https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82764
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||oremanj at mit dot edu
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81976
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85624
Bug ID: 85624
Summary: ICE when initializing array that is 128-byte aligned
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85579
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu May 3 07:33:09 2018
New Revision: 259880
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259880&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-03 Richard Biener
PR testsuite/85579
* fort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85617
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85579
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Target Milestone|9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85610
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85611
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85615
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85616
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85618
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85622
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85621
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85625
Bug ID: 85625
Summary: Intenal Compiler Error for coindexed assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ryxi at stu dot xidian.edu.cn
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85507
Bader at lrz dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Bader at lrz dot de
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85625
Bader at lrz dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka ---
Concerning comment #11, if you have toplevel asms you need to disable LTO for
that unit, as there is no way to tell for gcc what the asm statement is doing.
Perhaps attribute would be better way to do this?
W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85616
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85615
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85622
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu May 3 09:29:39 2018
New Revision: 259881
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259881&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR other/85622
* gcc_release: For -f, verify contrib/genne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85588
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
A fix is probably as simple as
Index: gcc/fold-const.c
===
--- gcc/fold-const.c(revision 259879)
+++ gcc/fold-const.c(working copy)
@@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85603
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
--- Comment #14 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #13)
> What is status of this bug in general? I must admit I thought we have issues
> long solved here :(
It still exists in 8.1. Libstdc++ uses top level asm statement fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85622
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
--- Comment #15 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #13)
> Concerning comment #11, if you have toplevel asms you need to disable LTO
> for that unit, as there is no way to tell for gcc what the asm statement is
> doing. Perha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85626
Bug ID: 85626
Summary: [nvptx] __builtin_trap should not return
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #15)
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #13)
> > Concerning comment #11, if you have toplevel asms you need to disable LTO
> > for that unit, as there is no way to t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67650
--- Comment #18 from Vincent ---
Still in 8.1, now with a different diagnosis:
g++-8 -c -O3 67650.cpp
67650.cpp:33:8: warning: 'void AN::rp() [with OC = LR::LLC; RC = BLKC]' used but never defined
void rp(){}
^~
Ironically the message
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85627
Bug ID: 85627
Summary: [6/7/8/9 Regression] ICE in update_phi_components in
tree-complex.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85627
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85627
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Part of the fix:
Index: gcc/tree-complex.c
===
--- gcc/tree-complex.c (revision 259879)
+++ gcc/tree-complex.c (working copy)
@@ -1692,6 +16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85627
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
expand_complex_div_wide seems to work fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85627
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Fixing the nothrow issue reveals:
Index: tree.c
===
--- tree.c (revision 259879)
+++ tree.c (working copy)
@@ -10386,17 +10386,19 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85627
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Fixed by, for example, the following which keeps EH intact for the original
testcase if combined with the tree.c fix
Index: gcc/tree-complex.c
===
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85617
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Gutson ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> The warning really can't be implemented later than in the FE, because many
> of the non-setting uses are optimized away already during the FEs. So there
> is no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85600
rdapp at linux dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdapp at linux dot ibm.com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85627
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 44055
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44055&action=edit
patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
--- Comment #17 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #16)
> We might want to add a function attribute to allow to specify symver, so like
>
> int pci_fill_info_v31(struct pci_dev *d, int flags)
> __attribute__((alias("pci
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85615
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Regresses gcc.dg/uninit-20.c.
Trying
if (bb->loop_father != e2->src->loop_father
&& (!loop_exit_edge_p (e2->src->loop_father, e2)
|| flow_loop_nested_p (bb->loop_f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85617
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Gutson ---
Additionally, could you please consider to gently leave this issue open as an
enhancement?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85600
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64le-unknown-linux-g |
|nu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85600
--- Comment #6 from rdapp at linux dot ibm.com ---
This hunk causes the double pop():
@@ -4650,8 +4648,6 @@ build_delete (tree otype, tree addr,
special_function_kind auto_delete,
}
}
}
- if (TREE_SIDE_EFF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67650
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target|x86_64-a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #49 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Hi Andrew!
(In reply to Andrew Jenner from comment #21)
> I'm still actively working on it. The patch is close to ready for commit
> now, I think - I'm going to try to get it committed by the en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67650
--- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Vincent from comment #5)
> The problem is static time, not dynamic time.
> This artefact is just a result of source code reduction. In my code there
> is no "0", and the problem exists.
Are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85617
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
E.g. cp_fold/c_fully_fold, gimplification, match.pd folding during
gimplification etc. can optimize away many uses.
I see no point in keeping open enhancement requests that are impossible to
implement.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67650
--- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Comment 19 shows a bogus warning triggered by -fdevirtualize but I'm not
convinced the original report of a link-error bug is valid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85588
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Or rather
Index: gcc/fold-const.c
===
--- gcc/fold-const.c(revision 259879)
+++ gcc/fold-const.c(working copy)
@@ -474,12 +474,15 @@ n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84949
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
std::numeric_limits defines:
static _GLIBCXX_USE_CONSTEXPR bool has_infinity = __FLT_HAS_INFINITY__;
static _GLIBCXX_USE_CONSTEXPR bool has_quiet_NaN = __FLT_HAS_QUIET_NAN__;
static _GLIB
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85600
sudi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sudi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
Andrew Jenner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #43312|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #51 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Andrew Jenner from comment #50),
>
> Thanks for the offer of help. I already have hardware, but I need to get my
> test scripts in order.
Ok, great!
> I'm attaching my current pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67650
--- Comment #22 from Vincent ---
See comment #6.
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #20)
> (In reply to Vincent from comment #5)
> > The problem is static time, not dynamic time.
> > This artefact is just a result of source code reduction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67650
--- Comment #23 from Vincent ---
See comment #10. The error is sensitive to unrelated changes. There is some
(front-end?) corruption somewhere.
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #21)
> Comment 19 shows a bogus warning triggered by -fdevi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #52 from Andrew Jenner ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #51)
> Absolutely. Where should I test the patch? Natively on powerpcspe? On
> x86_64? Or anything else? We have a wide range of architectures available
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084
--- Comment #53 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Andrew Jenner from comment #52)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #51)
> > Absolutely. Where should I test the patch? Natively on powerpcspe? On
> > x86_64? Or an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200
--- Comment #18 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #17)
> I prefer
>
> int pci_fill_info(struct pci_dev *, int)
> __attribute__((symver_alias("@LIBPCI_3.0", "pci_fill_info_v31")));
But then what should we do for
int pci_fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70291
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu May 3 12:59:43 2018
New Revision: 259889
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259889&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[tree-complex.c] PR tree-optimization/70291: Inline floati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67650
--- Comment #24 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Vincent from comment #22)
> See comment #6.
I already saw it, and I already tried that change. The problem disappears if
you make that change.
(In reply to Vincent from comment #23)
> See c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67650
--- Comment #25 from Vincent ---
Oh, it used to be the case. I think that must be due to some additional
artefact of more recent compilers. I'll try to find another way to show it.
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #24)
> (In reply to Vi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65086
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84535
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67650
--- Comment #26 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Vincent from comment #25)
> Oh, it used to be the case. I think that must be due to some additional
> artefact of more recent compilers. I'll try to find another way to show it.
I tried 5.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67650
--- Comment #27 from Vincent ---
Sorry for the silly check, are you sure you are trying with -O3 or
-fdevirtualize -O2?
You can try this with 8.1:
void *v;
template
struct LK: public BLKC
{
void rb(){((T*)v)->ax();}
static T* st;
};
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85615
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu May 3 13:20:02 2018
New Revision: 259891
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259891&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-05-03 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/85615
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85615
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.0
Summary|[8/9 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67650
--- Comment #28 from Vincent ---
Other silly check, did you try with my code or your reduced code ?
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #26)
> (In reply to Vincent from comment #25)
> > Oh, it used to be the case. I think that must be due
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70291
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Dumping the original tree of the test in comment 0 gives
...
lazy ()
{
static logical(kind=4) check (void);
logical(kind=4) flag;
flag = 0;
flag = check () && flag;
flag = flag && check ()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85106
--- Comment #13 from Tom de Vries ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu May 3 13:47:14 2018
New Revision: 259892
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259892&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[testsuite] Add scan-offload-tree-dump
2018-05-03 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85599
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Am I mistaken to read this as being handled by the middle-end?
> If yes, the situation is discussed in pr57160 comment 1.
I meant "If no"!-(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67650
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||link-failure
--- Comment #29 from Jona
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84535
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 3 14:08:36 2018
New Revision: 259893
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259893&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/84535 constrain std::thread constructor
The standard requir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85593
--- Comment #4 from Austin Morton ---
In my particular case I was able to work around the issue by removing the naked
attribute and using extended assembly with a clobbers list.
The resulting code is nearly identical (allowing GCC to generate th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60646
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85628
Bug ID: 85628
Summary: Make better use of BFI (BFXIL)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85629
Bug ID: 85629
Summary: GCC 8.1.0: FTBFS: make check fails in Go part
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: boo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85630
Bug ID: 85630
Summary: GCC 8.1.0: Filesystem pollution during build: .cache
dir in $HOME
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84087
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu May 3 15:01:20 2018
New Revision: 259895
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259895&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/84087 add default arguments to basic_string members (LWG 226
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85631
Bug ID: 85631
Summary: Runtime error message array bound mismatch with
nonzero optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84087
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|deferred|
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85631
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85632
Bug ID: 85632
Summary: std::filesystem::space or
std::experimental::filesystem::space does not return
correct information
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82644
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Bah, now we have failures for TR1 with -std=c++17 or -std=c++2a:
$ ~/gcc/8/bin/g++ -std=c++17 -include tr1/cmath -x c++ /dev/null
In file included from :
/home/jwakely/gcc/8/include/c++/8.0.1/tr1/cmath:1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85632
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85633
Bug ID: 85633
Summary: [8 Regression] reorders function ignoring fpu
exception state
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85633
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Summary|[8 Regress
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85633
--- Comment #2 from Julian Taylor ---
changing the fpu state does not count as a side effect?
This doesn't seem plausible, this type of code is one the reasons the fpu
exception state exists.
There is a lot of code written with this in mind which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67650
--- Comment #30 from Vincent ---
Am using OSX, but I do not believe it makes a big difference. Thanks, Jonathan,
let me know if I can help in any way.
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #29)
> (In reply to Vincent from comment #27)
> > So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85633
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
See PR 38960 for why I said this is not a regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85628
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>This should just be a matter of adding the necessary patterns in aarch64.md.
I was doing for MIPS and it was rejected because combine or something before
combine should be generating zero_extract on the set
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85634
Bug ID: 85634
Summary: 8.1 ICE in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:15483
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85634
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85633
--- Comment #4 from Julian Taylor ---
Oh that is unfortunate.
I guess one has to inject the dependency in the fpu checking function as an
argument then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80947
Duarte changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||duarte at scylladb dot com
--- Comment #16 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84769
--- Comment #6 from Duarte ---
I think that calls to get<0> should be scoped, for example in visit().
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85634
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Paprocki ---
Created attachment 44057
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44057&action=edit
-save-temps output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85634
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Paprocki ---
Compiler info:
$ g++-8 -v
Reading specs from /dev/shm/refroot/opt/bb/lib/gcc-8.1/bin/../lib/gcc/specs
COLLECT_GCC=/dev/shm/refroot/opt/bb/bin/g++-8
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/dev/shm/refroot/opt/bb/lib/gcc-8.1/b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85634
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Paprocki ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate.
I had to attach the .ii and .s file tgz'd due to the file size limit of the
bugtracke
1 - 100 of 149 matches
Mail list logo
