https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67546
Bug ID: 67546
Summary: bootstrap broken on x86_64-w64-mingw32, error:
'::unsetenv' has not been declared in gcc.c
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66993
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67363
İsmail Dönmez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67545
Bug ID: 67545
Summary: [concepts] Failure to properly substitute template
parameters into requires-clause
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67401
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin ---
Patch here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-09/msg00755.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67363
--- Comment #17 from John David Anglin ---
Fixed on hppa*-*-hpux*.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67363
--- Comment #16 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Thu Sep 10 22:52:08 2015
New Revision: 227666
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227666&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/67363
* configure.ac: Check if setenv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67531
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67509
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67531
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab ---
IBM long double does not support non-default rounding.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67509
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab ---
37 307 291
3.40282347E+38 1.7976931348623157E+308
8.98846567431157953864652595394512367E+0307
1.17549435E-38 2.2250738585072014E-308
2.00416836000897277799610805135016
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124
--- Comment #19 from baoshan ---
I did a little investigation to the code:
The warning occurs because tree_int_cst_lt (up_bound, up_sub) is true here:
else if (TREE_CODE (up_sub) == INTEGER_CST
&& (ignore_off_by_one
?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67531
--- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to Pat Haugen from comment #2)
> pthaugen@genoa:~$ ~/install/gcc/trunk/bin/gcc z.c -lm && ./a.out
> 0.53876586
> 0.333292246827
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67509
--- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to Pat Haugen from comment #2)
> I see the same thing on both powerpc64/powerpc64le:
>
> pthaugen@genoa:~$ ~/install/gcc/trunk/bin/gfortran z.f90 && ./a.out
>4 8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67531
--- Comment #2 from Pat Haugen ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #1)
> Thanks for the report. So apparently, on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu, long
> double division of 1.0L by 3.0L with rounding mode set to "down" is
> incorr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67509
--- Comment #2 from Pat Haugen ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #1)
> Thanks Andreas for reporting this. Could you please compile and run the
> following Fortran source, and paste the output here? It's been a long time
> sinc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67509
--- Comment #1 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Thanks Andreas for reporting this. Could you please compile and run the
following Fortran source, and paste the output here? It's been a long time
since I have used a ppc machine (and it was a darwi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67531
--- Comment #1 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
Thanks for the report. So apparently, on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu, long
double division of 1.0L by 3.0L with rounding mode set to "down" is incorrect.
Can you compile and run the following C t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124
baoshan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pangbw at gmail dot com
--- Comment #18 from b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62314
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55409
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578
--- Comment #26 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Fredrik Hederstierna from comment #23)
>
> Here's is another small example I tested yesterday that also gives
> unnecessary moves, both for arm7tdmi, arm966e-s and cortex-m0 tested.
>
> ext
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67544
Bug ID: 67544
Summary: ICE: SIGSEGV in tree_check3 (tree.h:2896) with
-fconcepts
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67526
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67526
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Sep 10 18:07:07 2015
New Revision: 227655
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227655&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-09-09 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/67526
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67363
--- Comment #15 from İsmail Dönmez ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #14)
> On 2015-09-10 1:01 PM, ismail at i10z dot com wrote:
> > The patch declares the functions but those functions do not exist on
> > mingw-w64,
> > seems to be this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67363
--- Comment #14 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-09-10 1:01 PM, ismail at i10z dot com wrote:
> The patch declares the functions but those functions do not exist on
> mingw-w64,
> seems to be this will just fail with an undefined symb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67513
--- Comment #5 from Kostya Serebryany ---
(In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #1)
> (In reply to Andrey Ryabinin from comment #0)
> > (shadow value is usually zero).
>
> What makes you think so? AFAIU for less-than-8-byte scalars it's always
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67526
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Sep 10 17:13:11 2015
New Revision: 227651
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227651&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-09-09 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/67526
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67363
--- Comment #13 from İsmail Dönmez ---
(In reply to John David Anglin from comment #12)
> Created attachment 36321 [details]
> Patch
>
> I sent this change this morning to gcc-patches but it seems to have
> disappeared.
The patch declares the f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67541
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67543
Bug ID: 67543
Summary: ICE on associate with improper association
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67541
--- Comment #2 from Jamie Bayne ---
Ah, so it's fixed in trunk. Thanks for the info.
RE the warnings making sense: floating-point promotions may not lose data, but
they do have an associated runtime cost (about equivalent to an add on recent
Int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67542
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
The ICE disappears if some prints are added :
$ cat z2.f90
program p
type t
integer :: n
character(8) :: c(1)
end type
type(t) :: x = t(1, ['a'])
type(t) :: y = t(1, ['a', 'b'])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67542
Bug ID: 67542
Summary: ICE on initializing type variable with a longer array
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67541
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67541
Bug ID: 67541
Summary: -Wconversion-extra no warning on double = double +
single
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66332
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67363
--- Comment #12 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 36321
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36321&action=edit
Patch
I sent this change this morning to gcc-patches but it seems to have
disappeared.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055
--- Comment #14 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Still happens on gcc-5 branch.
(This breaks building the Linux kernel with -O3 with my config)
-fno-ipa-icf "fixes" the issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67318
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67318
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Sep 10 15:36:54 2015
New Revision: 227650
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227650&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2015-09-10 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/67318
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66993
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Thu Sep 10 15:22:20 2015
New Revision: 227648
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227648&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-09-10 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/66993
* module.c (read
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67495
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67500
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67501
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67504
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67506
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Sep 10 15:07:02 2015
New Revision: 227647
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227647&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
2015-09-10 Oleg Endo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67514
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67521
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67502
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67511
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67517
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67522
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code, openmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67506
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Sep 10 14:53:48 2015
New Revision: 227646
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227646&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/67506
* config/sh/sh.c (sh_extending_set_of_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
--- Comment #13 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #12)
> Thanks. I misremembered, the testcase has a single variable with two
> fields, one uninitialized and one initialized, instead of two variables, but
> i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
Thanks. I misremembered, the testcase has a single variable with two fields,
one uninitialized and one initialized, instead of two variables, but it's
exactly the same reasoning (and it would be trivial to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
--- Comment #11 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
Created attachment 36320
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36320&action=edit
Reproducer with an uninitialized variable (no OUT parameter)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67537
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reported as https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24770
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67535
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #4)
> It's undefined behavior to pass a NULL pointer into a function?
To a function that does not allow it? Yes.
Citing the C standard:
7.21.2.1/2:
"The memcpy functio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67537
--- Comment #4 from Ville Voutilainen ---
I'll see if I can do a reasonable library fix, even if the problem is
caused by a buggy front-end.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67537
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67537
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reduced:
template
struct pair { };
template
void sink(_Elements&&...);
template
struct _TC
{
template
static constexpr bool _MoveConstructibleTuple()
{
sink( pair<_Elements, _UElements>{} ... )
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67535
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 09:00:06AM +, zeccav at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67535
>
> --- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #1)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67540
Bug ID: 67540
Summary: string_intrinsics_inc.c sanitizer detects null pointer
passed to memcpy
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mrestelli at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The attached code produces a segmentation fault:
$ gfortran --version
GNU Fortran (GCC) 6.0.0 20150910
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67473
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67537
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
My first impression is that this is a clang bug.
This:
template using _TMC =
_TC<(sizeof...(_Elements) == sizeof...(_UElements)),
_Elements...>;
should make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67416
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mrestelli at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The following code is invalid since the array dimension is missing,
but since it is an ICE I am reporting it.
$ gfortran --version
GNU Fortran (GCC) 6.0.0 20150910 (experimental
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67205
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Fedora has policies against executable stack, and fewer off them are always
> welcome. Are your changes restricted to gcc/ada, or would you need
> reviewers frm other parts of GCC?
The latter, although th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67537
Bug ID: 67537
Summary: [6 Regression] r225189 breaks building boost hana
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67205
--- Comment #5 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #4)
> The truth is, the versions of GNAT released by AdaCore use a general scheme
> to eliminate (almost) all trampolines, at least on native platforms, so
> there is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67205
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Couldn't you put the static chain for the dispatching subprograms into the
> vtable of the tagged type?
Presumably not, the vtable layout is constrained by the C++ compatibility and
this extends to local t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67205
--- Comment #3 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #2)
> > The attached example requires generation of trampolines. This may be due to
> > bug 57999, but I think a front-end fix would be more reliable.
>
> Please cla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67439
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed for trunk.
Will backport to 5 and 4.9 in a few days
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67439
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Sep 10 10:43:43 2015
New Revision: 227630
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227630&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[ARM] PR 67439: Allow matching of *arm32_movhf when -mrest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67421
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67421
--- Comment #5 from Jiong Wang ---
Author: jiwang
Date: Thu Sep 10 10:37:17 2015
New Revision: 227629
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227629&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[Patch/expand] Cost instruction sequences when doing left wide shift
Patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67480
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Fomin ---
There is another problem with the same pattern.
Suppose an V16SF insn mode and AVX512F target (e.g. KNL).
We'll emit something like vandps %zmm1, %zmm2, %zmm3; however, vps
family requires AVX512VL and/or A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67506
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #5)
> (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #4)
> > Could you please test it?
>
> It fixes all test cases for the cross trunk sh4-unknown-linux-gnu compiler.
> There is no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67506
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #4)
> Could you please test it?
It fixes all test cases for the cross trunk sh4-unknown-linux-gnu compiler.
There is no new failures with the top level "make -k check".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118
Arthur LAMBERT changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lambertarthur22 at gmail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65766
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jwmwalrus at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63494
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65766
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian.thompson at liv dot ac.uk
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61676
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65766
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Fixed by the patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-07/msg00166.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67363
Sebastian Huber changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sebastian.huber@embedded-br
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62246
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52332
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
eth
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52332
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||walt.brainerd at gmail dot com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60110
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038
--- Comment #29 from Douglas Mencken ---
Vanilla GCC 5.2 bootstraps perfectly (without --disable-checking) on my side
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67476
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 36318
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36318&action=edit
Tentative patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67523
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67524
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66707
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
