https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65452
--- Comment #2 from Ray Strode rstrode at redhat dot com ---
probably should catch
if (foo == foo) {
}
type situations too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65078
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35044
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35044action=edit
gcc5-pr65078.patch
Untested fix using a pre-reload splitter of mov[sd]i if the source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64208
Yvan Roux yroux at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
Bug ID: 65456
Summary: powerpc64le autovectorized copy loop missed
optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48996
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65405
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65445
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64223
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64634
--- Comment #6 from Jörg Richter joerg.rich...@pdv-fs.de ---
Is this stable enough to be considered for 4.9.3?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65446
Bug ID: 65446
Summary: Improve -Wformat-signedness
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65445
Bug ID: 65445
Summary: Improve [-W...] display for -Wformat
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45320
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43827
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65446
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #0)
It doesn't warn but should warn for
printf(%u\n, _short);
Actually, it (correctly) does warn in this case (as short it promoted to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64609
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64610
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #36 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #35)
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Mar 17 01:22:12 2015
New Revision: 221473
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221473root=gccview=rev
Log:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64820
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64802
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #2 from Jens Gustedt jens.gustedt at inria dot fr ---
Since typeof is a gcc extension, there is not much arguing about it, but this
sounds wrong to me. Use cases I have, and that I seen used by others are for
example something like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65436
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65450
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35047
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35047action=edit
gcc5-pr65450.patch
Fix that passed bootstrap/regtest on x86_64-linux and i686-linux.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
By design, typeof removes qualifiers in certain cases. Currently it only
removes them from atomic types (as needed for use in stdatomic.h), but
arguably it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65451
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015, jens.gustedt at inria dot fr wrote:
Eliminating qualifiers in expressions is easy for arithmetic types at least,
something like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65455
Bug ID: 65455
Summary: typeof _Atomic fails
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65436
David gccbugzilla at limegreensocks dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65450
Bug ID: 65450
Summary: [5.0 Regression]: Unaligned access with -O3 -mtune=k8
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65312
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65450
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
The problematic instruction (insn 1717) is generated from:
;; vect__1095.501_3524 = MEM[base: vectp.499_3571, offset: 0B];
(insn 1717 1716 0 (set (reg:V2DF 1511 [ vect__1095.501 ])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #14 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Right, I think the root cause is the emit_push_insn in expr.c.
It's supposed to push what needs to be pushed from a partial argument onto the
stack and do the moves into the registers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65078
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65449
Bug ID: 65449
Summary: -fstrict-volatile-bitfields affects volatile pointer
dereference and produce wrong codes
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65450
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 35042
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35042action=edit
Testcase from Polyhedron testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65078
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65450
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Confirmed between r220156 (2015-01-27, OK) and r220302 (2015-01-31, segfault).
I am not sure this is a fortran problem (no segfault if the code is compiled
with '-O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65448
Bug ID: 65448
Summary: Allow for cascade includes in error messages
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65312
--- Comment #5 from radventure at yandex dot ru ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
Looks like this PR could be resolved as a NOTABUG?
Agree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65296
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gjl
Date: Tue Mar 17 10:34:11 2015
New Revision: 221475
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221475root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/65296
* config/avr/avr.opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65450
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63356
--- Comment #15 from fiesh at zefix dot tv ---
Boost 1.58.0 has a workaround by making one function explicit.
(https://github.com/boostorg/polygon/commit/634aa3de29d63dcf02a478ca2b5045c5e9ccb7e0)
Since this means the bug becomes irrelevant for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65447
Bug ID: 65447
Summary: AArch64: iv-opt causes bad addressing
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65450
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #0)
The compiler generates unaligned access for Polyhedron channel.f90 test when
compiled with -O2 -mtune=k8:
Whoops, this should read -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65439
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #15 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmmm, actually it's not that simple, as testing showed.
The comment at the final load-to-regs code says:
/* If part should go in registers, copy that part
into the appropriate registers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65450
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65450
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So, I believe it is incorrect ALIGN info as can be seen in the
-fdump-tree-all-alias dumps.
Seems with current trunk on x86_64-linux and
-g -quiet -mtune=amdfam10 -O3 pr65450.f90
the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65061
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Mar 17 17:38:25 2015
New Revision: 221478
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221478root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/65061
* parser.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65177
--- Comment #19 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
I'm still getting up to speed here, but this sounds vaguely familiar to
something we've run into before.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg01073.html
Is when the code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65072
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
And clang accepts it.
It looks like we don't need the C around decltype:
template typename class C
{
struct
{
int i;
};
auto operator*(const C m) - decltype (m.i);
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65439
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can you attach the dump file? It is probalby due to lack of aliases, but I am
bit surprises the number of equal symbols grows up.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
OK, but why does this make such a difference in the final result. Ie, what
happens as we get into RTL.
It would also be helpful to see the current desired output for the case where
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65072
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I couldn't bisect this, but started before r193621.
A bit more reduced:
template typename class C
{
struct
{
int i;
};
auto operator*(const C m) - C decltype (m.i);
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65072
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
EDG rejects it:
tes2.ii(7): error: incomplete type is not allowed
auto operator*(const C m) - C decltype (m.i);
^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65439
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Created attachment 35045
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35045action=edit
dump-ipa-icf of ipa-icf-4.C
Can you attach the dump file? It is probalby due to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36566
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Xiao Jia from comment #7)
Adding const makes it compile. Is this the intended behavior or not?
Yes, of course. A const-reference causes a temporary to be created, you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36566
Xiao Jia xiaoj at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xiaoj at google dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65439
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I see, the difference is _ZN12_GLOBAL__N_11AC1Ev that is same body alias on
targets supporting it, but not on Darwin where C++ FE produces a duplicate.
I suppose we want just relax
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65380
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I am with terrible internet connection and it still does not reproduce for me
(I suppose difference between GNU LD and gold).
It is however clear what happens, we try to add symbol's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65436
--- Comment #6 from Adam Warner adam at consulting dot net.nz ---
Sorry, I did not mean to send my previous comment. I updated the title and a
hasty comment I was about to edit got added.
It is unfair to dismiss my enhancement request as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #38 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Mar 18 01:47:12 2015
New Revision: 221482
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221482root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-03-17 Jerry DeLisle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65380
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
please also attachg WPA dump of -fdump-ipa-cgraph. I would be interested what
visibility _ZTCN7Utility2IO12GUnzipStreamE0_So/7 has.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65380
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Actually perhaps we manage to produce external alias of non-external symbol
that also should not happen.
Index: ipa-icf.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #9 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #7)
OK, but why does this make such a difference in the final result. Ie, what
happens as we get into RTL.
Err, I covered that bit in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28586
--- Comment #5 from Zoltan Hidvegi zoltan at hidvegi dot com ---
Btw. the original testcase was really failing because of Bug 33704, and it
seems that is already fixed, however it's still open, or is it not fully fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64626
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34010
--- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
PING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34010
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65436
Adam Warner adam at consulting dot net.nz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Max number of extended asm |Max number of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #12 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I just noticed that I reversed with and without -DOPT in my analysis in comment
6. Apologies for any confusion this may have caused.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #13 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I looked further into why changing gimple_can_coalesce_p didn't work:
build_ssa_conflict_graph only marks conflicts between SSA names if they share
the same base variable. This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34010
Aldy Hernandez aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65436
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Adam Warner from comment #4)
Yes I've hit the limit. A limit that your competition clang does not have.
This is not a theoretical discussion.
What kind of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #37 from Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #36)
--snip---
are you sure that .and.ing the conditions in the testcase is correct,
or shouldn't they rather be .or.ed?
Oh of course.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62109
--- Comment #6 from David gccbugzilla at limegreensocks dot com ---
Actually, the code already uses InterlockedCompareExchange. UNLESS users
explicitly tell it not to:
#ifdef __GTHREAD_I486_INLINE_LOCK_PRIMITIVES
static inline long
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28586
Zoltan Hidvegi zoltan at hidvegi dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zoltan at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65443
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #3)
(In reply to vries from comment #2)
The problem with this transformation is that '_20 + 1' might overflow,
that's what the comment 'This may need some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Andrew Macleod amacleod at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65177
--- Comment #20 from Sebastian Pop spop at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35046
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35046action=edit
fix
The attached patch fixes the problem by not creating diamonds in the copied
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65345
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch queued for next stage1:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-03/msg00698.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65450
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65078
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
During the expansion, we don't try vec_extract because we are trying to extract
low DImode (64bits) out of a V16QImode pseudo, which is not really vector
element extraction, and the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65450
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Works fine with -fwrapv...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65450
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Also crashes with -mtune=amdfam10. But in this case it even
crashes when compiled with 4.9.2.
Revision r204000 (2013-10-24) is OK, r204945 (2013-11-18) is not.
Works fine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65451
Bug ID: 65451
Summary: gnat bug: Storage_Error stack overflow or erroneous
memory access
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65450
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #9)
Also crashes with -mtune=amdfam10. But in this case it even
crashes when compiled with 4.9.2.
Revision r204000 (2013-10-24)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62109
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65451
--- Comment #1 from John Marino gnugcc at marino dot st ---
Note that I saw this on 20150308 snapshot with Matreshka too in a different
file. That snapshot also failed on building OpenToken with a GNAT BUG, but
OpenToken builds fine with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65450
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65452
David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65452
David Malcolm dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65453
Bug ID: 65453
Summary: ICE in build_function_decl, at
fortran/trans-decl.c:2001
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65143
--- Comment #4 from Balakrishnan B balakrishnan.erode at gmail dot com ---
Thanks for confirming!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65451
--- Comment #2 from John Marino gnugcc at marino dot st ---
right url for freshports: http://www.freshports.org/devel/matreshka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65452
Bug ID: 65452
Summary: strcmp (foo, foo) could give a warning
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65453
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51550
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
---
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
