https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67063
--- Comment #4 from HEMMI, Shigeru ---
I look into mingw web site and found that the same error has been reported by
Yogesh Yadav.
Please take a look at http://sourceforge.net/p/mingw-w64/support-requests/103/
Thanks for taking the time for thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66828
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Sure. Starting bootstrap and testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67110
Bug ID: 67110
Summary: gcc.target/i386/iamcu/test_struct_returning.c
execution test FAILs with -fpic
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150803 (experimental) [trunk revision 226526] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -m64 -O2 -c small.c
small.c: In function ‘fn1’:
small.c:12:9: warning: iterati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67043
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66828
--- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Thomas, could you backport your fix to the gcc-5 branch, so that we can close
this issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67084
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67084
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67101
--- Comment #5 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
That is a different problem. I just committed a patch that should fix it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67043
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Tue Aug 4 02:11:58 2015
New Revision: 226540
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226540&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-04 Thomas Preud'homme
gcc/
PR tree-optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #14 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 36117
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36117&action=edit
reduced test case
> Michael Karcher, who previously helped smashing some bugs in gcc for the SH
> target, ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64104
--- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
According to F08/0104 interp/erratum
(http://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/14/14-192.txt):
Allowed in constant expressions:
"(8) a reference to a transformational function from the intrinsic module
IEEE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67101
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67071
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Mon Aug 3 21:52:10 2015
New Revision: 226534
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226534&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Patch for PR 67071
Added:
branches/ibm/ieee4/gcc/testsuite/gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67063
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66311
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67108
Bug ID: 67108
Summary: ICE: in cxx_eval_call_expression, at
cp/constexpr.c:1345 when dumping
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66849
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 fr
er
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: /mnt/svn/gcc-trunk//configure --enable-checking=yes,rtl,df
--enable-languages=c,c++,lto,fortran
--prefix=/mnt/svn/gcc-trunk/binary-226486-lto-fortran-checking-yes-rtl-df/
--without-cloog --without-ppl --without-isl
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67085
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Calcutt ---
Hi Jonathan,
I can understand your reservation, but it seems to me like there is a case for
making this change if the comparator provided to the priority_queue was
explicitly a reference type. For example:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64744
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48470
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43404
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43404
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Aug 3 19:34:31 2015
New Revision: 226528
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226528&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/64744
PR middle-end/48470
PR middle-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64744
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Aug 3 19:34:31 2015
New Revision: 226528
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226528&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/64744
PR middle-end/48470
PR middle-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48470
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Aug 3 19:34:31 2015
New Revision: 226528
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226528&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/64744
PR middle-end/48470
PR middle-e
inux-gnu
Configured with: /mnt/svn/gcc-trunk//configure --enable-checking=yes,rtl,df
--enable-languages=c,c++,lto,fortran
--prefix=/mnt/svn/gcc-trunk/binary-226486-lto-fortran-checking-yes-rtl-df/
--without-cloog --without-ppl --without-isl
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150803 (experimental
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66079
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=67064
--- Comment #20 from Daniel Gutson ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #19)
> (In reply to Daniel Gutson from comment #18)
> > Please assign this to me. Thanks.
>
> You need to login with your @gcc.gnu.org account to be able to ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #18 from Daniel Gutson ---
I created https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67105
to treat that bug separately.
67064 (this bug) interferes with RTEMS in real life thus has a much higher
priority, so I will address this bug fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67105
Bug ID: 67105
Summary: use of global register variables should emit a pedwarn
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66079
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas ---
Created attachment 36113
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36113&action=edit
Patch for th 5 branch
Before closing this PR, I checked and found that the 5 branch now leaks memory.
The attach
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67104
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67101
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67104
--- Comment #3 from Moritz Klammler ---
Note that the following slightly modified program passes all assertions and
behaves identical when compiled with either GCC or Clang.
#include
#include
namespace /* anonymous */
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67070
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Andrew Sutton from comment #7)
> I don't think this is a good idea, but mostly because I'm not sure what the
> instantiation/satisfaction semantics are. Consider:
>
> template
> concept bool C()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67101
--- Comment #2 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Mon Aug 3 17:54:50 2015
New Revision: 226525
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226525&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/67101
runtime: Remove call to __builtin_frame_ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67104
--- Comment #2 from Moritz Klammler ---
Created attachment 36112
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36112&action=edit
Compiler standard error output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67104
--- Comment #1 from Moritz Klammler ---
Created attachment 36111
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36111&action=edit
Preprocessed source file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67104
Bug ID: 67104
Summary: Constant expression factory function initializes
std::array with static storage duration strangely
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67060
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66842
--- Comment #7 from Richard Henderson ---
(In reply to Bin Fan from comment #6)
> Could you clarify what does aliased pages mean? Do you mean the same object
> is mapped into two or more different processes with different virtual
> addresses? And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67103
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67103
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67103
Bug ID: 67103
Summary: [6 Regression]: gcc.target/i386/cmov2.c and
gcc.target/i386/cmov3.c FAIL on x86
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67060
--- Comment #3 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Aug 3 17:32:08 2015
New Revision: 226524
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226524&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/67060
* config/pa/pa.md (call_reg_64bit):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67060
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Aug 3 17:29:22 2015
New Revision: 226523
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226523&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/67060
* config/pa/pa.md (call_reg_64bit):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67060
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Aug 3 17:26:19 2015
New Revision: 226522
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226522&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/67060
* config/pa/pa.md (call_reg_64bit):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Aug 3 17:17:51 2015
New Revision: 226521
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226521&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-03 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/66942
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66731
--- Comment #6 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nsz
Date: Mon Aug 3 17:04:29 2015
New Revision: 226519
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226519&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport form mainline r226496.
gcc:
Backport form mainlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Aug 3 16:56:39 2015
New Revision: 226517
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226517&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-03 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/66942
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67094
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67077
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Aug 3 16:58:03 2015
New Revision: 226518
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226518&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add a testcase for PR tree-optimization/67077
PR tree-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67094
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
"Specify explicitly the language for the following input files (rather than
letting the compiler choose a default based on the file name suffix). This
option applies to all following input files until the nex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67094
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey Walton ---
Andrew/Everyone(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> -x c++ means the input is c++ source no matter what the extension.
Sorry to revisit this...
According to the GCC docs, GCC should not be changin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66314
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66899
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Aug 3 16:26:13 2015
New Revision: 226516
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226516&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/66314
PR gcov-profile/66899
* tree-ss
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66314
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Aug 3 16:26:13 2015
New Revision: 226516
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226516&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/66314
PR gcov-profile/66899
* tree-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67093
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
execl is a GCC builtin and GCC issues the -Wformat warning regardless of its
declaration:
$ cat t.c && ~/bin/gcc-5.1.0/bin/gcc -Wall t.c
extern int execl (const char*, const char*, ...);
int main (void) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67034
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Ok, it looks like that idea worked, at least on ppc64 and ppc64el; it's
available in the current git branch aoliva/pr64164. Would you please give it a
try on pa when you have a chance? Thanks in advance,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67078
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67078
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Aug 3 15:56:17 2015
New Revision: 226515
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226515&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/67078
* include/bits/range_access.h (size, e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67078
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67093
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Surely GCC only warns here because glibc adds the attribute to the execl
declaration, so the bug is in glibc.
GCC interprets the nonnull attribute to mean the argument *must* be non-null,
and even optimise
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Daniel Gutson from comment #15)
> (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #14)
> > '-Wpedantic' does not cause warning messages for use of the
> > alternate keywords whose names begin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #37 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmmm, no it's not the hashing - that pretty much ignores all types. It's the
comparison in hashable_expr_equal_p, which just uses operand_equal_p,
specifically this part (in fold-const.c):
-linux-gnueabi/bin/
-B/usr/local/armv6kz-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi/lib/ -isystem
/usr/local/armv6kz-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi/include -isystem
/usr/local/armv6kz-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi/sys-include --version >&5
xgcc (GCC) 6.0.0 20150803 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67078
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67082
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Since nothing relevant has changed in libstdc++ I think this must be a front
end regression, but you might need to bisect to narrow it down to a more
specific range of commits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67096
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67093
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
The requirements on execl() and main() are specified in sufficient detail to
guarantee that a program that call execl("/some/other/program", (char*)0) is
portable across all conforming implementations so long
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67029
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdsandiford at googlemail dot
com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67101
Chris Manghane changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67101
Bug ID: 67101
Summary: mprof.goc:408:5: error: calling
‘__builtin_frame_address’ with a nonzero argument is
unsafe [-Werror=frame-address]
Product: gcc
Version: 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66731
--- Comment #5 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nsz
Date: Mon Aug 3 14:27:43 2015
New Revision: 226507
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226507&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport form mainline r226496.
gcc:
Backport form mainlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66732
--- Comment #3 from Timo Gurr ---
Looks like the patches posted on the mailing list were merged/accepted into
trunk:
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=226050
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67100
--- Comment #3 from tower120 ---
Forgot to say - it's ok with gcc 5.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67088
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Aug 3 13:55:28 2015
New Revision: 226506
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226506&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/67088
* c-decl.c (check_bitfield_type_and_width):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67088
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55095
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67100
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67070
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Sutton ---
And as an afterthought, adding negation makes the subsumption solver more
complex, since determining implications in the presence of negation would mean
decomposition of both the left and right sides of the i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55095
--- Comment #15 from Marek Polacek ---
Yea, I'm afraid we'll have to do what you suggest. And warn for the sign bit
only when -Wshift-overflow=2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67070
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Sutton ---
We haven't evaluated constraints as expressions in a long time (since
post-Rapperswil I think).
I don't think this is a good idea, but mostly because I'm not sure what the
instantiation/satisfaction semantic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67100
--- Comment #1 from tower120 ---
if change
#define dispatch_forward_fn(fn_name, prefix) \
template \
struct Dispatcher{ /* Problem here tstring(go_up)
*/\
template \
inline decltype(auto) operator() (ArgsRef&&... args) {\
return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67100
Bug ID: 67100
Summary: ICE(in type_dependent_expression_p) on macro function
+ user defined literal
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67088
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66731
--- Comment #4 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nsz
Date: Mon Aug 3 11:12:00 2015
New Revision: 226496
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226496&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR target/66731 Fix vnmul insn with -frounding-math
gcc:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59716
--- Comment #1 from Klaus Rudolph ---
Bug is still present 2015-08-03 ( sorry, can't change "last reconfirmed"
entry?!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67077
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67092
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
I think we can no longer reliably support host libstdc++ as includes are not
picked up from its location and GCC is C++ now.
I suggest to remove that entirely.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67099
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
And given PR67098 - Documentation --with-stage1-ldflags does not mention
default -static-libstdc++ -static-libgcc, even better is:
...
--with-host-libstdcxx=linker-args
Sets default value for --with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67092
--- Comment #12 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #11)
> (In reply to vries from comment #10)
> > Looking at the description of with-host-libstdcxx:
> > ...
> > --with-host-libstdcxx=linker-args
> > If you are linki
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921
--- Comment #25 from Mikael Morin ---
Author: mikael
Date: Mon Aug 3 10:03:55 2015
New Revision: 226493
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226493&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix random class_allocate_18.f90 failure
PR fortran/64921
gcc/fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67099
Bug ID: 67099
Summary: Documentation --with-host-libstdcxx is outdated,
mentions ppl
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67098
Bug ID: 67098
Summary: Documentation --with-stage1-ldflags does not mention
default -static-libstdc++ -static-libgcc
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67089
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Mike from comment #2)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> > We shouldn't do this, and it reflected in PR58779.
> But can't we improve the logic to satisfy both pr58779 and pr67089? The
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #10 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #9)
> Yes, maybe. Please attach.
Ok, please give me a few days :).
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
