targets
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89888
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.5
Summary|When switch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89915
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
While I agree that params.def needs some fix ups in their working. params
should be considered as internal options which only should be used for
debugging and not even documented in the normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81721
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is a much simplier testcase (without using system header files):
a.h:
# define __glibc_macro_warning1(message) _Pragma (#message)
# define __glibc_macro_warning(message) \
__glibc_macro_warning1 (GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55930
Richard Purdie changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard.purdie@linuxfoundat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81721
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88462
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
[...]
> Once I'd recompiled libphobos at -g3 -O0, the problem vanished, though.
> I'll look closer and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #8)
> With no f: ICE
>
> With only subroutine a and subroutine f: no ICE
Now it gets really mysterious.
If you start from the full testcase, and remove -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #8 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
With no f: ICE
With only subroutine a and subroutine f: no ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81721
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
So if I understand the token->val.node.spelling for "not" (CPP_NOT) is not
being preserved over the precompiled headers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
--- Comment #19 from Thomas Koenig ---
Unfortunately, this patch
Index: class.c
===
--- class.c (Revision 269895)
+++ class.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -911,6 +911,9 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #6)
> Actually, it is the opposite.
Oh, that is surprising.
So if you comment out subroutine f, there's no ICE?
And if you keep only subroutine a and subroutine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86946
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86946
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Apr 1 20:43:13 2019
New Revision: 270068
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270068=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/86946 - ICE with function call in template argument.
DR 1321
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89255
--- Comment #8 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #5)
> > --- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw ---
> > (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #3)
> >>
> >> FAIL: ../src/std/range/package.d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89915
Bug ID: 89915
Summary: clean up and canonicalize wording in params.def
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #6 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Actually, it is the opposite.
With 24-33 commented out:
seurer@makalu-lp1:~/gcc/build/gcc-test$ cat
/home/seurer/gcc/gcc-test/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr85797.f90
. . .
! module m
! contains
!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89914
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89914
Bug ID: 89914
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in nothrow_spec_p, at
cp/except.c:1238
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: error-recovery,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55930
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
--- Comment #18 from Thomas Koenig ---
Or see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-04/msg2.html .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
> and if you keep only those lines (commenting lines 6-22),
> there's no ICE?
Sorry, I meant there an ICE here on your target.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
--- Comment #17 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #16)
> A shorter reproducer:
which results in the assembly file
.file "types-2.f90"
.text
.globl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to seurer from comment #3)
> Best I can tell from poking around in gdb is that it is happening at line 32
>
> end subroutine s
>
> that's probably not much help. Sorry!
So if you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89913
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487
--- Comment #16 from Thomas Koenig ---
A shorter reproducer:
$ cat types-2.f90
module TYPES_MODULE
implicit none
type archive_type
character(2**18) :: root_name
end type archive_type
end module TYPES_MODULE
$ gfortran -c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89913
Bug ID: 89913
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] [concepts] ICE with invalid using
declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: error-recovery,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89911
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Best I can tell from poking around in gdb is that it is happening at line 32
end subroutine s
that's probably not much help. Sorry!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89912
Bug ID: 89912
Summary: typo in params.def: scop
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: translation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89907
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86946
--- Comment #7 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 46070
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46070=edit
C++ source code
Original C++ code from package capnproto.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can you find out which of the tests in file pr85797.f90 triggers the ICE?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89907
--- Comment #1 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Apr 1 18:34:00 2019
New Revision: 270066
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270066=gcc=rev
Log:
Check avx2_available in check_avx2_available
check_avx2_available should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89911
Bug ID: 89911
Summary: [9 Regression] ICE in get_attr_nonstring_decl, at
calls.c:1502
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89910
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89910
Bug ID: 89910
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in make_ssa_name_fn, at
tree-ssanames.c:271
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89909
Pawel Sikora changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89909
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think the warning is correct, the first if (0) will never be executed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85412
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE in |[8 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85412
--- Comment #14 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Mon Apr 1 18:05:08 2019
New Revision: 270065
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270065=gcc=rev
Log:
sel-sched: correct reset of reset_sched_cycles_p (PR 85412)
2019-04-01
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89909
Bug ID: 89909
Summary: false positive for for -Wunreachable-code.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86946
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89906
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86946
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #34 from Steve Ellcey ---
I submitted a patch that would fix gcc.target/aarch64/combine_bfi_1.c back
in February but have not gotten any feedback on the final version of the
patch despite a couple of pings. I have resubmitted the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89908
Bug ID: 89908
Summary: Unnecessary rejection of dependence for outer loop
vectorisation
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62207
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] ICE: |[7/8 Regression] ICE: tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62207
--- Comment #8 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Apr 1 17:09:47 2019
New Revision: 270064
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270064=gcc=rev
Log:
/cp
2019-04-01 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/62207
* pt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89685
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon Apr 1 17:04:10 2019
New Revision: 270062
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270062=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c/89685 - ICE on attribute copy with a compound expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89685
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58769
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89907
Bug ID: 89907
Summary: Incorrect check_avx2_available
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85099
Bug 85099 depends on bug 86928, which changed state.
Bug 86928 Summary: ICE in compute_live, at sel-sched.c:3097
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86928
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86928
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86928
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Mon Apr 1 16:32:24 2019
New Revision: 270061
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270061=gcc=rev
Log:
sel-sched: update liveness in redirect_edge_and_branch hooks (PR 86928)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89906
Bug ID: 89906
Summary: [8 Regression] template template parameter redeclared
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89255
--- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw ---
Ignoring the test results, multilib handling seems to be working well for you
then?
I can create individual PRs for each failure later.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89865
--- Comment #22 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Mon Apr 1 16:18:30 2019
New Revision: 270060
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270060=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-04-01 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/89865
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89255
--- Comment #6 from Iain Buclaw ---
Created attachment 46069
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46069=edit
Use dg-runtest instead of dg-test
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #4)
> (In reply to
=830100327".
$ gcc-trunk -v
gcc version 9.0.1 20190401 (experimental) [trunk revision 270054] (GCC)
$ gdb -v
GNU gdb (Ubuntu 7.11.1-0ubuntu1~16.5) 7.11.1
#correct output#
$ gcc-trunk -g abc.c outer.c
$ gdb -x cmds -batch a.out
Breakpoint 1 at 0x40057a: file abc.c, line 22.
Bre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87273
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87273
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
Author: amonakov
Date: Mon Apr 1 15:20:13 2019
New Revision: 270059
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270059=gcc=rev
Log:
sel-sched: remove assert in merge_fences (PR 87273)
2019-04-01 Andrey
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88462
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #15 from Iain Buclaw ---
> Commits r270043 and r270057 deals with the immediate problems here, other
> problems raised in pr89255 I think should be handled on a per-case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89887
--- Comment #8 from vfdff ---
an static variable out put in assemble is decided by an special option
flag_toplevel_reorder ?
/* Traditionally we do not eliminate static variables when not
optimizing and when not doing toplevel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89901
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89904
Bug ID: 89904
Summary: [9 regression] ICE in gfortran starting with r270045
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89255
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #3)
>>
>> * On Linux/x86_64, I see a few failures on i686:
>> WARNING:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88462
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88462
--- Comment #14 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ibuclaw
Date: Mon Apr 1 14:44:04 2019
New Revision: 270057
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270057=gcc=rev
Log:
PR d/88462
libphobos: Fix abort in pthread_mutex_init on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89893
--- Comment #7 from 康 珊 ---
Thanks Martin Liška for your quick response. I'm sorry I'm not familiar with
unique_ptr neither. Do you mean it is caused by the "Node" source logic itself?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89255
--- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #3)
>
> * On Linux/x86_64, I see a few failures on i686:
>
> Running target unix/-m32
> FAIL: ../libdruntime/core/thread.d -fversion=Shared
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89903
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89886
--- Comment #4 from vfdff ---
Created attachment 46067
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46067=edit
the history of patch merged
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89886
--- Comment #3 from vfdff ---
A further thing, I think a 'static variables' will be put out in assemble, it
does not mean it is referenced ?
8dfbf71d (hubicka 2010-05-14 23:39:39 + 1286) /* Return true when all
references to VNODE must be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590
--- Comment #53 from Richard Biener ---
After both are fixed there's still non-linearity from loop-invariant, this
time in the DF RD problem.
Doubling the testcase goes from 9.1s to 25.5s, doubling again to 82.2s
with RD going from
df
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89893
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
One more debugging patch:
diff --git a/src/node_platform.cc b/src/node_platform.cc
index fd8d045..b19f541 100644
--- a/src/node_platform.cc
+++ b/src/node_platform.cc
@@ -342,10 +342,13 @@ void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89893
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
So I was able to track that to a single function:
diff --git a/src/node_platform.cc b/src/node_platform.cc
index fd8d045..ba344ba 100644
--- a/src/node_platform.cc
+++ b/src/node_platform.cc
@@ -346,6 +346,7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89896
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Schwab ---
Just make the target .PHONY.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89896
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89896
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
