https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69720
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69715
--- Comment #4 from Kip Warner ---
Hey Markus. I'm able to replicate your minimal with...
$ g++ --version
g++ (Ubuntu 5.2.1-22ubuntu2) 5.2.1 20151010
Well I'll be damned. It looks as though we've actually managed to find a bona
fide bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65917
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65917
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Feb 8 08:17:32 2016
New Revision: 233207
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233207&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/65917
* tree-ssa-dom.c (record_tempor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69719
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69716
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68541
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Feb 8 08:40:00 2016
New Revision: 233208
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233208&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/68541
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/split-path-2.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69274
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Feb 8 09:09:22 2016
New Revision: 233209
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233209&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-08 Richard Biener
PR rtl-optimization/69274
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69274
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69689
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra, xfail
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69599
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #7 from vrie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69715
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67260
--- Comment #16 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Rich Felker from comment #15)
Maybe. There are other cases of address computations which could be
shared or simplified, as you know. Again very restrictive branches
and loads will make thin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68273
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Feb 8 10:04:18 2016
New Revision: 233211
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233211&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-08 Richard Biener
Jeff Law
PR target/682
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69719
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69714
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69715
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69720
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59627
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from vrie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69702
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69706
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69707
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Ok.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69708
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69707
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from vrie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69709
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69711
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68273
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
Testcase fixed. Leaving it open though as the ABI issue in the target is still
present.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68715
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Another testcase:
int a, b, c, d, f, g;
int e[1], h[1];
void fn2 ();
void fn3 ();
void
fn1 ()
{
fn2 ();
b = 0;
for (; b < 10; b++)
;
}
void
fn2 ()
{
if (a)
{
fn3 ();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63634
Renlin Li changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67153
Nathan Kurz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nate at verse dot com
--- Comment #21 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69721
Bug ID: 69721
Summary: [6 Regression] math.h is broken
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69721
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69721
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69709
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69721
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69721
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
17.6.2.2 [using.headers]
"A translation unit shall include a header only outside of any declaration or
definition,"
That includes namespace declarations ("header" in the standard means a standard
header,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69719
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
It's a broken runtime alias check. Probably no longer latent since
2015-11-10 James Greenhalgh
Partial backport from trunk r228751.
PR tree-optimization/68238
2015-10-13 Richar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34040
--- Comment #15 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #14)
>
> This switch is already there: -fshort-double
... and it seems it's been causing trouble and is going to be removed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg02
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68580
--- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ran into it once more while testing couple of patches on top of r233103.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69715
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Most likely started with r192641, at least that version ICEs and r192632 does
not.
The problem is that as there is just a MEM_REF and the VAR_DECL is mentioned
has XFmode (that has no corresponding MODE_INT m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59627
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Jakub suggested alternative patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00532.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69715
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Fix for the invalid GIMPLE (we can enhance this but anyting other than plain
DECLs
are mishandled right now):
Index: gcc/tree-ssa.c
===
--- gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67709
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #8 from vrie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69715
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69607
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #16 from vri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69720
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So we end up vectorizing the outer loop in
for (; a<6; a++)
{
b ^= e;
tem = d[a*6];
for (c = 0; c < 2; c++)
tem |= 9;
d[a*6] = tem;
}
where the store-motioned d[] load wasn't vec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69714
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2016-02-08, at 5:13 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> From what I see this got introduced after 5.3.0 was released. No idea if
> trunk
> is affected.
I also believe it was introduced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69655
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from vrie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64697
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69707
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #3)
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00522.html
As Jakub pointed out, dropping the Driver flag gives problems.
Updated proposed patch:
https://gcc.gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69720
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69139
--- Comment #4 from Adam Butcher ---
@TC: Good call. The patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00495.html doesn't handle cv/ref
qualifiers. I've expanded the testcase locally and will fix up the look-ahead
solution to handle th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69713
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #4)
>
> Option 3)
> Try adding a T_REG use in casesi_worker_0/casesi_worker_1 patterns to create
> a link between the bounds checking insn and the table access insns.
>
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69720
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
vect_finalize_reduction:
...
/* 2.5 Adjust the final result by the initial value of the reduction
variable. (When such adjustment is not needed, then
'adjustment_def' is zero). For exam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67639
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65702
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65702
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69719
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Feb 8 14:51:20 2016
New Revision: 233212
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233212&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-08 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/69719
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69139
--- Comment #5 from Adam Butcher ---
The patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00561.html adds
handling for cv/ref mentioned by TC in #c3. I've added handling of tx and
exception specs to.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69674
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64697
--- Comment #6 from Václav Zeman ---
Created attachment 37630
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37630&action=edit
logs requested by #5 comment
Here is the linking -v output and ld -V output.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64697
--- Comment #7 from Václav Zeman ---
Created attachment 37631
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37631&action=edit
logs after complete recompilation
logs after complete recompilation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48891
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Feb 8 15:22:32 2016
New Revision: 233214
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233214&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Enable isinf/isnan checks for all targets
PR libstdc++/48891
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69719
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[5/6 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68730
--- Comment #15 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Author: bernds
Date: Mon Feb 8 15:31:08 2016
New Revision: 233215
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233215&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix latent LRA remat issue (PR68730)
PR rtl-optimization/68730
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69631
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Feb 8 15:31:47 2016
New Revision: 233216
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233216&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69631
gcc/
* convert.c (convert_to_integer_1): Che
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69714
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60410
--- Comment #17 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Author: bernds
Date: Mon Feb 8 15:36:16 2016
New Revision: 233218
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233218&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Remove -fshort-double
PR target/60410
* tree.c (build_c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69714
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
Hi Bernd,
On 2016-02-08 10:19 AM, bernds at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> This could be tricky to debug without a PA box, but I'll look for a while.
Thanks for taking a look. We have a couple of PA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69688
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69688
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Feb 8 15:40:33 2016
New Revision: 233220
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233220&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69688
* constexpr.c (clear_cv_and_fold_caches):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68021
--- Comment #13 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm, I posted a patch at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00447.html
But after digging deeper I think the posted is unnecessary and it should be
fixed in fold stuff.
The ivopt logic i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64697
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
Your compiler doesn't have proper LTO support. Please turn it
off with -fno-lto.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68021
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to amker from comment #13)
> Hmm, I posted a patch at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00447.html
> But after digging deeper I think the posted is unnecessary and it should be
> fixe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64697
--- Comment #9 from Václav Zeman ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> Your compiler doesn't have proper LTO support. Please turn it
> off with -fno-lto.
How/why is it improper?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64697
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Václav Zeman from comment #9)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> > Your compiler doesn't have proper LTO support. Please turn it
> > off with -fno-lto.
>
> How/why is it improper?
Your LTO g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
--- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
-mtpcs-frame or -mapcs seem to help exposing some other issue that I'm having
trouble tracking down.
-mtpcs-frame or -mapcs affect the behaviour of
TARGET_CONDITIONAL_REGISTER_USAGE on arm. In a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60410
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
--- Comment #34 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On February 8, 2016 4:49:20 PM GMT+01:00, "alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368
>
>alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
>
> What|R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69722
Bug ID: 69722
Summary: [6 Regression] gcc/doc/extend.texi:7526: warning: node
`Constraints' is next for `Extended Asm' in menu but
not in sectioning
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmmm, digging through the reload and post-reload split dumps I noticed this
curiosity in arm.md:
(define_split
[(set (match_operand:DI 0 "s_register_operand" "")
(zero_extend:DI (match
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69664
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Mon Feb 8 17:33:45 2016
New Revision: 233223
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233223&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR preprocessor/69664: fix rich_location::override_column
gcc/testsuit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69664
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69239
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 8 17:41:35 2016
New Revision: 233224
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233224&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/69239
* g++.dg/ipa/pr69239.C: New test.
Added:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69239
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[5/6 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69589
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69589
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 37633
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37633&action=edit
pr69589-2.C
g++ -O2 -rdynamic -flto -o pr69589 pr69589-1.C pr69589-2.C
This doesn't even emit -Wodr warnings e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69651
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59627
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 8 18:23:03 2016
New Revision: 233225
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233225&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/59627
* parser.c (cp_parser_omp_declare_reduction):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69631
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69723
Bug ID: 69723
Summary: Inconsistent report of unused and uninitialized
variables
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69722
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69714
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is most likely related to the bswap pass.
Do you know if it fails on the trunk?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69723
--- Comment #1 from Peter VARGA ---
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.9.3/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.9.3_source/configure --disa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69717
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69609
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Summar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69717
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler ---
This is fixed in the current trunk (Tested on gcc HEAD 6.0.0 20160207
(experimental)). Btw.: Your test case is confusing. A better test case would be
the following one, where the static assertion tests the e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67153
--- Comment #22 from ncm at cantrip dot org ---
(In reply to Nathan Kurz from comment #21)
> My current belief is
> that everything here is expected behavior, and there is no bug with either
> the compiler or processor.
>
> The code spends most
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69717
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
