https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92176
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92722
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92717
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> Well, pch files essentially contain a memory dump of GCCs internal state so
> I very much expect differences for example when address-space randomization
> is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92716
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Probably similar cases can be made for loops implementing memcpy/memcmp (what
we pattern-detect in loop distribution).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92717
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Well, pch files essentially contain a memory dump of GCCs internal state so I
very much expect differences for example when address-space randomization is
turned on.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92722
Bug ID: 92722
Summary: gcc considers "padding" byte of empty lambda to be
uninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92650
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asolokha at gmx dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92721
Bug ID: 92721
Summary: ICE: canonical types differ for identical types
'int(void*, void*)' and 'int(void*, void*)'
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92720
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92720
Bug ID: 92720
Summary: cc1 accepts #include /dev/stdin inline
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91790
--- Comment #14 from Kewen Lin ---
Yes, I'd like to wait for two weeks to ensure it's safe enough and then
backport to gcc9. Does it sound good?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92635
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92350
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #2)
> For the added text, cf. PR 60148 and
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2014-03/msg00145.html
>
> I missed that patch when writing this PR because it wasn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92602
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92602
--- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Nov 28 22:28:59 2019
New Revision: 278821
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278821=gcc=rev
Log:
rs6000: Use memory_operand for all simple {l,st}*brx instructions
We run
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92602
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92719
Bug ID: 92719
Summary: MacOS 10.15 Catalina build fails
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92718
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92716
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
Yes, the pass that recognizes bswap (unsurprisingly called bswap) happens much
later than inlining in the pipeline. This kind of thing is unavoidable since
cycling through optimization passes is considered
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92718
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started with r243419.
evrp is computing strange ranges, [0, 1] rather than just [0, 0] for the
iterator. It is true that [1] is still valid, but the memset with non-zero
size at that spot or MEM[(struct s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92717
--- Comment #5 from Markus Dreseler ---
I took Andrew's __DATE__ suggestion as a reason to look at how much the files
actually differ. `cmp -l v1 v2 | wc -l` gives me 692634 differing bytes. This
sounds like the difference is bigger than just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92718
Bug ID: 92718
Summary: Bogus Wstringop-overflow in __builtin_memset() of an
element of array of size 1 of struct
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92717
--- Comment #4 from Markus Dreseler ---
> By any chance, is your cc1plus built as PIE? PCH doesn't work in that case.
I don't think so:
# file `find /usr -name cc1plus`
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/9/cc1plus: ELF 64-bit LSB executable,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92717
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92717
--- Comment #2 from Markus Dreseler ---
> Try using __DATE__ macro and you will see it is not :).
Can't confirm:
# /usr/bin/c++ -D__DATE__=0 -D__TIMESTAMP__=0 -D__TIME__=0 -x c++-header
-include test.hxx -o test.hxx.gch -c test.hxx.cxx &&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92717
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't think this is a bug, __DATE__ is one of the predefined macros and I
think it is included in GCC's precompiled headers.
Really ccache is broken anyways.
>As builds of regular C(++) files are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40883
Bug 40883 depends on bug 46558, which changed state.
Bug 46558 Summary: dbgcnt.c messages not marked for translation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46558
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46558
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92609
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46558
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Nov 28 20:56:51 2019
New Revision: 278820
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278820=gcc=rev
Log:
Translate header for -fdbg-cnt-list.
2019-11-28 Martin Liska
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92609
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Nov 28 20:56:23 2019
New Revision: 278819
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278819=gcc=rev
Log:
Properly use TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT in warn_types_mismatch.
2019-11-28 Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92717
Bug ID: 92717
Summary: precompiled headers non-deterministic
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92716
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92716
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Most likely what is happening is the following:
inlining happens twice but the detection of bswap does not happen until after
both inlining so the cost huestric for byteswap function is high.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92715
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 47391
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47391=edit
Reduced test-case
Fails with:
$ gfortran -O3 -march=znver2 mdbx.f90
mdbx.f90:9:16:
9 | PARAMETER NM=16384
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92716
--- Comment #1 from Julius Werner ---
edit: Just noticed that when I implement it as
static inline unsigned int byteswap(unsigned int x)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92715
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> That CPU is bdver[234], right?
Not sure. Piledriver certainly.
I tried setting -march to each of bdver[234] and the problem still exists.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92716
Bug ID: 92716
Summary: -Os doesn't inline byteswap function even though it's
a single instruction
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92715
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91997
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> #1 0x00401272 in foo (Python Exception No type
> named std::__detail::_Hash_node, false>.:
N.B. That's a different error because I'm testing a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91997
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Thanks, I can confirm that error. Oddly, it works fine when printing the
variable within its own stack frame:
$ gdb -q -ex "br printf" -ex r -ex up -ex bt -ex down -ex bt -ex cont -ex q
map
Reading
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92715
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-reduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92047
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
I actually did. Is it fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92714
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92712
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92711
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92709
--- Comment #2 from fdlbxtqi ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> The actual error is missing from the log.
Yea. It has no actual error. I have checked that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92709
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|accepts-invalid |build
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92715
Bug ID: 92715
Summary: error: position plus size exceeds size of referenced
object in ‘bit_field_ref’
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89640
--- Comment #9 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com ---
This seems still problematic.
void test1() {
[]() __attribute__((noreturn)) noexcept [[]] -> int{
return 0; // Warning expected.
}();
}
void test2() {
[]() noexcept [[]]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91997
--- Comment #3 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> Rafael, I'm unable to reproduce this with unordered containers. Do you have
> a testcase?
I was able to reproduce it with 2 files:
$ cat test.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92711
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Proper GCC 9 -fprofile-generate build is 296MB
https://firefox-ci-tc.services.mozilla.com/api/queue/v1/task/aMGsffWPQ1qzjgj4LIqcwQ/runs/0/artifacts/public/build/target.tar.bz2
So about 5% regression compared
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92714
Bug ID: 92714
Summary: [missed-optimization] aggregate initialization of an
array fills the whole array with zeros first,
including non-zero elements
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Thu Nov 28 18:33:20 2019
New Revision: 278817
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278817=gcc=rev
Log:
PR fortran/90374
* io.c (check_format): Allow zero width
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92677
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: doko at debian dot org
Target Milestone: ---
seen with trunk 20191128, building an offload compiler targeting
amdgcn-unknown-amdhsa:
during RTL pass: jump
error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88335
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think we should remove the __cpp_consteval define until we implement virtual
consteval and should also mention in cxx-status.html that it is only partially
implemented.
I've tried to play with the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92711
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mliska at suse dot cz
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92190
--- Comment #12 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Sorry, I was wrong in comment 10. I'd forgotten that the original
point of all this was that, without the clobber, -fipa-ra would
assume that the register isn't clobbered at all. The RA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92711
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
https://firefox-ci-tc.services.mozilla.com/api/queue/v1/task/ObkoHsHHSriQdU0Twc12Wg/runs/0/artifacts/public/build/target.tar.bz2
This is GCC9 build. 310MB, so still a lot bigger than clang, but better than
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92712
Bug ID: 92712
Summary: Performance regression with assumed values
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92711
Bug ID: 92711
Summary: GCC 10 libxul.so -fprofile-generate binary is 360MB
while clang needs only 163MB.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92697
--- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Nov 28 15:39:48 2019
New Revision: 278812
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278812=gcc=rev
Log:
cgraph: ifunc resolvers cannot be made local (PR 92697)
2019-11-28 Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92710
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92710
Bug ID: 92710
Summary: [9/10 Regression] Vectoriser generates invalid simd
call for bool arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92654
--- Comment #7 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
And creduce just finished: (I left the ifdef unchanged so it can still be
compiled under clang.)
#ifdef __has_builtin
#define a 1
#endif
template struct d {
typedef b e;
constexpr operator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91997
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Rafael, I'm unable to reproduce this with unordered containers. Do you have a
testcase?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92484
Irfan Adilovic changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irfanadilovic at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92708
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92123
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #23)
> I have the feeling that some other use also disagrees between ME and
> FE/Fortran semantics assumptions.
>
> I just run into PR 92703: if one comments the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92709
Bug ID: 92709
Summary: Cross Compilation failed for Latest GCC
riscv64-linux-gnu on Linux/WSL2
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92703
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Actually, w/o checking the finally generated code, I have the feeling that for
*absent* arguments, the wrong code might be generated for:
character → dummy argument is ARRAY_TYPE
derived type + class →
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92704
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92705
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92708
Bug ID: 92708
Summary: [Issue] dynamic_cast unexpected behavior in my code
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92702
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[F2008] (and hence [F2018]) |[F2008] (and hence [F2018])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60228
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92706
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92176
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Krebbel ---
276.ira:
(insn 6 85 11 2 (set (reg:SI 100 [ f ])
(mem/c:SI (symbol_ref:DI ("*.LANCHOR0") [flags 0x182]) [2 f+0 S4 A32]))
"t.c":13:8 1372 {*movsi_zarch}
(expr_list:REG_EQUIV (mem/c:SI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92675
--- Comment #6 from Jonny Grant ---
Is the clearest way to write this as follows?
unsigned int j = (unsigned int)-1;
Likewise for the template example:
U max = (U)-1; // good
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92176
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92176
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Created attachment 47388
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47388=edit
Experimental patch
This patch fixes the second testcase. The first one currently doesn't fail on
head.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92176
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Created attachment 47387
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47387=edit
Another reduced testcase
gcc -O3 -march=z13 t.c -o t
./t
prints "checksum = 0" with head GCC
prints "checksum =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92707
Bug ID: 92707
Summary: type alias on type alias on lambda in unevaluated
context does not work
Product: gcc
Version: 9.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Nov 28 12:26:50 2019
New Revision: 278807
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278807=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-11-28 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92645
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92704
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Nov 28 12:22:04 2019
New Revision: 278806
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278806=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-11-28 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/92645
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92706
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
That is, I had the impression that for total scalarization SRA considers both
the accesses of the ultimate sources and the destinations?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92706
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92706
Bug ID: 92706
Summary: SRA confuses FRE
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92705
Bug ID: 92705
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in
build_new_op_1)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: error-recovery,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91997
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91997
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91790
Arseny Solokha changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|9.2.1 |
--- Comment #13 from Arseny Solokha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92704
Bug ID: 92704
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in
process_bb)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92055
--- Comment #11 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Author: gjl
Date: Thu Nov 28 10:29:30 2019
New Revision: 278805
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278805=gcc=rev
Log:
Must use push insn to pass varargs arguments of DFmode because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92123
--- Comment #23 from Tobias Burnus ---
I have the feeling that some other use also disagrees between ME and FE/Fortran
semantics assumptions.
I just run into PR 92703: if one comments the unrelated 'foo', with -O0 one
gets the expected 'stop 2'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92683
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83819
Bug 83819 depends on bug 92683, which changed state.
Bug 92683 Summary: [10 Regression] strncmp incorrect result with equal
substrings and non-const bound
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92683
What|Removed
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
