https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67948
Bug ID: 67948
Summary: xor-and.c needs updating after r228661
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67945
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67814
--- Comment #4 from Jameson ---
I couldn't find any generic linux binaries for 5.2 (or 6) to test. The downlink
link from the download page to https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranBinaries seems
to go to a non-existant site gfortran.com
I tested wit
: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20151012 (experimental) [trunk revision 228712] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 small.c; ./a.out
0
0
0
$ gcc-5.2 -O3 small.c; ./a.out
0
0
0
$
$ gcc-trunk -O3 small.c
$ ./a.out
$
--
int printf (const char *, ...);
int a;
int
main (int argc, char
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67920
--- Comment #6 from James Almer ---
Created attachment 36491
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36491&action=edit
-save-temps output for all three files
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67920
James Almer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|rtl-optimization|tree-optimization
--- Comment #5 from Jame
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67944
--- Comment #2 from Alex Reinking ---
I expect it to return whatever is currently stored in ebx. Which it does, but
suboptimally. In my particular case, ebx is populated by a system call. I
wanted to put the inline assembly for retrieving that va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67946
Bug ID: 67946
Summary: Function multiversioning ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67932
--- Comment #8 from R Copley ---
Thanks. I've emailed the mingw-w64 list at
http://sourceforge.net/p/mingw-w64/mailman/mingw-w64-public. (You expressed it
better but I hadn't seen your last comment.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67945
Bug ID: 67945
Summary: Testsuite failures starting with revision 228616
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65804
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67932
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The difference will probably be that when including libstdc++'s this
happens before mingw's is included:
// Make sure that POSIX printf/scanf functions are activated. As
// libstdc++ depends on POSIX-de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67932
--- Comment #6 from R Copley ---
Created attachment 36490
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36490&action=edit
hexfloat-bug-2b.ii (see Comment 4)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67932
--- Comment #5 from R Copley ---
Created attachment 36489
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36489&action=edit
hexfloat-bug-2a.ii (see Comment 4)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67932
--- Comment #4 from R Copley ---
That's what I understood to be the case. Nevertheless, with the toolchain I am
using (see above for version; same command-line etc.), I get the results below.
Both testcases below give the correct results with g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67944
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67932
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Libstdc++ has no implementation of printf, so ::printf and std::printf are
exactly the same function, with std::printf defined as:
namespace std
{
using ::printf;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67944
Bug ID: 67944
Summary: GCC emits unnecessary push/pop for callee-save reads.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67909
Pat Haugen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67925
--- Comment #6 from Arkadiusz Drabczyk ---
Sorry, this code is wrong of course, value returned by factorial() must be used
to generate an actual code:
$ cat bug1.c
#include
#include
inline static int factorial(unsigned int i)
{
if(i <= 1)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67925
--- Comment #5 from Arkadiusz Drabczyk ---
-Winline is mentioned in the next paragraph. The whole sentence I posted in the
first comment is:
"Some calls cannot be integrated for various reasons (in particular, calls that
precede the function's d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67925
--- Comment #4 from Arkadiusz Drabczyk ---
Created attachment 36488
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36488&action=edit
suggested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67917
Guille changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67744
--- Comment #3 from Bader at lrz dot de ---
The question on validity is not unjustified. The 2008 standard appears to be
not fully clear on this, but the current 2015 draft has the following amended
text in para 2 of section 8.1.3.3:
---
The asso
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67744
--- Comment #2 from Bader at lrz dot de ---
The question on validity is not unjustified. The 2008 standard appears to be
not fully clear on this, but the current 2015 draft has the following amended
text in para 2 of section 8.1.3.3:
---
The asso
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67943
--- Comment #1 from Barry Revzin ---
Actually, according to [class.base.access], this is valid code. Unless CWG 472
gets adopted I guess. In any case, disregard - my bad.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67943
Bug ID: 67943
Summary: Friend declaration applied to base class, leading to
allowing access to protected base
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67942
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67942
Bug ID: 67942
Summary: diagnose placement new buffer overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67815
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Comment on attachment 36487
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36487
r2
I think for copysign we don't want/need the first_pass_instance guard, and
likely also not flag_unsafe_math_optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67941
Bug ID: 67941
Summary: calls on function pointer from a captureless lambda
cause ubsan warning
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67815
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Created attachment 36487
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36487&action=edit
r2
Untested preliminary patch. I'm not sure about the floating-point matter in
there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67940
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67940
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Oct 12 17:36:21 2015
New Revision: 228732
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228732&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Correct x86 backend stack alignment adjustment
Add missing -1 in x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59412
--- Comment #1 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Note that in addition to spurious "inexact" exceptions, this division can cause
spurious "underflow" exceptions when converting tiny values to integer 0.
Other spurious exceptions can occur in overflow cas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67940
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak ---
This doesn't need a PR. Just commit the (pre-approved) obvious patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67940
Bug ID: 67940
Summary: Wrong stack alignment adjustment
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67932
--- Comment #2 from R Copley ---
Thanks Jonathan. It's clear enough from what I wrote that:
(1) The same kind of incorrect output is produced by (a) including and
using std::printf, and (b) using iostreams and std::hexfloat;
(2) The correct ou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67939
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
$ echo $LANG
de_DE.UTF-8
$ echo $LC_ALL
$ cat z3.f90
program p
character(8) :: x
data x(3:1) /'abc'/
end
$ gfortran -g -O0 z3.f90
z3.f90:3:17:
data x(3:1) /'abc'/
1
Warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67939
Bug ID: 67939
Summary: ICE on using data with negative substring range
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66697
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67938
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
$ cat z1.f90
program p
implicit none
character(1) :: z(3)
call s(z)
contains
subroutine s(x)
character(1) :: x(..)
print *, lbound(x)
print *, ubound(x)
end subroutine
en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67938
Bug ID: 67938
Summary: ICE on using assumed rank character with some
intrinsics
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67885
--- Comment #4 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Deleting the dimension from parameter a (making it scalar)
lets examples z1.f90 and z5.f90 compile and run fine.
$ cat y1.f90
program p
block
real, parameter :: a = 1.0
real :: x(2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66697
--- Comment #28 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Mon Oct 12 16:29:37 2015
New Revision: 228728
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228728&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2015-10-08 H.J. Lu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67912
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67937
--- Comment #2 from Joshua Cranmer ---
Created attachment 36486
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36486&action=edit
test-case.gcno
And the corresponding .gcno file.
The testcase was minimized by bisecting the original .gcda/.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67937
--- Comment #1 from Joshua Cranmer ---
Created attachment 36485
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36485&action=edit
test-case.gcda
(It's a 4.7 test case, but the file format can still be read with trunk gcov
the last I checked
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67937
Bug ID: 67937
Summary: gcov gives wrong results when negative counts are
involved
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67936
Bug ID: 67936
Summary: Off-by-one columns in caret
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67931
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67935
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
--- Comment #43 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
(In reply to Bernd Schmidt from comment #42)
> I don't think that would actually help. Even if something is an actual
> incoming argument register, it may still be uninitialized by the caller.
Sure,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67934
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66070
--- Comment #4 from Sebastian Pop ---
r227572
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67935
Bug ID: 67935
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67192
--- Comment #20 from Andreas Arnez ---
Posted a patch that is not as ambitious as completely getting rid of
input_location, but also doesn't require a new function like
c_parser_peek_token_keep_input_location():
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67834
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin ---
I suppose this is a package bug but it is present in a number
of packages:
static inline void handle_overflow_nop(void){}
class recv_packet_handler{
public:
...
private:
vrt_unpacker_type _vrt_unp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67934
Bug ID: 67934
Summary: [concepts] ICE when providing default function
implementations using concepts
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67476
--- Comment #9 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Mon Oct 12 14:14:11 2015
New Revision: 228717
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228717&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Handle simple latch in expand_omp_for_generic
2015-10-12 Tom d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67476
--- Comment #10 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Mon Oct 12 14:14:22 2015
New Revision: 228718
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228718&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add missing phis in expand_omp_for_generic
2015-10-12 Tom de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67933
Bug ID: 67933
Summary: [4.9/5/Trunk Regression] ICE for array of a derived
type with allocatable class in derived type object
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67932
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Your preprocessed source doesn't use std::hexfloat, so any problem comes from
std::printf, which is part of your C library not part of GCC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67919
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
Version|5.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51048
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rodrigc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67888
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51048
--- Comment #9 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Oct 12 13:15:30 2015
New Revision: 228714
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228714&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2015-10-12 Paolo Carlini
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67932
Bug ID: 67932
Summary: Incorrect conversion to hexfloat
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67552
Bug 67552 depends on bug 67850, which changed state.
Bug 67850 Summary: Wrong call_used_regs used in aggregate_value_p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67850
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67850
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67783
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 12 12:26:02 2015
New Revision: 228710
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228710&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-12 Richard Biener
PR ipa/67783
* ipa-inline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67850
--- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Oct 12 12:26:09 2015
New Revision: 228711
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228711&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Merge ix86_maybe_switch_abi with ix86_set_current_function
ix86_ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67930
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67931
Bug ID: 67931
Summary: [6 Regression] Gcc [trunk revision 228704] failed to
profiledbootstrap on x86_64
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67930
Bug ID: 67930
Summary: segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67849
Alexander Fomin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #4 from Alexander F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67849
--- Comment #3 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Mon Oct 12 11:03:56 2015
New Revision: 228709
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228709&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/67849
gcc/
* config/i386/sse.md (define_split
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67929
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ktkachov at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67929
Bug ID: 67929
Summary: [4.9/5/6 Regression][arm] Wrong code for FP
mult-by-power-of-2 + int conversion
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61362
--- Comment #6 from Thibaut LUTZ ---
My previous test cases still fails with 6.0.0 20151012 on linux64.
It passes with "-std=c++11".
Fails with "-std=c++14", "-std=c++17", "-std=c++1y".
Same error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67715
renlin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||renlin at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63176
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Meh. Don't use generate_canonical then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66070
--- Comment #3 from Steffen Hau ---
Could you please provide the corresponding revision which fixed the issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67779
--- Comment #7 from Arjen Markus ---
Yes, I can confirm this - I also tried with the Intel Fortran compiler and that
sorts the integers and strings in the way one would expect.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67928
Bug ID: 67928
Summary: Ambiguous call not diagnosed
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67908
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Component|middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67908
--- Comment #2 from Stefan Keller ---
The distribution's compiler is built without debug symbols. I need to rebuild,
which may take a while.
Here's the output of gdb in case it helps anyways:
Reading symbols from
/usr/lib/gcc/armv7l-unknown-linu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67888
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #7)
> I have no objections, the patch seems safe to backport. Jason, shall I go
> ahead if it regtests Ok on the branch?
Sure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67922
--- Comment #2 from Yegor Derevenets ---
> But then the issue is that clear () doesn't shrink the map.
No, the issue is that clear() touches all the buckets, instead of touching only
those containing the elements. libc++'s implementation does not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67908
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 58566, which changed state.
Bug 58566 Summary: [c++11] ICE with invalid expression in lambda body
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58566
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58566
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58566
--- Comment #6 from ville at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ville
Date: Mon Oct 12 08:55:19 2015
New Revision: 228706
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228706&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/58566
/cp
2015-10-12 Ville Voutilainen
PR c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67888
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62051
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 36480
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36480&action=edit
visibility flag patch
Is this the sort of thing you had in mind?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67600
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67864
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
No difference for x86 (but that may have been expected)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67056
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66738
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67925
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Patches welcome ;) I think refering to -Winline here might make most sense.
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
