https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62642
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
The problem is in a live range splitting optimization to reduce register
pressure. It was introduced by
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01531.html
It is easy to switch off for this kind of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58796
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
version 5.0.0 20141212 (experimental) [trunk revision 218651] (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61258
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Sat Dec 13 01:58:46 2014
New Revision: 218702
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218702&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/61258
runtime: Don't crash when deleting zero-sized key.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61254
--- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Sat Dec 13 01:41:49 2014
New Revision: 218701
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218701&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/61254
compiler: Don't move nil subexpressions into tempor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60154
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
I can't think of patch that would fix ICE like this though...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63888
Kostya Serebryany changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||richard-gccbugzilla@metafoo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60154
Trevor Saunders changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tsaunders at mozilla dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58594
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Sat Dec 13 00:44:17 2014
New Revision: 218698
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218698&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/58594
* include/bits/shared_ptr_base.h: Real fix for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63888
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #20)
> > Is this clear? This is on access of the b1 variable defined in main.c,
> > certainly not anything around f variable defined in libfoo.c.
>
> Yea. Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63888
--- Comment #20 from Kostya Serebryany ---
> Is this clear? This is on access of the b1 variable defined in main.c,
> certainly not anything around f variable defined in libfoo.c.
Yea. Thanks. Pondering...
I am still not convinced that this cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64264
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63888
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #18)
> I am disoriented.
> Can you please give a full repro (with command lines, etc) where
> we'll now produce a false positive (in clang or in gcc)?
$ cat lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58882
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63888
--- Comment #18 from Kostya Serebryany ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #17)
> (In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #16)
> > Frankly, I realize that I don't understand the subtleties of this problem.
> > :(
> >
> > First, if t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64294
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Andrzej Siewior ---
It seems exit(0) is dropped with -O1 -ftree-vrp.
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #1)
> This condition is true if backsize == 0:
Ehm, yes. The Code is:
--
printf("bufsz: %u backsize: %d\
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63888
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #16)
> Frankly, I realize that I don't understand the subtleties of this problem.
> :(
>
> First, if this is C++ we clearly have a bug (ODR violation) and we are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64054
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Rainer, should we close this now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57953
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64294
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59240
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59240
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59240
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Dec 12 22:40:29 2014
New Revision: 218693
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218693&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-12 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/59240
* g++.dg/tort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63888
--- Comment #16 from Kostya Serebryany ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> (In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #14)
> > We should be careful when instrumenting something that can be redefined
> > because the
> > definition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64294
Bug ID: 64294
Summary: invalid code, zero check gets optimized away
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63888
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #14)
> We should be careful when instrumenting something that can be redefined
> because the
> definition may be no-instrumented.
But that is a strong argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63888
--- Comment #14 from Kostya Serebryany ---
(In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #13)
> (In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #12)
> > But for this example in C the globals will not get instrumented, unless
> > -fno-common is given.
>
> B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58882
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59240
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59628
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61254
Chris Manghane changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59628
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Dec 12 21:50:12 2014
New Revision: 218692
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218692&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-12-12 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/59628
* semanti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61253
Chris Manghane changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64293
Bug ID: 64293
Summary: [C++14] explicit instantiation declaration suppresses
instantiation of constexpr constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64265
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
FYI, the #c12 patch needs more work, in particular the inliner probably has to
drop the TSAN_FUNC_EXIT () internal calls, otherwise after inlining there can
be multiple of them which is undesirable, as tsan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64180
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58594
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Dec 12 21:05:35 2014
New Revision: 218691
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218691&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/58594
* include/bits/shared_ptr_base.h: Cast away cv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61924
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64292
Bug ID: 64292
Summary: [5.0 regression] FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr60474.C -O1
(internal compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61924
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Dec 12 20:30:11 2014
New Revision: 218690
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218690&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-12 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/61924
* g++.dg/cpp0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64265
--- Comment #20 from Dmitry Vyukov ---
No, TSAN_GO is not defined for C/C++ tsan. It's only for race detector for Go
language.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64265
--- Comment #19 from Bernd Edlinger ---
oh, I see now, in tsan/tsan_rtl.cc
// Shadow stack maintenance can be replaced with
// stack unwinding during trace switch (which presumably must be faster).
DCHECK_GE(thr->shadow_stack_pos, thr->sha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59410
--- Comment #37 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #36)
> While we are at it, H.J., is there any hope with
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=66721 ?
I will see what I can do.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64110
--- Comment #9 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Dec 12 20:11:10 2014
New Revision: 218688
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218688&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-12 Vladimir Makarov
PR target/64110
* lra-constr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61244
--- Comment #3 from Chris Manghane ---
I plan to add the test cases that GoSmith uncovered once the remaining GoSmith
issues are resolved since it's possible some of them might overlap.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61924
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
Thanks. Then let's add the testcase and close the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61019
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
The ICE is fixed in mainline, but the location is still wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59410
--- Comment #36 from Kostya Serebryany ---
While we are at it, H.J., is there any hope with
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=66721 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64265
--- Comment #18 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> I've been running the tests for quite a while and RSS didn't increase in top
> at all.
>
> As for "and no calls to other functions", sure, I haven't changed a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64265
--- Comment #17 from Dmitry Vyukov ---
Great.
Jakub, then you can go for gcc support whenever you have time. It's not super
priority as we managed to live without exceptions support so far.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61244
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry Vyukov ---
Chris, when you fix these, please also add tests to the main Go repo. These are
code patterns that we never saw before. Collections of these patterns will be a
great asset for regression testing and any futur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61205
Chris Manghane changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61248
Chris Manghane changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64265
--- Comment #16 from Kostya Serebryany ---
> Kostya, can you say anything about llvm? On the tsan issue you said:
> "We'll need a kind of RAII for tsan entry/exit hooks. When we are adding
> tsan instrumentation, we need to create a fake class ob
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61244
Chris Manghane changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64265
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've been running the tests for quite a while and RSS didn't increase in top at
all.
As for "and no calls to other functions", sure, I haven't changed anything on
that logic.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60579
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64043
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
The following patch should help. Still need to work out why flag_devirtualize
is set at final link - it should not
Index: tree.c
===
--- tree.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64265
--- Comment #14 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Note, I don't see any kind of memory leak on any of the testcases.
> Sure, calling __tsan_func_entry many times is of course wrong.
> As for #c5, clang doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60683
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61723
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vanyacpp at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61558
--- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK I am testing the following patch. It just makes symtab code ready for
DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME returning NULL
Index: symtab.c
===
--- symtab.c(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64265
--- Comment #13 from Dmitry Vyukov ---
> ... we actually don't want any __tsan_func_{entry,exit} calls if there are no
> memory accesses in the function...
... and no calls to other functions, because these functions can contain memory
accesses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64265
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 34271
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34271&action=edit
gcc5-pr64265-2.patch
Incremental patch to handle the exceptions, completely untested (don't have
spare cycles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64291
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Was this before or after revision 218658 ?
Exactly at 218658 (there were more failures before that).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64246
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
This happens only on i686-mingw32 because this requires SJLJ exceptions. The
loop at stake is marked for removal during EH generation:
#0 mark_loop_for_removal (loop=0x76969ca8)
at /home/eric/svn/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59628
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64291
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Was this before or after revision 218658 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64265
--- Comment #11 from Dmitry Vyukov ---
>Doing it in gimplify_function_tree is pretty straightforward
That's good!
>So, the question is just if you want to do it that way...
Kostya, can you say anything about llvm? On the tsan issue you said:
"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63996
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64265
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 34270
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34270&action=edit
gcc5-pr64265.patch
Untested patch to fix just the func entry issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64291
Bug ID: 64291
Summary: [5 Regression] Miscompile t-div in GMP's testsuite
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64265
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Doing it in gimplify_function_tree is pretty straightforward, after all, we
already have there code to handle
if (flag_instrument_function_entry_exit
&& !DECL_NO_INSTRUMENT_FUNCTION_ENTRY_EXIT (fndecl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61307
Chris Manghane changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64246
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 34269
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34269&action=edit
Concatenated testcase
To be gnatchop-ed and compile at -O.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64265
Dmitry Vyukov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dvyukov at google dot com
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64265
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, I don't see any kind of memory leak on any of the testcases.
Sure, calling __tsan_func_entry many times is of course wrong.
As for #c5, clang doesn't call __tsan_func_exit in that case either. Dmitry?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63996
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Fri Dec 12 17:17:58 2014
New Revision: 218683
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218683&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/63996
* g++.dg/cpp1y/pr63996.C: New file.
Added:
trunk/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63996
--- Comment #1 from Kai Tietz ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Fri Dec 12 17:14:54 2014
New Revision: 218682
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218682&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/63996
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_loop_expr): Don't loop
endle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64265
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Seems there are more such spots that insert stmts at gsi_after_labels of
single_succ of entry block - e.g. ipa-split.c, omp-low.c, tree-inline.c,
tree-into-ssa.c, tree-profile.c, tree-ssa-reassoc.c at least.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59410
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61402
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Dec 12 16:43:16 2014
New Revision: 218680
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218680&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/61402
* lambda.c (add_capture): Don't pass a dependent type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64290
Bug ID: 64290
Summary: Destructor not called at deallocation of LHS
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64289
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 34267
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34267&action=edit
gcc5-pr64289.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59410
Dmitry Vyukov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dvyukov at google dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59302
Dmitry Vyukov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dvyukov at google dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60691
--- Comment #8 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Fabian Vogt from comment #6)
> If sjlj exceptions are not supported for ARM, shouldn't the configure option
> be invalid for ARM or at least print a warning?
> If an option does exist and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64289
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64287
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64289
Bug ID: 64289
Summary: ICE with -fsanitize=float-cast-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64241
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64287
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
AFAIK, Radovan (radovan.obrado...@imgtec.com) is working on this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64276
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64276
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Dec 12 15:58:49 2014
New Revision: 218679
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218679&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/64276
* doc/doxygen/user.cfg.in: Define __cpp_except
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64265
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64288
Bug ID: 64288
Summary: libstdc++ testsuite not compatible with -fno-rtti or
-fno-exceptions
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64287
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Summary|Disable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64287
Bug ID: 64287
Summary: Disable -fuse-caller-save when -pg is active
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64182
--- Comment #9 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Fri Dec 12 15:46:57 2014
New Revision: 218678
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218678&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR middle-end/64182
* wide-int.h (wi::div_r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64043
--- Comment #7 from Tobias Burnus ---
Now fails with the following backtrace. The location of the failure might have
changed due to the patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg01076.html ; in any case,
currently the failure is:
f
1 - 100 of 171 matches
Mail list logo
