Re: [PATCH] Remove class cache_map and use ggc hash_maps instead (PR c++/70452)

Oops, I should have read the followup. :) This one is OK, thanks. Jason

Re: [PATCH] Remove class cache_map and use ggc hash_maps instead (PR c++/70452)

On 04/04/2016 01:08 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: + tree *slot = _cache->get_or_insert (t, NULL); + if (*slot == NULL_TREE) +*slot = maybe_constant_value_1 (t, decl); ... - fold_cache.put (org_x, x); + *slot = x; This pattern isn't safe; the slot might move due to hash table resizing

Re: [PATCH] 69517 - [5/6 regression] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements

On 04/01/2016 07:02 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: Fair enough. I don't think we can impose an arbitrary 64K limit, however, as that is a lot smaller than the 8MB default stack size, and programs can use setrlimit to increase the stack farther. For GCC 6 let not impose any limit beyond

Re: [patch] Fix PR target/67172

> That's t-cygming, not t-cygwin, right? Right, sorry about that. > So, I think this is ok. Thanks! -- Eric Botcazou

RE: [PATCH 1/4] [MIPS] Add support for MIPS SIMD Architecture (MSA)

Hi Robert, Apologies for the long delay again. This patch is hard to get through. My comments are not all in source sequence but I've tried to keep them short. With a few minor things fixed and some trivial style issues done then this is ready to go. I've left a number of things to look at

Re: [patch] Fortran fix for PR70289

On 04/01/2016 08:17 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 08:07:24AM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote: >> On 04/01/2016 07:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 07:49:16AM -0700, Cesar Philippidis wrote: The bug in PR70289 is an assertion failure triggered by a

[PATCH] Fix PR70509 (wrong code with extract from a v64qi)

Hello, as discussed in the PR, when forwprop propagates VEC_PERM_EXPR through BIT_FIELD_REF in simplify_bitfield_ref(), the new BIT_FIELD_REF has the index of the same type as the vector base type. This patch changes the index to bitsize_int(). Bootstrapped on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, regression

Re: Do not optimize some polymorphic calls with -fsanitize=undefined

> On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 05:50:53PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > Hi, > > as requested by Jakub, this patch makes devirtualization code to turn off > > transformations based on assumption that cxa_pure_virtual will never be > > called > > by a virtual call when -fsanitize=undefined is used. > >

Re: [AArch64] Emit division using the Newton series

On 04/01/16 17:52, Evandro Menezes wrote: On 04/01/16 17:45, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: Evandro Menezes wrote: However, I don't think that there's the need to handle any special case for division. The only case when the approximation differs from division is when the numerator is infinity and the

[COMMITTED] Add myself as GCC maintainer

I've added myself to the "Write After Approval" maintainers (Committed revision 234724): Index: ChangeLog === --- ChangeLog (revision 234723) +++ ChangeLog (working copy) @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2016-04-04 Bill Seurer

Re: [v3 PATCH] PR libstdc++/70437

And yes, -ENOPATCH. On 4 April 2016 at 21:42, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > Tested on Linux-PPC64. > > 2016-04-04 Ville Voutilainen > > PR libstdc++/70437 > * include/bits/stl_pair.h (_ConstructiblePair, >

[v3 PATCH] PR libstdc++/70437

Tested on Linux-PPC64. 2016-04-04 Ville Voutilainen PR libstdc++/70437 * include/bits/stl_pair.h (_ConstructiblePair, _ImplicitlyConvertiblePair, _MoveConstructiblePair, _ImplicitlyMoveConvertiblePair): Add shortcut conditions for same-type

Re: Do not optimize some polymorphic calls with -fsanitize=undefined

On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 05:50:53PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote: > Hi, > as requested by Jakub, this patch makes devirtualization code to turn off > transformations based on assumption that cxa_pure_virtual will never be called > by a virtual call when -fsanitize=undefined is used. > >

[PATCH] avoid false positives in trailing operator rule in check_GNU_style.sh

My recent change to check_GNU_style.sh (commit 1bbf98) introduces false positives for declarations of functions with a pointer return type. For example, in the following, the asterisk in the "void *" return type is incorrectly diagnosed as a trailing operator: -void -foo (void); +void *

[PATCH] Fix up AVX512 andnot (PR target/70525)

Hi! This patch fixes various *andnot3* issues. There are two issues on the ISA side that makes stuff harder for andnot: there are no VPANDNB and VPANDNW instructions, and while there used to be just VPANDN instruction in AVX/AVX2, there is only VPANDND and VPANDNQ in EVEX. The patch changes: 1)

Re: [PATCH] Remove class cache_map and use ggc hash_maps instead (PR c++/70452)

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Patrick Palka wrote: > On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Jason Merrill wrote: > > > Hmm, I thought I remembered hitting the breakpoint in gt_cleare_cache and it > > being non-null. But I guess we can get rid of the cache_map class and use > > the > > approach you have here, of a

[C++ PATCH] PR 70501, ICE in verify ctor sanity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70501 This fixes 70501. The cause is an omission in typeck when converting a scalar operand to a vector. We use build_vector_from_val, which can return a CONSTRUCTOR. We fail to wrap that CONSTRUCTOR in a TARGET_EXPR. The ICE arises because at

[committed] Fix pr70307.c testcase (PR middle-end/70307)

Hi! I've noticed the new testcase FAILs on i?86-linux and powerpc-linux. As this is a compile time testcase rather than runtime, I chose to prune the rs6000 ABI warnings instead of using -w which is otherwise the only way to disable them :(. Fixed thusly, committed to trunk. 2016-04-04 Jakub

[PATCH] Remove class cache_map and use ggc hash_maps instead (PR c++/70452)

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Jason Merrill wrote: > Hmm, I thought I remembered hitting the breakpoint in gt_cleare_cache and it > being non-null. But I guess we can get rid of the cache_map class and use the > approach you have here, of a deletable gc-allocated hash_map pointer; I'd > still use

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR c++/70452 (regression in C++ parsing performance)

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 04/02/2016 05:18 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: > > Here's a version that uses a separate deletable table to cache the > > function copies. For simplicity I used a hash_map instead of a > > hash_table. Does this look OK to commit after bootstrap +

Re: [AArch64] Emit square root using the Newton series

On 04/01/16 17:45, Evandro Menezes wrote: On 03/24/16 14:11, Evandro Menezes wrote: On 03/17/16 17:46, Evandro Menezes wrote: This patch refactors the function to emit the reciprocal square root approximation to also emit the square root approximation. This version of the patch cleans up the

Re: [AArch64] Add more precision choices for the reciprocal square root approximation

On 04/01/16 18:08, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: Evandro Menezes wrote: I hope that this gets in the ballpark of what's been discussed previously. Yes that's very close to what I had in mind. A minor issue is that the vector modes cannot work as they start at MAX_MODE_FLOAT (which is > 32): +/*

Re: [PATCH] gnattools: Clean config.cache (PR70173)

> Tested on powerpc64-linux, --enable-languages=all,ada,go,obj-c++ , > followed by "make distclean". Is this okay for trunk? > > > Segher > > > 2016-04-04 Segher Boessenkool > > gnattools/ > PR bootstrap/70173 > * Makefile.in (distclean): Also

Do not optimize some polymorphic calls with -fsanitize=undefined

Hi, as requested by Jakub, this patch makes devirtualization code to turn off transformations based on assumption that cxa_pure_virtual will never be called by a virtual call when -fsanitize=undefined is used. Bootstrapped/regtested x86_64-linux, will commit it shortly. PR ipa/66223

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR c++/70452 (regression in C++ parsing performance)

On 04/02/2016 05:18 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: Here's a version that uses a separate deletable table to cache the function copies. For simplicity I used a hash_map instead of a hash_table. Does this look OK to commit after bootstrap + regtest? Thanks. Minor nits: > +struct

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR70457 (ICE on incompatible call to built-in pow)

On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 10:02:44AM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: > Sorry again for the misunderstanding. Here are revised patches and > change logs for trunk, GCC 5, and GCC 4.9. Note that GCC 5 and GCC 4.9 > have additional exposures in tree-ssa-math-opts.c that I've repaired > similarly. The

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR70457 (ICE on incompatible call to built-in pow)

Hi Jakub, Sorry again for the misunderstanding. Here are revised patches and change logs for trunk, GCC 5, and GCC 4.9. Note that GCC 5 and GCC 4.9 have additional exposures in tree-ssa-math-opts.c that I've repaired similarly. The only differences between 5 and 4.9 are the names of the

Re: [PATCH] Add security_sensitive attribute to clean function stack and regs.

On 03/22/2016 03:15 PM, Marcos Díaz wrote: the attached patch adds a new attribute 'security_sensitive' for functions. The idea was discussed in PR middle-end/69976. The first question would be: I see several submissions from folks @tallertechnologies.com. Do you and your employer have

Re: Patches to fix optimizer bug & C++ exceptions for GCC VAX backend

On Thu, 31 Mar 2016, Jake Hamby wrote: > There's one more thing that's broken in the VAX backend which I'd > *really* like to fix: GCC can't compile many of its own files at -O2, as > well as a few other .c files in the NetBSD tree, because it can't expand > an insn pattern. The Makefiles have

Re: Fix for PR70498 in Libiberty Demangler

> On 4 Apr 2016, at 9:24 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > >> >> The patch now also accounts for overflows in d_compact_number which >> is supposed to return -1 in case of negative numbers. > > I take it this isn't for the normal 'n' case, but for instances where we > encounter

Re: [PATCH] Add security_sensitive attribute to clean function stack and regs.

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Marcos Díaz wrote: > (Ping and changelog fix) > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Marcos Díaz > wrote: >> Hi, >>the attached patch adds a new attribute 'security_sensitive' for >>

Re: [RFC] introduce --param max-lto-partition for having an upper bound on partition size

> diff --git a/gcc/lto/lto-partition.c b/gcc/lto/lto-partition.c > index 9eb63c2..bc0c612 100644 > --- a/gcc/lto/lto-partition.c > +++ b/gcc/lto/lto-partition.c > @@ -511,9 +511,20 @@ lto_balanced_map (int n_lto_partitions) >varpool_order.qsort (varpool_node_cmp); > >/* Compute

Re: [PATCH PR69489/01]Improve tree ifcvt by storing/tracking DR against its innermost loop bahavior if possible

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Richard Biener >> wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Bin.Cheng

Re: [patch] Fix PR target/67172

On 04/04/2016 09:39 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: The audit trail of the PR is quite confused: __LIBGCC_EH_FRAME_SECTION_NAME__ needs to be (and is correctly) defined during the libgcc build because DWARF2 exceptions are used. The problem is that libgcc2.c expects the usual non-ELF setup, with

Re: [PATCH][GCC 7] Remove broken path in extract_bit_field_1

On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 03:27:23PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > It ICEs in > > /space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr37870.c:19:1: > internal compiler error: in subreg_get_info, at rtlanal.c:3695 > 0xddee5a subreg_get_info(unsigned int, machine_mode, unsigned int, >

Re: [RFC] introduce --param max-lto-partition for having an upper bound on partition size

On 4 April 2016 at 17:30, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> > Um not sure if I understood correctly. >> > Do we want to constrain individual partition size by adding parameter >> > lto-max-partition >> > for balanced partitioning but not for -flto-partition=one >> > case (since latter would

Re: [PATCH][GCC 7] Remove broken path in extract_bit_field_1

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 03:10:34PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 02:56:51PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > The testcase gcc.target/i386/pr37870.c will already ICE with

Re: [PATCH][GCC 7] Remove broken path in extract_bit_field_1

On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 03:10:34PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 02:56:51PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > > The testcase gcc.target/i386/pr37870.c will already ICE with that > > > patch, so no additional testcase. > > > >

Re: Fix for PR70498 in Libiberty Demangler

On 04/02/2016 11:49 AM, Marcel Böhme wrote: Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Test cases added + checked PR70498 is resolved. Richard - any objections from an RM perspective to check in such potentially security-related fixes now even if not regressions? The patch

Re: [PATCH][GCC 7] Remove broken path in extract_bit_field_1

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 02:56:51PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > The testcase gcc.target/i386/pr37870.c will already ICE with that > > patch, so no additional testcase. > > In theory you could validate_subreg first and use that code if validation >

Re: [PATCH PR69489/01]Improve tree ifcvt by storing/tracking DR against its innermost loop bahavior if possible

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Richard Biener > wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote: >>> Sorry, Should have replied to gcc-patches list. >>> >>>

Re: [PATCH][GCC 7] Remove broken path in extract_bit_field_1

On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 02:56:51PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > The testcase gcc.target/i386/pr37870.c will already ICE with that > patch, so no additional testcase. In theory you could validate_subreg first and use that code if validation went ok, otherwise go through memory. But I admit I

[PATCH][GCC 7] Remove broken path in extract_bit_field_1

r141430 as a fix for PR37870 added a memory fallback to extract_bit_field_1 and another case punning through a larger integer mode (as suggested by Ian). That path is broken as it happily creates (set (subreg:XF (reg:TI ..)) (...)) on i?86 when we optimize the added testcase unsigned int bar

[PATCH] libcc1: Clean compiler-name.h (PR70173)

Since the file is generated from a Makefile fragment, it needs to be added to MOSTLYCLEANFILES. The directory itself is still not deleted (just like the gnattools and gotools directories). Tested on powerpc64-linux, --enable-languages=all,ada,go,obj-c++ , followed by "make distclean". Is this

[PATCH] gnattools: Clean config.cache (PR70173)

The config.cache file should be deleted by "make distclean", just like config.log and config.status . The directory itself is still not deleted (just like the gotools and libcc1 directories). Tested on powerpc64-linux, --enable-languages=all,ada,go,obj-c++ , followed by "make distclean". Is

Re: [PATCH][Testsuite] Add --param sra-max-scalarization-size-Ospeed to sra-12.c

On 18/03/16 10:34, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > On 21/10/15 16:59, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 10/21/2015 09:52 AM, Alan Lawrence wrote: >>> gcc.dg/tree-ssa/sra-12.c is skipped on a bunch of targets, including >>> AArch64, >>> because the default max-scalarization-size depends on MOVE_RATIO, and >>> on

[PATCH, trivial, 3/3, PR70433] Handle backslash in pp_write_text_as_dot_label_to_stream

Hi, this patch fixes PR70433. Consider test.c: ... #include void test (void) { printf ("\"%s\"",__FUNCTION__); } ... In the dump file we find the backslashes in the string: ... printf ("\"%s\"", &__FUNCTION__); ... But the dot file contains: ... printf\ (\"\\"%s\\"\",\ &__FUNCTION__);

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR70457 (ICE on incompatible call to built-in pow)

OK, sorry for misreading the note. This is exactly what I've done for the GCC 5 and GCC 4.9 versions, so I'll update the GCC 6 version to do the same. Bill On Mon, 2016-04-04 at 08:57 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Sun, Apr 03, 2016 at 06:43:47PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: > > ---

[PATCH, trivial, 2/3] Fix record-shape escapes in pp_write_text_as_dot_label_to_stream

Hi, this patch fixes the classification of the chars '{}<> ' in pp_write_text_as_dot_label_to_stream. They're currently marked as always-escape, but that's incorrect, they should be marked as escape-for-record. Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64. Will commit to stage1 trunk as trivial.

[PATCH, trivial, 1/3] Simplify loop in pp_write_text_as_dot_label_to_stream

Hi, this patch simplifies the loop structure in pp_write_text_as_dot_label_to_stream: - it rewrites the while loop into a for loop - it factors common code out of the switch cases. No functional changes. Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64. Will commit to stage1 trunk as trivial. Thanks,

Re: [RFC] introduce --param max-lto-partition for having an upper bound on partition size

> > Um not sure if I understood correctly. > > Do we want to constrain individual partition size by adding parameter > > lto-max-partition > > for balanced partitioning but not for -flto-partition=one > > case (since latter would also change semantics of =one) ? > > Yes, I think so. Yep, I

[Patch, testsuite] Require int32plus and scheduling support for some tests

Hi, This patch add dg-require-effective-target directives to a few tests that were failing unnecessarily for the AVR target. One of them invokes the compiler with -fschedule-insns2 - I've required scheduling support for that testcase. For all other tests, I've required int32plus - they

Re: [RFC] introduce --param max-lto-partition for having an upper bound on partition size

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 4 April 2016 at 13:56, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > > > >> On 1 April 2016 at 23:02, Richard Biener wrote: > >> > On April 1, 2016 3:48:35 PM GMT+02:00,

Re: [RFC] introduce --param max-lto-partition for having an upper bound on partition size

On 4 April 2016 at 13:56, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > >> On 1 April 2016 at 23:02, Richard Biener wrote: >> > On April 1, 2016 3:48:35 PM GMT+02:00, Prathamesh Kulkarni >> >

Re: [Fortran, Patch, pr67538, v1] ICE with invalid source allocation

Hi Jerry, thanks for the review. Committed as r234714. Regards, Andre On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 12:23:08 -0700 Jerry DeLisle wrote: > On 04/03/2016 09:13 AM, Andre Vehreschild wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > the attached patch checks that for F2008-style allocate(arr1,

[C PATCH] PR43651: add warning for duplicate qualifier

Hi all! Currently GCC produces pedantic warning, if variable declaration (or typedef) has duplicate qualifier, but only when compiling as C89 (not C99 or C11). The attached patch adds a new warning option to enable the same warning in C99 and C11. It also checks whether qualifiers come from

Add some C++17 items to gcc-6/changes.html

I plan to commit this to wwwdocs CVS. Have I missed anything that should be listed? Index: htdocs/gcc-6/changes.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-6/changes.html,v retrieving revision 1.72 diff -u -r1.72 changes.html

[wwwdocs] [4/3] projects/cxx-status.html -- introduce global CSS for tables

And this is the last part, adding coloring for some table headings. Jason, I did convert to a color in line of what we have on our home page (in the navigation bar). If you want, we can easily revert to the previous state of affairs, though. Gerald Index: gcc.css

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR70484, RTL DSE using wrong dependence check

On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 11:24:41AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, 1 Apr 2016, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > > On 04/01/2016 11:08 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > > { > > > ! if (canon_true_dependence (s_info->mem, > > > ! GET_MODE

Re: [Fortran, Patch, pr66911, gcc-5, v1] ICE on allocate character with source as a derived type component

Hi Jerry, thank you for the review. Committed as r234712 to gcc-5-branch. Regards, Andre On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 12:22:31 -0700 Jerry DeLisle wrote: > On 04/03/2016 08:33 AM, Andre Vehreschild wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > attached patch fixes the ICE when using a

Re: Patches to fix optimizer bug & C++ exceptions for GCC VAX backend

On Fri, 2016-04-01 12:06:20 -0700, Jake Hamby wrote: > I apologize for the poor quality of the initial version of the patch > that I submitted. I think I may have also mangled it by not Don't apologize! Posting work early enables others to comment on it. GCC is a highly

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR70484, RTL DSE using wrong dependence check

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, 1 Apr 2016, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > > On 04/01/2016 11:08 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > > { > > > ! if (canon_true_dependence (s_info->mem, > > > ! GET_MODE (s_info->mem), > > > !

Re: [Fortran, Patch, pr65795, v1] Segfault (invalid write) for ALLOCATE statement involving COARRAYS

Hi Jerry, hi Dominique, Jerry, thank you for the review. Committed to trunk as r234710 and to gcc-5-branch as r234711 including the additional option Dominique noted I had missed. Thank for pointing that out, Dominique. Regards, Andre On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 23:46:34 +0200 Dominique

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR70484, RTL DSE using wrong dependence check

On Fri, 1 Apr 2016, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 04/01/2016 11:08 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > { > > ! if (canon_true_dependence (s_info->mem, > > !GET_MODE (s_info->mem), > > !s_info->mem_addr, > > !

[PATCH][AArch64] Backport of PR 70044 fix to GCC 5

Hi all, I'd like to backport Nicks' patch for PR 70044 to the GCC 5 branch. The patch doesn't apply cleanly because the aarch64_override_options_after_change and associated machinery was reworked for GCC 6. This is the (simple) backport of that patch to GCC 5. Bootstrapped and tested on

Re: [RFC] introduce --param max-lto-partition for having an upper bound on partition size

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > On 1 April 2016 at 23:02, Richard Biener wrote: > > On April 1, 2016 3:48:35 PM GMT+02:00, Prathamesh Kulkarni > > wrote: > >>Hi, > >>The attached patch introduces param max-lto-partition which

Re: [RFC] introduce --param max-lto-partition for having an upper bound on partition size

On 1 April 2016 at 23:02, Richard Biener wrote: > On April 1, 2016 3:48:35 PM GMT+02:00, Prathamesh Kulkarni > wrote: >>Hi, >>The attached patch introduces param max-lto-partition which creates an >>upper >>bound for partition size. >> >>My

[patch] Fix PR target/67172

Hi, this is the bootstrap failure on MinGW configured w/ --disable-sjlj-exceptions --with-dwarf2, a regression present on the mainline and 5 branch. The problem is the undefined symbol __EH_FRAME_BEGIN__ coming from libgcc2.c, which prevents libgcc_s.dll from being linked. The audit trail of

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR70457 (ICE on incompatible call to built-in pow)

On Sun, Apr 03, 2016 at 06:43:47PM -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: > --- tree-inline.c (revision 234702) > +++ tree-inline.c (working copy) > @@ -57,8 +57,8 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see > #include "cfgloop.h" > #include "builtins.h" > #include "tree-chkp.h" >