https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64604
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Turned out that an awk script doesn't handle the new preprocessor comments:
markus@x4 Src % cat sigtmp.c
#include
XXNAMES XXSIGHUP SIGHUP
XXNAMES XXSIGINT SIGINT
XXNAMES XXSIGQUIT SIGQUIT
XXNAMES XXS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64604
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64604
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44982
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015, tbsaunde at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44982
>
> tbsaunde at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64603
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64365
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 15 08:41:08 2015
New Revision: 219634
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219634&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-15 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/64365
* tree-data-r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64277
--- Comment #5 from Igor Zamyatin ---
BTW, making nc and m to be int instead short eliminates the warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64600
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I can't reproduce with -mcpu=xscale and any of -Os,O1,O2,O3 with or without -g.
Can you post the full configuration of gcc? maybe there's something there that
plays a role...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64578
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64607
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64605
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64603
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64601
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
It's indeed that GCC only sees int accesses based on w and v and thus has to
consider they might alias.
Maybe it's time to try that "trick" with the same clobbering value...
TBAA cannot be strengthened eas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64363
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||enkovich.gnu at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Jan 15 09:53:55 2015
New Revision: 219636
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219636&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Target optimization nodes: add support for arrays.
PR target/64377
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64611
Bug ID: 64611
Summary: Using a << operator inside an overloaded << operator
gives compile error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64611
--- Comment #1 from J. van Oosten ---
Output of gcc -v:
Reading specs from /usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-slackware-linux/4.8.2/specs
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-slackware-linux/4.8.2/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-slackware-l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64360
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61523
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64532
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64448
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ktkachov at gcc dot
gnu.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64365
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Summary|[4.9/5 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64611
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to J. van Oosten from comment #0)
> Basically, it's applying the friend operator << function on the internal
> std::ostringstream object, while I would expect the compiler to pick
> 'std::ostrings
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64082
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63433
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63394
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64310
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63949
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64310
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #2)
> Preprocessed file - command line options etc something that can help
> people reproduce this issue would be useful.
>
> This still an issue ?
It wor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63949
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg01020.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64172
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-none-linux-gnueabi, |arm-none-linux-gnueabi,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63974
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> As it didn't regress on x86_64 x32, I've applied it. If any problems show
> up on aarch64, please reopen.
I have not seen any yet. I did a build for aarch64-el
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63234
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2014-09-15
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62287
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59902
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27759
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64434
--- Comment #14 from ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu Jan 15 11:39:20 2015
New Revision: 219646
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219646&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR tree-optimization/64434
* cfgexpand.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64099
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Now that PR64434 was fixed I wonder if fatigue is fast again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64415
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 15 11:42:26 2015
New Revision: 219647
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219647&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-15 Richard Biener
PR lto/64415
* gcc.dg/lto/pr64415
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64434
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Fixed. Can you please move the testcase away from the torture (you specify
-O1...)? Just to gcc.dg/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64434
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64600
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64415
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 15 12:18:33 2015
New Revision: 219651
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219651&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-15 Richard Biener
PR lto/64415
* gcc.dg/lto/pr64415
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64099
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Now that PR64434 was fixed I wonder if fatigue is fast again.
Unfortunately no.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64340
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
It's fixed by dropping all of TI_TARGET_OPTION_DEFAULT,
TI_TARGET_OPTION_CURRENT, TI_CURRENT_TARGET_PRAGMA and
TI_CURRENT_OPTIMIZE_PRAGMA from the special-casing.
We are trying to expand a GIMPLE_RESX stmt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64314
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|ipa |c++
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64264
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64612
Bug ID: 64612
Summary: [5 Regression] profiledbootstrap failures
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64612
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64613
Bug ID: 64613
Summary: allocatable array after 4.7
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64310
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64179
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64179
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64102
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63808
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63808
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64600
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #5)
> Confirmed - svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@219641
>
> Passed in a build I had from 13/01/2015.
>
> This is a regression.
Huh, I reprod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64612
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, in simplify-rtx.o we have:
5238 01190002 R_X86_64_PC32
_ZN16wide_int_storageC1ISt4pairIP7rtx_def12machine_modeEEERKT_ - 4
at that spot, and:
281:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64600
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #5)
> Confirmed - svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@219641
>
> Passed in a build I had from 13/01/2015.
>
> This is a regression.
now that I re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64416
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||EH
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64231
--- Comment #13 from Tejas Belagod ---
(In reply to Sandra Loosemore from comment #12)
> I'm using a 4.7.3 based gcc as the host compiler (built from one of our own
> CodeBench release branches).
>
> Regardless of whether the actual failure is r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59967
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
In the size estimation we have
BB: 46, after_exit: 0
size: 1 _319 = MEM[(double *)c0_188(D) + 16B];
size: 1 _321 = i_171 >> 2;
Constant expression will be folded away.
size: 2 if (_321 != 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59967
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64600
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15184
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thomas.preudhomme at arm dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63743
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61743
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 15 15:02:11 2015
New Revision: 219662
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219662&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-15 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/61743
* tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60731
--- Comment #14 from Dave Johansen ---
Could you please point me to how I can reproduce the issue with "RTLD_LOCAL
with multiple loaded objects depending on the same library"? I would like to
see if I can reproduce that issue with clang++ and icp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64600
--- Comment #9 from Joel Sherrill ---
I don't build with checking enabled.
The normal recommended configuration for an RTEMS toolchain is long since we
build newlib at the same time and have iconv options. When I do git bisect, I
usually drop t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64605
Ilya Verbin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iverbin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63704
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Jan 15 16:03:05 2015
New Revision: 219664
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219664&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-11-27 Richard Biener
PR middl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63704
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Jan 15 16:02:28 2015
New Revision: 219663
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219663&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-11-27 Richard Biener
PR middl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64614
Bug ID: 64614
Summary: bogus used initialized warning (in gcc 4.9.2 not in
4.8.3); switch statement versus &
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64611
--- Comment #3 from J. van Oosten ---
Yes, that works. Surprising simple solution, but I'm still wondering if this is
a bug or a feature
Thanks for the reply.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64614
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64231
--- Comment #14 from Tejas Belagod ---
Also, I'm unable to build x-gcc with glibc at
1400983e04d7b4b5a92db79ab27b0d0ec7d8bdef due to an error:
bin-trunk-linux/obj/glibc/intl/hash-string.os
plural.c:182:5: error: conflicting types for ‘__gettext
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64614
--- Comment #2 from Dr. David Alan Gilbert ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> We have tons of these -W*uninitialized bugs, so there's likely a dup.
Yep, it's possible - I couldn't find an obvious match; but two things to note
that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64068
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
I can confirm that the patch can compile all Chromium source files
(unfortunately I hit another issued during LINK phase: PR64583).
Apart from that, both testcases from this issue and PR64559 work (I prepared
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50928
camden lindsay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||camden.lindsay at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64068
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 34456
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34456&action=edit
Fix with new 2 testcases
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64614
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64559
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Jan 15 17:29:23 2015
New Revision: 219672
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219672&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix for PR64068 and PR64559.
* g++.dg/ipa/pr64068.C: New test.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64614
Dr. David Alan Gilbert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|bogus used initialized |bogus used initialized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64068
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Jan 15 17:29:23 2015
New Revision: 219672
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219672&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix for PR64068 and PR64559.
* g++.dg/ipa/pr64068.C: New test.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64068
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11814
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvoosten at bankai dot nl
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64611
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
member functions
are accessible, however the non-default ctor is not, g++ complains that it's
protected.
g++ 4.9 and 5.0 (20150115) give the same error messages.
cmdline:
g++-5.0.0 -Wall -std=c++11 20150115-using_base_ctor.cpp
8<---8<---8<---8<---
class B
{
protected:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64615
--- Comment #1 from petschy at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 34457
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34457&action=edit
complete test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64360
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Jan 15 18:03:20 2015
New Revision: 219673
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219673&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Make test2/test1 static in libitm.c/stackundo.c
libitm.c/stackundo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64360
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50928
--- Comment #7 from Joel Sherrill ---
DJ.. do you think the patch from Bernd can be applied to the 4.9 branch? and
maybe the head?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64365
--- Comment #9 from Cong Hou ---
Thanks for the fix, Richard!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64616
Bug ID: 64616
Summary: Redundant ldr when accessing var inside and outside a
loop
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64314
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
Yep, I do not see how target expr can work here.
The assert simply tests that in constructor all variables are wrapped within
ADDR_EXPR as taking an address of variable is the only way gimplified ctor can
reffe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63971
--- Comment #6 from Tejas Belagod ---
Author: belagod
Date: Thu Jan 15 18:17:23 2015
New Revision: 219674
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219674&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-15 Tejas Belagod
PR target/63971
* gcc.target/aarch6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63971
Tejas Belagod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
ran-checking-yes-rtl-df/
--without-cloog --without-ppl
Thread model: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20150115 (experimental) (GCC)
Tested revisions:
r219632 - ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58023
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Thu Jan 15 18:28:02 2015
New Revision: 219676
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219676&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-15 Janus Weil
PR fortran/58023
* resolve.c (
1 - 100 of 159 matches
Mail list logo
