https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68378
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68378
Bug ID: 68378
Summary: Return value optimization does not fire iff in C mode
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43996
--- Comment #18 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 04:04:11AM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #17 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> I have a patch testing as I type.
>
I had to fine tune the patch, but it regres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66059
Daniel Frey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d.frey at gmx dot de
--- Comment #3 from D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43996
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53587
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56036
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56036
--- Comment #2 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sandra
Date: Tue Nov 17 01:56:17 2015
New Revision: 230452
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230452&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-16 Thomas Preud'homme
PR 56036
* do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68377
Bug ID: 68377
Summary: [c++1z] "binary expression in operand of
fold-expression" error when folding an expression
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65129
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65129
--- Comment #1 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sandra
Date: Tue Nov 17 01:19:59 2015
New Revision: 230451
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230451&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-16 Sandra Loosemore
PR 65129
* doc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #44 from H.J. Lu ---
*** Bug 68355 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67239
Bug 67239 depends on bug 68355, which changed state.
Bug 68355 Summary: C++ constexpr is passed on stack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68355
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68355
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60993
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58027
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58027
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue Nov 17 00:07:55 2015
New Revision: 230445
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230445&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-16 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/58027
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60993
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue Nov 17 00:07:55 2015
New Revision: 230445
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230445&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-16 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/58027
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #36723|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67440
Doug Evans changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67440
--- Comment #4 from devans at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: devans
Date: Mon Nov 16 23:46:56 2015
New Revision: 230444
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230444&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline:
PR libstdc++/67440
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65482
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #42 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #29)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #27)
> > Comment on attachment 36720 [details]
> > A patch
> >
> > How does this interact with LTO where lang_hooks.decls.empty_rec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61124
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67440
--- Comment #3 from devans at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: devans
Date: Mon Nov 16 21:32:26 2015
New Revision: 230437
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230437&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/67440
* python/libstdcxx/v6/print
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68362
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68362
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Nov 16 20:16:57 2015
New Revision: 230435
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230435&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/68362
* c-common.c (check_case_bounds): Fold low
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42121
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68376
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #47 from Alexander Cherepanov ---
On 2015-11-16 14:00, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
>> --- Comment #43 from Jeehoon Kang ---
>> - Performance degradation due to "casted pointers as escaped" is
>> insignificant.
>
> I think this i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68376
Bug ID: 68376
Summary: wrong code at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60993
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Nov 16 19:15:25 2015
New Revision: 230433
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230433&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-16 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/58027
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58027
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon Nov 16 19:15:25 2015
New Revision: 230433
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230433&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-16 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/58027
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68356
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68356
>
> --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > Darwin defaults to -fno-math
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68370
--- Comment #3 from Roger Ferrer Ibanez ---
Created attachment 36729
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36729&action=edit
Small reproducer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68362
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68375
Bug ID: 68375
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE in get_loop_body_in_bfs_order when
dumping cfg with -fdump-tree-optimized-graph
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68374
Bug ID: 68374
Summary: G++ -Wshadow doesn't warn about static member
shadowing
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68356
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Darwin defaults to -fno-math-errno, and tests for libm functions setting
> errno should be disabled there.
Does this mean that the test should be skipped on darwin?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68356
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Darwin defaults to -fno-math-errno, and tests for libm functions setting
errno should be disabled there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68371
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68371
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Not a bug. GCC does not support imaginary types. Use __builtin_complex
(GCC 4.7 or later) or the CMPLX macros implemented based on it, or assign
to __real__ and __imag__ of a temporary.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66059
--- Comment #2 from rhalbersma ---
Apparently VC and Clang have compiler hooks for this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/3t0nrc/true_story_efficient_packing_tales_of_c/cx26s02
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67280
cbaylis at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68373
Bug ID: 68373
Summary: autopar fails on loop exit phi with argument defined
outside loop
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932
--- Comment #22 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So in an attempt to make some progress on this, I've tried Jim's approach of
changing PROMOTE_MODE to not convert the short modes to unsigned.
Building SPEC2006 INT and looking at the generated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68117
--- Comment #32 from Gary Funck ---
(In reply to Gary Funck from comment #17)
> We're seeing this ICE on x86-64, while building the 32-bit libgfortran.
> We're building the target libraries with -O3 with GCC compiler checks
> enabled.
The recent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68330
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Nov 16 15:51:33 2015
New Revision: 230429
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230429&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
simplify-rtx: Simplify sign_extend of lshiftrt to zero_extend (PR683
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68367
--- Comment #7 from Christophe Lyon ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #6)
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, clyon at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68367
> >
> > --- Comment #5 from Christophe Lyon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67326
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67326
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67326
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67337
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68306
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67354
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67354
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 36728
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36728&action=edit
gcc6-pr67354.patch
Untested hack that just defers generating mangling aliases if at_eof, until the
fns are put
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68306
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68306
>
> --- Comment #14 from Ulrich Weigand ---
> Building the following reduced test ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67280
--- Comment #8 from cbaylis at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cbaylis
Date: Mon Nov 16 15:01:01 2015
New Revision: 230427
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230427&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
backport of fix for PR67280 (r227407)
2015-11-16 Charles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68367
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, clyon at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68367
>
> --- Comment #5 from Christophe Lyon ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68306
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 16 15:04:00 2015
New Revision: 230428
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230428&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-16 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/68306
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65251
--- Comment #8 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #7)
> Ping?
Please wait a few more days. I'm currently trying a new approach with qemu-sh4
as you have probably seen on the debian-superh mailing list.
This w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68367
--- Comment #5 from Christophe Lyon ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> > > Ok, so I assume this is after the fix for PR68306.
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65251
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo ---
Ping?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68277
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
--- Comment #23 from Oleg Endo ---
Ping?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68306
--- Comment #14 from Ulrich Weigand ---
Building the following reduced test case with
-O2 -ftree-vectorize -fcx-fortran-rules
with an spu-elf cross-cc1 shows the ICE.
void
test (_Complex float *dest,
_Complex float scale, int count)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67280
--- Comment #7 from cbaylis at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I am backporting the fix to GCC 5 now. I'll close it once committed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68349
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68362
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68277
--- Comment #14 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Nov 16 14:22:10 2015
New Revision: 230426
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230426&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
2015-11-16 Oleg Endo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68277
--- Comment #13 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Mon Nov 16 14:11:50 2015
New Revision: 230425
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230425&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/68277
* config/sh/sh.md (addsi3_scr): Handl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68194
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Proposed patch at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg01953.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67653
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68117
--- Comment #31 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 16 14:06:08 2015
New Revision: 230424
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230424&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-16 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/68117
* cf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67280
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68367
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68277
--- Comment #12 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #10)
> (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #9)
> > At the current (lack of) pace I don't know when all of that will be done.
> > So my idea was to at least reduce the R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68327
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68277
--- Comment #11 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #10)
> I'll report back when the regression test currently running is done.
I've confirmed that there are no new failures with the new patch on
sh4-unknown-linux-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67941
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 36727
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36727&action=edit
gcc6-pr67941.patch
Random attempt to write some condition, but I really have no idea if it is at
least anywhere
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68365
--- Comment #4 from n8tm at aol dot com ---
On 11/16/2015 7:13 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68365
>
> Richard Biener changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68321
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Depends on|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #46 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, jeehoon.kang at sf dot snu.ac.kr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
>
> --- Comment #45 from Jeehoon Kang ---
> > I think this is not true. For ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68306
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Can you attach preprocessed source? See also PR68367 which I can't reproduce
with a cross.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67941
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60993
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
With the patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-11/msg00093.html,
compiling the test gives the error
pr60993.f90:7:45:
integer, parameter :: infn(2) = [Z'',Z'FFF0']
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68306
Ulrich Weigand changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66145
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I would suggest not using exceptions with iostreams, they've always been an odd
mix anyway.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752
--- Comment #45 from Jeehoon Kang ---
> I think this is not true. For example with MatLab (might be sth else,
> if I don't remember correctly) you are required to pass pointers to
> arrays in two halves in double(!) values (I believe the only fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68365
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66776
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Renlin, can you close this PR if there's nothing more to do here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68157
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68370
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks for reporting this.
That error message:
libgccjit.so: error: gcc_jit_block_add_assignment: mismatching types:
assignment to text (type: const char *) from &text[(int)1] (type: const char *)
looks wr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68348
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68195
--- Comment #6 from Matthias Goldhoorn ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> Fails with gcc-5-branch, but doesn't fail on trunk for me.
Is there a trunk branch or tag available i can try to compile, the last
versions i tried does n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #41 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #39)
> You should also update gimplify.c's zero_sized_type to be the same as your
> empty_record_p.
It won't work since the size of empty class isn't zero in C++. We
just
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336
--- Comment #40 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #38)
> Created attachment 36724 [details]
> An updated patch to add empty_record_p
>
> I am testing it now.
It doesn't work since it misses
for (binfo = TYPE_BINFO (type),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
--- Comment #34 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chrbr
Date: Mon Nov 16 11:20:02 2015
New Revision: 230410
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230410&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-16 Christian Bruel
PR target/65837
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68194
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The different if-conversion behaviour enabled a new cse opportunity
which then produced the RTL that triggered the bad ree behaviour.
The relevant RTL insns before the ree pass look like:
Basic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68189
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
