https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66828
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #7)
> (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #6)
> > Created attachment 36078 [details]
> > Use unsigned type for inc to have defined left shift
>
> S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66062
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67039
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67041
Bug ID: 67041
Summary: [C++14] Variable template initialized by call to
lambda does not compile
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67040
Bug ID: 67040
Summary: gcc-5.2 fails with flat namespaces on the mac os
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64400
Yaakov Selkowitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.9.2 |5.2.0
--- Comment #1 from Yaakov Selk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66062
--- Comment #2 from Sujoy ---
This bug is in UNCONFIRMED state. Since I am new to gcc, just wanted to know if
one should work for this fix only after it is confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66062
Sujoy changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ssaraswati at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67039
Bug ID: 67039
Summary: Documentation of pseudorandom number intrinsics is
incorrect
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66828
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #6)
> Created attachment 36078 [details]
> Use unsigned type for inc to have defined left shift
Hi Markus,
Sorry for the delay, I got busy on some other bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66828
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Created attachment 36078
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36078&action=edit
Use unsigned type for inc to have defined left shift
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46193
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Mon Jul 27 23:46:16 2015
New Revision: 226289
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226289&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Handle mix/max pointer reductions in parloops
2015-07-28 Tom d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66846
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Mon Jul 27 23:44:43 2015
New Revision: 226279
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226279&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Don't cancel loop tree in parloops
2015-07-28 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67038
Bug ID: 67038
Summary: [c++-concepts] Viable function template despite
unsatisfied constraints
Product: gcc
Version: c++-concepts
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67026
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually wait. I think this is invalid and clang is incorrect in not rejecting
it. Because you have a call to a non constexpr in a constexpr function; does
not matter if it is after a return or not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67026
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC does not implement the full C++14 rules for constexpr yet. That is having
a return type of void is not implemented yet. It was invalid for C++11 to have
a constexpr with void.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67036
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey Walton ---
> I can state from experience the Visual Studio warning alerted us to look at
> a particular dtor, and it was not checking for !std::uncaught_exception()
> before throwing. (It was one of two classes among h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67036
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67037
Bug ID: 67037
Summary: [4.9 Regression] Wrong code at -O1 and above on ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66977
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Another approach would be
diff --git a/gcc/cp/typeck.c b/gcc/cp/typeck.c
index 2ed43be..41f54ac 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/typeck.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/typeck.c
@@ -3288,6 +3288,7 @@ get_member_function_from_ptrfunc (tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67036
Bug ID: 67036
Summary: GCC does not warn of throwing destructors in C++11,
even when they lack noexcept(false) and
std::uncaught_exception
Product: gcc
Version: 5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67032
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Forgot to say that -mno-mmx disables moves to/from MMX regs in your case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67032
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67035
Bug ID: 67035
Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr54713-3.c
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67034
Bug ID: 67034
Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr39928-1.c
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66977
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
This works (can't use unshare_expr here), but I'll try to come up with
something nicer...
diff --git a/gcc/cp/decl2.c b/gcc/cp/decl2.c
index a45755e..f1b6475 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/decl2.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/decl2.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67033
--- Comment #1 from Ed Catmur ---
Created attachment 36075
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36075&action=edit
pr67033.patch
This is kinda ugly.
The problem is that before C++1z, a non-type template argument that evaluates
to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67032
--- Comment #5 from Josh Kelley ---
Additional information requested in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++-5
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/i686-linux-gnu/5/lto-wrapper
Target: i686-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67032
--- Comment #4 from Josh Kelley ---
Created attachment 36074
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36074&action=edit
Preprocessed Statistic.cpp from test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67032
--- Comment #3 from Josh Kelley ---
Created attachment 36073
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36073&action=edit
Preprocessed main.cpp from test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67032
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Please attach a *preprocessed* source, as instructed in [1].
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67033
Bug ID: 67033
Summary: [c++11] template argument invalid for integral
constant expression beginning with address-of
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67032
--- Comment #1 from Josh Kelley ---
I forgot to mention that the buggy behavior can be observed by running the
resulting Geode-optimized executable on a standard PC as well as on a Geode.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67032
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |target
Severity|major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67029
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67032
Bug ID: 67032
Summary: Geode optimizations incorrectly return -NaN
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67031
Bug ID: 67031
Summary: avr-gcc internal compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On July 27, 2015 8:45:41 PM GMT+02:00, "mikael at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921
>
>Mikael Morin changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67030
--- Comment #14 from Christian Joensson
---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #13)
> That is fixed as well now.
Yep. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67030
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek ---
That is fixed as well now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67029
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67029
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Thanks.
I cannot reproduce the issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67028
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|renlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67030
--- Comment #12 from Christian Joensson
---
Still...
../../gcc/ipa-devirt.c: In function ‘bool types_same_for_odr(const_tree,
const_tree, bool ’:
../../gcc/ipa-devirt.c:553:8: error: self-comparison always evaluates to false
[-Werror=tautologica
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67030
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67029
ziebell_marco at posteo dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #36070|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67030
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Jul 27 19:09:27 2015
New Revision: 226264
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226264&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/67030
* c-common.c (warn_tautological_cmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67029
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to ziebell_marco from comment #4)
> Created attachment 36070 [details]
> preprocessed version of addressmap.c
Sorry, I requested the wrong file.
What actually is needed is curve25519-donna-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67029
--- Comment #4 from ziebell_marco at posteo dot de ---
Created attachment 36070
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36070&action=edit
preprocessed version of addressmap.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67030
--- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to vries from comment #8)
> FYI, I'm running into this bootstrap failure on x86_64 (r226251):
Weird I don't see this myself.
> ...
> src/gcc/ipa-devirt.c: In function ‘bool types_same_for_odr(cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67030
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67030
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66868
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||5.1.0
--- Comment #11 from Matthias Klo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67030
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> (In reply to ktkachov from comment #3)
>
> Actually, that helps. I bet the following works. Mind giving this one a
> spin?
Yes, that seems to wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66468
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|debug |lto
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66468
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Jul 27 16:57:15 2015
New Revision: 226255
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226255&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/66468
* dwarf2out.c (gen_inlined_subroutine_die)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67030
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Testcase:
#define A a
#define B A
#define FOO (A > B)
int
main ()
{
int a = 4;
if (FOO)
return 5;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67030
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #3)
> Unfortunately still getting the error.
Sorry about that.
> One thing I missed out from the original error message is this note:
>
> error: self-comparison always ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67030
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #2)
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> > Could you please try whether this patch helps?
> >
>
> Trying it out now...
Unfortunately still getting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66232
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Jul 27 16:24:35 2015
New Revision: 226254
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226254&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add more tests for PR target/66232
PR target/66232
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67029
--- Comment #3 from ziebell_marco at posteo dot de ---
Created attachment 36069
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36069&action=edit
build log of tor-0.2.6.10 with gcc-4.9.3
I wanted to note that this is a regression, the projec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67028
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67030
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> Could you please try whether this patch helps?
>
Trying it out now...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67029
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67030
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Could you please try whether this patch helps?
diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c-common.c b/gcc/c-family/c-common.c
index 6a79b95..9fe9c5e 100644
--- a/gcc/c-family/c-common.c
+++ b/gcc/c-family/c-common.c
@@ -189
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67029
Bug ID: 67029
Summary: gcc-5.2.0 unable to find a register to spill with O3
fsched-pressure fschedule-insns
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67028
--- Comment #2 from renlin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #1)
> I have a hard time reproducing this. Could you show the generated
> assembler code, and say why you think it is a combine bug?
This is my genera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67030
Bug ID: 67030
Summary: [6 Regression] ARM bootstrap failure due to
[-Werror=tautological-compare]
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67028
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67029
--- Comment #1 from ziebell_marco at posteo dot de ---
Created attachment 36068
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36068&action=edit
build log of tor-0.2.6.10 with gcc-5.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55035
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
There are cases where the compiler can look into the implementation of bar()
and make better decisions about how memory objects may be effected. This isn't
one of them ;-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67028
Bug ID: 67028
Summary: combine bug. Different assumptions about subreg in
different places.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67027
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67027
Bug ID: 67027
Summary: [gomp4] FAIL: gfortran.dg/goacc/modules.f95 -O
(internal compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63304
--- Comment #19 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #18)
> I'm taking a look into this.
RFC here - https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg02258.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67026
Bug ID: 67026
Summary: GCC incorrectly rejects well-formed constexpr function
definition
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714
cesar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67011
Matthias Kretz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kretz at kde dot org
--- Comment #3 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54979
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66555
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54979
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Jul 27 12:40:45 2015
New Revision: 226242
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226242&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66555
PR c/54979
* c-common.c (find_arra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66555
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Jul 27 12:40:45 2015
New Revision: 226242
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226242&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66555
PR c/54979
* c-common.c (find_arra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67025
Bug ID: 67025
Summary: Missing aggressive loop optimization warning when
-fPIC used
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67015
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
patch posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg02177.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2015-07/msg00068.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67017
--- Comment #6 from Anders Granlund ---
Now I got the reply. It seems like the wording of the standard changed with the
resolution of this c++ standard core defect:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1265
So the proble
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61321
--- Comment #9 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
*** Bug 63465 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63465
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64919
--- Comment #9 from John Buddery ---
I should clarify that the workaround above only works fully on 4.9.2 and
earlier.
>From 5.0 onwards, gcc seems to have a problem building 32 bit code for
ia64-hpux.
It doesn't emit intstructions to properly s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66780
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67024
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
However, I have just verified that when IPA-CP removes an argument,
the sibcall is generated. So basically this seems to be another
reason to make IPA-SRA an actual IPA pass. I'll see what I can do.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67024
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67024
>
> --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
> This might be different on other targets.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67024
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
This might be different on other targets. Like say power or aarch64. Or even
ia32.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #47 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67024
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|IPA SRA removes tail-call |IPA SRA removes
|oppo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67024
Bug ID: 67024
Summary: IPA SRA removes tail-call opportunities
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67023
Bug ID: 67023
Summary: "g++" does not set preprocessor language to C++ when
reading from standard input
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66994
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66996
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67000
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
