http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58718
Bug ID: 58718
Summary: Invalid check in libsanitizer
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58718
--- Comment #1 from Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com ---
Created attachment 30999
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30999action=edit
Proposed patch
It seems that this CHECK should be removed to allow disabling malloc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58718
Alexey Samsonov samsonov at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||samsonov at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58713
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
I've tried to improve it in the past, but I think there's no easy way to do
it.
A possible fix might be to change the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58718
--- Comment #3 from Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com ---
Got it. I wonder whether we should keep the bug opened until we merge or close
it now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58708
--- Comment #3 from Hristo Venev mustrumr97 at gmail dot com ---
#include iostream
templatetypename CharT, CharT... str
void operator_foo(){
CharT arr[]{str...};
for(CharT i:arr) std::cout(int)i' ';
}
int main(){
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58718
--- Comment #4 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I am currently testing a merge which is before Alexey's changes.
There is no harm in keeping this bug open.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58719
Bug ID: 58719
Summary: libgcc/enable-execute-stack-mprotect.c: bootstrap
failure due to missing #include sys/types.h
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58720
Bug ID: 58720
Summary: FreeBSD 4.8 bootstrap fails due to missing stdint.h
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58713
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If I try to sfinae-out this function based on osx being well-formed, I get an
error that template instantiation depth exceeds maximum of 900 (even for a
valid cout42), because even if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58717
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58713
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #4)
If I try to sfinae-out this function based on osx being well-formed, I get
an error that template instantiation depth exceeds
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58717
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57511
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||masoud_mxm at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58712
Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58705
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57518
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58721
Bug ID: 58721
Summary: [4.9 Regression] The subroutine perdida is no longer
inlined in fatigue.f90
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58712
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #0)
3)
==1269== Invalid write of size 8
==1269==at 0x63BDBD: iterative_hash_canonical_type(tree_node*, unsigned
int)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58705
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This will ICE even with -std=c++03 -Wnarrowing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57742
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58721
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|rguenther at suse dot de |hubicka
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58690
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58715
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58703
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58712
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58702
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58705
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This will fix the ICE, but perhaps we want to give an error instead...
I'll regtest this and post to ML.
--- a/gcc/cp/typeck2.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/typeck2.c
@@ -833,7 +833,8 @@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58698
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58697
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8 Regression] wrong code |[4.8/4.9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58697
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
Started with r192219, ended with r203317. The latter is weird, I thought
Andrew's patches are just reshuffling of stuff, not changing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58640
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 58696 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58696
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58640
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 14 09:17:20 2013
New Revision: 203516
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203516root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-10-14 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58712
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 14 09:24:36 2013
New Revision: 203517
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203517root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-10-14 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55358
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 14 09:24:36 2013
New Revision: 203517
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203517root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-10-14 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58705
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
This will fix the ICE, but perhaps we want to give an error instead...
IMNSHO we want, as C FE does:
58705.C:1:1: error: empty scalar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58708
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57742
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57742
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
This is a very limited version of this optimization. It is in
simplify_builtin_call, so only
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58509
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Oct 14 10:13:12 2013
New Revision: 203518
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203518root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/58509
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53198
Emmanuel Thomé Emmanuel.Thome at inria dot fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58509
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53198
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Nobody pretended it's fixed in 4.7.x.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57742
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #4)
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
This is a very limited version of this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58701
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58716
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton nickc at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nickc
Date: Mon Oct 14 11:24:17 2013
New Revision: 203520
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203520root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/58716
* config/msp430/msp430.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58716
Nick Clifton nickc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58704
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53006
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57742
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
We have walk_aliased_vdefs for this. Basically the first callback
you receive has to be the malloc, otherwise there is an aliasing
stmt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58115
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-pc-linux-gnu |i386-pc-linux-gnu,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58713
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #5)
Thanks for your test, Marc. I will reflect upon the problem in a bit more
detail
My current guess is that my suggested
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58015
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 |hppa64-hp-hpux11.11,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58713
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #3)
guess is that this would also improve the diagnostics in this case, is that
right?
Even if it worked (which it doesn't, as Marc also
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58708
--- Comment #5 from Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw4rd at verizon dot net ---
The const qualification of the first parm and the number of elements are wrong.
I'm testing a patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58722
Bug ID: 58722
Summary: c-c++-common/gomp/pr58472.c FAILs: SEGV in
tree_class_check
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58722
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I don't believe it. This is exactly what r203427 fixed. Are you sure it is
with r203429 and it isn't r203426 or earlier?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58722
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I don't believe it. This is exactly what r203427 fixed. Are you sure it is
with
://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31000action=edit
Delta reduced C++ test case
That's with gcc version 4.9.0 20131014 (experimental) [trunk revision 203511]
(GCC) on an x86-64-gnu-linux system.
$ g++ -std=c++11 -O1 -flto -fopenmp testcase20.ii
testcase20.ii:40:1: internal compiler error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58724
Bug ID: 58724
Summary: doc: use of attributes for namespace is not clear
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58725
Bug ID: 58725
Summary: g++ segfault with non-static member initializer in a
nested struct
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58725
--- Comment #1 from Lewis Hyatt lhyatt at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 31001
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31001action=edit
pre-processed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58725
Lewis Hyatt lhyatt at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58546
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hp at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58724
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58724
--- Comment #2 from Akim Demaille akim.demaille at gmail dot com ---
Hi Paolo,
Sorry, I don't have a checked out version of the GCC. I'll
try to make one tomorrow.
Please, note that I was also mentioning the fact that the documentation
is not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58725
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58724
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Well, an ICE which can be easily avoided seems a separate issue to me. By the
way, the same patchlet should work in the release branch too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58724
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58724
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|doc: use of attributes for |ICE with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11685
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58698
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58115
--- Comment #3 from Sriraman Tallam tmsriram at google dot com ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #1)
Hi Sriraman,
I'm putting you on CC since you are the author of that test case:
I am not sure if the test case should use -msse2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58658
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: burnus
Date: Mon Oct 14 17:26:17 2013
New Revision: 203572
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203572root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-10-14 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58658
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58723
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The failure is for the assert:
295 /* Flags that should not appear on indirect calls. */
296 gcc_assert (!(flags (ECF_LOOPING_CONST_OR_PURE
297
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58115
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
(In reply to Sriraman Tallam from comment #3)
Hmm...
This bug seems to be connected to PR57756.
A lot of __attribute__((target(..))) get parsed,
before this error occurs.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29040
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org|
,obj-c++,fortran,lto --disable-werror
--enable-checking=release --with-gmp=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--with-mpfr=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --with-mpc=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--with-cloog=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20131014 (experimental) [trunk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58115
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #4)
I just wonder why this does not happen on x86_64?
x86_64 enables SSE2 by default.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29040
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58727
Bug ID: 58727
Summary: Sub-optimal code for bit clear/set sequence
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58728
Bug ID: 58728
Summary: [missed optimization] == or != comparisons may affect
range test optimization.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58727
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57742
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
We have walk_aliased_vdefs for this. Basically the first callback
you receive has to be the malloc, otherwise there is an aliasing
stmt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57742
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31003
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31003action=edit
walk_aliased_vdefs experiment
Incomplete patch I used for my previous comment.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58729
Bug ID: 58729
Summary: tr2::dynamic_bitset::resize fails
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58729
--- Comment #1 from Kyle Bentley kwbent at uab dot edu ---
Created attachment 31005
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31005action=edit
output from the compile(as seen from terminal)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58729
--- Comment #2 from Kyle Bentley kwbent at uab dot edu ---
Created attachment 31006
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31006action=edit
Source code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58729
--- Comment #3 from Kyle Bentley kwbent at uab dot edu ---
Created attachment 31007
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31007action=edit
Code output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58714
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58729
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58714
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58652
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch for comment 0. The previous check didn't work as one added a component
ref to from_expr:
if (UNLIMITED_POLY (from_expr))
vtab = NULL;
...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58727
--- Comment #2 from Niels Penneman niels at penneman dot org ---
You could be right about x86 being a different issue, since the superfluous
clear is there for every single optimization level that I have tested.
In that case, for the sake of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58727
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58727
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55517
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54625
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
