https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66303
stli at linux dot vnet.ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stli at linux dot vnet.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66375
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9/5/6 Reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66428
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66481
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66200
--- Comment #5 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Wed Jun 10 07:43:31 2015
New Revision: 224313
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224313&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Handle aarch64_guard1.C test
Sorry about missing this hunk in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66192
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Wed Jun 10 07:43:31 2015
New Revision: 224313
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224313&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Handle aarch64_guard1.C test
Sorry about missing this hunk in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66428
--- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Wed Jun 10 07:43:31 2015
New Revision: 224313
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224313&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Handle aarch64_guard1.C test
Sorry about missing this hunk in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66192
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66428
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66136
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4131
--- Comment #29 from Kenneth Almquist ---
(In reply to Jorg Brown from comment #20)
> Now, the order of construction is well-defined, and that is why the program
> produces:
>
> podStr = '*'
> nonpodStr = ''
>
> That is, the nonPOD is still zero
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52144
--- Comment #5 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Wed Jun 10 07:50:59 2015
New Revision: 224314
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224314&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add ARM/thumb attribute target
PR target/52144
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66471
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Wed Jun 10 07:57:34 2015
New Revision: 224315
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224315&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix BITMAP identifier clash.
PR bootstrap/66471
* mem-sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66471
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66394
--- Comment #8 from Stanisław Halik ---
I can confirm all the code builds with LTO and -fmerge-all-constants after
applying the patch. LTO with linker plugin results in unresolved symbols, but
this is for another time.
Best regards.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66394
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Stanisław Halik from comment #8)
> I can confirm all the code builds with LTO and -fmerge-all-constants after
> applying the patch. LTO with linker plugin results in unresolved symbols,
> but this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66482
Bug ID: 66482
Summary: ICE in gen_formal_parameter_die
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66483
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose ---
Created attachment 35738
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35738&action=edit
preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66483
Bug ID: 66483
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE (in add_stores, at
var-tracking.c:6000) on arm-linux-gnueabihf
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60656
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48181
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66483
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66483
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.9.3
--- Comment #3 from k
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66483
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66482
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Summary|ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66136
--- Comment #12 from Szabolcs Nagy ---
geniterators.sh was new in gcc-5 and the first version of the script already
used \n in the sed replacement pattern (and other gnu extensions too).
shall i backport the new script to the gcc-5 branch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66470
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 10 09:12:53 2015
New Revision: 224319
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224319&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66470
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_split_long_move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66470
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 10 09:16:16 2015
New Revision: 224320
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224320&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66470
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_split_long_move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66483
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #3)
> Reducing...
The initial submission already includes a reduced testcase. Had not noticed
that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66470
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 10 09:26:06 2015
New Revision: 224321
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224321&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66470
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_split_long_move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66470
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jun 10 09:34:21 2015
New Revision: 224322
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224322&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66470
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_split_long_move
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66470
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64650
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jun 10 09:42:37 2015
New Revision: 224323
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224323&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2015-01-20 Jonathan Wakely
PR libstdc+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64650
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66484
Bug ID: 66484
Summary: Exception specification can declare a pointer to
incomplete type, which is against C++ standard section
15.1
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31893
Daniel Fruzynski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugzilla@poradnik-webmaster
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 37021, which changed state.
Bug 37021 Summary: Fortran Complex reduction / multiplication not vectorized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66448
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #14)
> Created attachment 35734 [details]
> Patch to ICE on other duplicate DW_AT_ attributes
> I can't reproduce any of these with a cross compiler. I'm building a c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60656
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||corydoras at ridiculousfish
dot co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66448
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 35739
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35739&action=edit
outputs from -save-temps on 20020412-1.c (-O3 -g)
.. of course, we might just have uncovered some latent issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61108
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56766
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
This can be now seen in gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-pr37021.f90 as well which
produces
.L14:
movupd (%r11), %xmm3
addl$1, %ecx
addq%rax, %r11
movupd (%r8), %xmm0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66053
--- Comment #1 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Wed Jun 10 11:37:20 2015
New Revision: 224325
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224325&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gomp4] Support C++ "this" in OpenACC directives.
This patch, for gomp-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66482
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66485
Bug ID: 66485
Summary: std::string single-character assignment operator
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66473
--- Comment #5 from Kirill Yukhin ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> Kirill, you have much better facilities for testing, do you want to take the
> proposed patch from here?
Your patch is fine for sure. No AVX-512* tests fail.
The o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66473
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Kirill Yukhin from comment #5)
> Your patch is fine for sure. No AVX-512* tests fail.
> The only nit is that I that I think we need regtest in patch as well.
Yep, it will be added when the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60656
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 10 12:53:09 2015
New Revision: 224327
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224327&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-10 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59990
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 10 12:53:09 2015
New Revision: 224327
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224327&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-10 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66486
Bug ID: 66486
Summary: MMIX code produced is invalid
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: target
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66487
Bug ID: 66487
Summary: [6 Regression] Firefox segfault with LTO enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66487
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66485
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66485
--- Comment #2 from Yuri Khan ---
Right, I somehow missed it. The overload is there. Sorry for the noise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66488
Bug ID: 66488
Summary: -fipa-pta -flto segfault
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31893
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Daniel Fruzynski from comment #7)
> void __attribute__((const)) func(int* i)
> {
> *i = 44;
> }
You get a warning because you marked this function const, which tells the
compiler it won't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66488
--- Comment #2 from Stanisław Halik ---
No, it's invocation of today's 5-branch on my own code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60656
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59990
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66488
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
You mean you bootstrapped gcc 5 with -fipa-pta -flto?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66488
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Ah, then please attach preprocessed source of the file where the crash happens.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66489
Bug ID: 66489
Summary: combine fails to merge insns if some are reused later
on
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
ot/core/meta/src/TClingCallFunc.cxx (commit e1ef990 in
root.cern.ch/git/root.git)
g++ (GCC) 6.0.0 20150610 (experimental)
$ g++ -std=c++11 -g -c a.ii
a.ii: In instantiation of 'class std::vector':
a.ii:156269:29: required from here
a.ii:8693:11: error: TYPE_CANONICAL is not comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66489
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This was the reason why the pass on the tree level to fused multiply add was
added. Maybe we can do the same.
Do you know how often this shows up?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66489
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This was the reason why the pass on the tree level to fused multiply add was
> added. Maybe we can do the same.
>
> Do you know how often this show
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #41 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 35742
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35742&action=edit
AIX PowerPC testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #42 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 35743
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35743&action=edit
PPC64LE Linux Testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66489
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
For floating point, tree-ssa-math-opts.c handles the FMA and then expand is
supposed to handle the neg inside the FMA_EXPR but for some reason on this
testcase it is not.
def0 = get_def_for_expr (tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66490
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66214
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alserkli at inbox dot ru
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66289
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jun 10 15:17:57 2015
New Revision: 224331
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224331&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66289
* cp-tree.h (TEMPLATE_DECL_COMPLEX_ALIAS_P):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66484
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66448
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35734|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66491
Bug ID: 66491
Summary: x86_64 target cross-compiler generates stack protector
code unsuitable for the Linux kernel if the compiler
wasn't built against a C library
Product:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61047
Bernhard Kaindl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernhard.kaindl@thalesgroup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66491
--- Comment #1 from dhowells at redhat dot com ---
Configured with:
CXXFLAGS=' -O2 -g -Wformat-security -fstack-protector-strong
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -mtune=generic ' \
CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET='-g -O2 -Wall -fexceptions' \
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66492
Bug ID: 66492
Summary: std::messages unsafe and inefficient
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61047
--- Comment #21 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I think that the patch is clear in scope, only fixes a specific case unless
> rtx_addr_can_trap_p_1() was refactored, it should be feasible to apply to
> trunk, 5.1 and 4.9.
No, the patch is way too risky
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66491
--- Comment #2 from dhowells at redhat dot com ---
Possibly -mcmodel=kernel shouldn't be overloaded, but -fstack-protector should
be - perhaps to have a -fstack-protector-gs option or similar.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66253
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from Michael Matz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61047
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #21)
> > I think that the patch is clear in scope, only fixes a specific case unless
> > rtx_addr_can_trap_p_1() was refactored, it should be feasible to apply to
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66193
--- Comment #15 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Created attachment 35745
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35745&action=edit
test case pr66193_3_diverse_new.f90
Better test, replaces pr66193_3_diverse.f90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61047
--- Comment #23 from Bernd Edlinger ---
sorry, which patch are we discussing here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47582
--- Comment #2 from Tony Poppleton ---
Re-testing this with GCC 5.1, the code appears to be even less efficient, for
both cases;
DM1:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
movss b(%rip), %xmm0
xorl%eax, %eax
movss %xmm0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66493
Bug ID: 66493
Summary: ICE on alternate return argument for typebound
procedure
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61047
--- Comment #24 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I agree that this is too risky to backport, but I disagree with the decision
> not to fix it on the trunk. We have plenty of time to watch for performance
> regressions and/or bugs it introduces there, an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66494
Bug ID: 66494
Summary: ICE on using same name for embedded subroutine
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66495
Bug ID: 66495
Summary: [5 Regression] Issue with same name for embedded
function
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47582
--- Comment #3 from Tony Poppleton ---
Ignore the last comment - hadn't spotted the "int" return value on main...
So the code is actually more correct than previous versions, and no change to
the status of this bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66488
--- Comment #4 from Stanisław Halik ---
Line information:
../modules/imgproc/src/filter.cpp: In member function 'operator()':
../modules/imgproc/src/filter.cpp:3084:10: internal compiler error:
Segmentation fault
This is: template struct RowFil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66488
--- Comment #5 from Stanisław Halik ---
Created attachment 35746
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35746&action=edit
preprocessed filter.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66474
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Jun 10 16:51:49 2015
New Revision: 224332
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224332&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-10 Michael Meissner
PR target/66474
* do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66496
Bug ID: 66496
Summary: Static hash_map causes segfault in static constructor
of the compiler compilation unit
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31893
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
My bad, now I see my error.
What do you think about adding this new attribute to mark function arguments as
out only? I think it would allow to eliminate more dead or unnecessary code
(e.g. when value is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66474
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Jun 10 17:15:25 2015
New Revision: 224333
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224333&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-10 Michael Meissner
Backport from mainline:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66474
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Jun 10 17:15:58 2015
New Revision: 224334
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224334&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-10 Michael Meissner
Backport from mainline:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66474
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Jun 10 17:16:58 2015
New Revision: 224335
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224335&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-10 Michael Meissner
Backport from mainline:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66492
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
