From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2451 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2014 16:26:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 2334 invoked by uid 48); 19 Dec 2014 16:26:20 -0000 From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/53132] Missing top level in diagnostic's instantiation stack Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 16:26:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.7.1 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: manu at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-12/txt/msg02416.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D53132 --- Comment #5 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #4) > Manuel, shall we close this? If there is no self-contained reproducible testcase forthcoming, I would say yes. >>From gcc-bugs-return-471410-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Dec 19 16:37:06 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11323 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2014 16:37:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11263 invoked by uid 48); 19 Dec 2014 16:37:00 -0000 From: "gcc at breakpoint dot cc" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/64294] invalid code, zero check gets optimized away Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 16:37:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.2 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: gcc at breakpoint dot cc X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cf_known_to_work Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-12/txt/msg02417.txt.bz2 Content-length: 520 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64294 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Known to work| |4.7.2 --- Comment #6 from Sebastian Andrzej Siewior --- I just reprduced this on arm-linux-gnueabi. Unless there is something wrong with the code, this isn't x86 specific as the Target suggests.