https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63815
--- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> Created attachment 33942 [details]
> A patch
Please also add a testcase that will exercise this functionality.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63815
--- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #8)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> > Created attachment 33942 [details]
> > A patch
>
> Please also add a testcase that will exercise this functionality.
... r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831
Bug ID: 63831
Summary: [5 Regression] r217292 causes segfauls with -MM
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: pre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58692
--- Comment #2 from Tejas Belagod ---
Committed fix r217405 and r217406.
r217406 | belagod | 2014-11-12 08:46:05 + (Wed, 12 Nov 2014) | 14 lines
[AArch64] Remove unnec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58692
Tejas Belagod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58972
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58972
--- Comment #9 from Ville Voutilainen ---
(In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #8)
> Does not ICE anymore, and the original bug has been resolved (Daniel's local
> class example is still rejected). I don't know which revision fixes it,
> t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63819
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63820
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63823
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63821
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63761
--- Comment #5 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Nov 12 09:50:20 2014
New Revision: 217409
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217409&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-12 Thomas Preud'homme
gcc/
PR tree-opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63815
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
Summary|g++.dg/other/pr5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63827
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
I've also seen parallel bootstrap break once last week. Of course hard to
track...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63819
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Nov 12 10:12:47 2014
New Revision: 217410
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217410&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-12 Richard Biener
PR bootstrap/63819
* hash-table.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63821
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Nov 12 10:13:48 2014
New Revision: 217411
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217411&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-11-12 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/63821
* match.pd: A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63819
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63821
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63820
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63817
--- Comment #4 from Jan-Benedict Glaw ---
You can see this bug live in action for about every target when building a
native toolchain on gcc112, which is done in preparation for a cross-build with
config_list.mk by the build robot:
http://toolcha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33911
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Nov 12 10:32:17 2014
New Revision: 217412
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217412&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add -Wno-deprecated to dg-options.
PR c++/33911
* testsuite/20_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60420
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60420
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
... unless the "or of a template type argument" part applies (but clang accepts
both the original testcase and my Comment #1?!?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60420
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
In case a correct reduced reproducer would be:
struct MyIter
{
int& operator*();
};
template
void foo(Iterator begin)
{
auto x = [](const decltype(*begin)) { };
}
template void foo(MyIter);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60420
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #2)
> I'm looking into this, and I don't see how we can accept this kind of code
> given 8.3.2: "Cv-qualified references are ill-formed except when the
> cv-qualifiers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60420
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini ---
Ah, thanks, that explains everything!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63827
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
I haven't tried to reproduce this yet, but I don't see how that patch could
lead to this. What is actually the error that triggers that failure in make?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59708
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Nov 12 12:28:06 2014
New Revision: 217415
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217415&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/59708
* builtin-attrs.def (ATTR_NOTHROW_TYPEGENERIC_LEAF): N
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63827
--- Comment #5 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
This is extremely reproducible at r217383 on darwin and no other breakage in
the parallel make has been seen this week prior to this commit. The accumulated
error messages in the failing buil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63827
--- Comment #6 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
> I haven't tried to reproduce this yet, but I don't see how that patch could
> lead to this. What is actually the error that triggers that f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63814
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
Dominique, if you could pinpoint exactly the revision causing this, it
would be great. Most of us do not have access to a darwin machine.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63827
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to howarth from comment #5)
> It looks like the failure occurs when the java classes are being compiled.
> Can we revert r217383 until the flaw in its handling of the parallel make is
> resolv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63830
--- Comment #1 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Nov 12 12:54:00 2014
New Revision: 217417
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217417&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Avoid tail call in c-c++-common/asan/strlen-overflow-1.c
PR te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63830
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63827
--- Comment #8 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #7)
> (In reply to howarth from comment #5)
> > It looks like the failure occurs when the java classes are being compiled.
> > Can we revert r217
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63814
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Dominique, if you could pinpoint exactly the revision causing this, it
> would be great. Most of us do not have access to a darwin machine.
> Thanks.
It was what I tried to do, but I finally found
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59298
--- Comment #5 from Adam Hirst ---
I decided to check on the status of this bug in 4.9.2, as it's been a little
while, and the segmentation fault still occurs.
Interestingly, the test case that Janus posted on 2013-01-03 can be made to
compile a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63827
--- Comment #9 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
Now I see why I accidentally cc'd Manu. This breakage occurred in the commit
just prior to the jit commit which, as a fortune commit, indeed doesn't make
much sense.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63827
--- Comment #10 from dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to howarth from comment #9)
> Now I see why I accidentally cc'd Manu. This breakage occurred in the commit
> just prior to the jit commit which, as a fortune commit, indeed doesn't mak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63827
--- Comment #11 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to dmalcolm from comment #10)
> (In reply to howarth from comment #9)
> > Now I see why I accidentally cc'd Manu. This breakage occurred in the commit
> > just prior to the jit com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63815
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #9)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #8)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> > > Created attachment 33942 [details]
> > > A patch
> >
> > Please also add a tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63761
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63832
Bug ID: 63832
Summary: [5.0 Regression] crtstuff.c:400:19: warning: array
subscript is above array bounds [-Warray-bounds]
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63833
Bug ID: 63833
Summary: REAL_PIC_OFFSET_TABLE_REGNUM is wrong for x86-64
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52961
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Missing warning on empty if |Make -Wempty-body less
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49053
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58972
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ville.voutilainen at
gmail do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62184
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63827
--- Comment #12 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to howarth from comment #11)
> I am rerunning my tests. I can definitely say the bootstrap is broken
> post-r217814 in the libjava parallel make. Retesting if r217813 is in play.
> Also tryin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63832
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63827
--- Comment #13 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #12)
> (In reply to howarth from comment #11)
>
> If you are using --enable-checking=release, perhaps you are seeing:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60420
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63834
Bug ID: 63834
Summary: [5 Regression] unrecognised __has_attribute() test
causes segv (prevents bootstrap on darwin12).
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63834
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63834
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63828
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 33948
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33948&action=edit
A patch
Tested on Linux/32.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63835
Bug ID: 63835
Summary: ICE on valid code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63836
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63836
Bug ID: 63836
Summary: [5 Regression] r217349 caused segfault building
178.galgel from cpu2000
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63837
Bug ID: 63837
Summary: [5 Regression] r217391 causes kernel build errors with
GCC_COMPARE_DEBUG=1
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56846
--- Comment #11 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Yvan Roux from comment #9)
> Author: yroux
> Date: Mon Oct 6 12:25:14 2014
> New Revision: 215929
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215929&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> /libst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63821
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
--- Comment #10 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63835
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63836
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
A simple testcase:
[hjl@gnu-mic-2 delta-fortran]$ cat foo.f90
SUBROUTINE DTRSM ( NN, NB)
DO 50 J = NN, 1, -NB
50CONTINUE
end
[hjl@gnu-mic-2 delta-fortran]$
/export/project/git/gcc-regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56846
--- Comment #12 from Yvan Roux ---
Hi Thomas,
> Any chance you could backport for 4.8 Yvan? Do you want me to do it? Or are
> the release manager against a 4.8 backport?
Do you mean Linaro 4.8 branch ? if it is the case I'll not be able to do i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831
--- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33949
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33949&action=edit
Quick patch.
I'm not on a box I can easily build and test.
Here is a quick one leaving aside the ques
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831
--- Comment #4 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can someone quick try that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63838
Bug ID: 63838
Summary: [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] ipa-pure-const miscomputes
can_throw
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63821
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #11 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63836
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63838
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63838
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 33950
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33950&action=edit
gcc5-pr63838.patch
Untested fix. For 4.9/4.8, perhaps just the
s/node->indirect_calls/w->indirect_calls/ can b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63834
--- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I posted a patch on https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831 if here
anyone wants to test it before I can.
I'm away from my main machine ATM.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63835
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Nov 12 18:56:50 2014
New Revision: 217441
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217441&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add a testcase for PR tree-optimization/63835
PR tree-optimiza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to emsr from comment #4)
> Can someone quick try that?
Yes. It doesn't work.
trippels@gcc2-power8 test % /home/trippels/gcc_test/usr/local/bin/g++ -I ./ -MM
test.cpp
./1.h:5:6: error: missi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63839
Bug ID: 63839
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name, have var_decl in
simplify_builtin_call, at tree-ssa-forwprop.c:1441
with -fsanitize=unreachable
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63834
--- Comment #4 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
__has_include, as opposed to __has_cpp_include may predate my patch. I know
clang has it. That might explain it showing up in darwin sys headers.
I might have to back off of __has_attribute at lea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831
--- Comment #6 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 33952
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33952&action=edit
Just remove the define of the __has_attribute macro entirely.
Just remove the define of the __has_attr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to emsr from comment #6)
> Created attachment 33952 [details]
> Just remove the define of the __has_attribute macro entirely.
>
> Just remove the define of the __has_attribute macro entirely.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63740
--- Comment #8 from Aaro Koskinen ---
ICE backtrace seems to be same as in Bug 61430. The fix for that has not been
backported to 4.9 branch. I tested it and it seems to fix the issue at hand.
The fix: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revisi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831
--- Comment #8 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thank you.
I'll formalize this in a bit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63671
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
With early VRP (but also without) the inliner seems to now suffer from extreme
roundoff errors at badness. With VRP the first uninlined function still has
badness 0:
Considering std::_Bit_reference& std::_Bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63815
--- Comment #11 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10)
> But I am having a hard time to add it to gcc testsuite.
IMO, the following should be sufficient:
--cut here--
Index: g++.dg/other/pr63815.C
=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63815
--- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe ---
if there's a guard for mcmodel=large support, that should be added
[since we have not had time to implement mcmodel=large for Darwin, I would
expect the test to fail there anyway]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63827
howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63815
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #12)
> if there's a guard for mcmodel=large support, that should be added
> [since we have not had time to implement mcmodel=large for Darwin, I would
> expect the test to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63815
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #11)
>
> Currently, this test crashes, and when fixed, there is little chance that
> the (allocatable) PIC register from main equals r11 in the thunk.
Well, g++ 4.8 and 4.9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60420
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Nov 12 20:43:09 2014
New Revision: 217444
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217444&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-11-12 Paolo Carlini
DR 1510
PR c++/60420
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60420
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|paolo.carlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63840
Bug ID: 63840
Summary: std::function copy constructor deletes an
uninitialized pointer if new fails
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63815
--- Comment #15 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Nov 12 21:16:14 2014
New Revision: 217445
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217445&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Initialize PIC register for large PIC model C++ thunk
gcc/
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63841
Bug ID: 63841
Summary: Incorrect strlen optimization after complete unroll
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63841
--- Comment #1 from Teresa Johnson ---
Google ref b/18344370
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63610
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63610
--- Comment #14 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #13)
> Fixed on trunk. I don't see the need to back port to 4.9, since I don't see
> many test suite failures on that branch. If you have ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63838
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Nov 12 23:09:15 2014
New Revision: 217449
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=217449&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/63838
* ipa-pure-const.c (propagate_nothrow): Walk w->indir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63839
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
