ld lr, r52
107 addir28, r52, -8
108 ld r29, r28
109
110 movesp, r52
111 mover52, r29
112 jrp lr
113 .size main, .-main
114 .ident "GCC: (GNU) 7.0.0 20160529 (experimental)"
115 .section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71105
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sun May 29 08:05:30 2016
New Revision: 236859
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236859&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2016-05-29 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/71105
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71105
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sun May 29 08:27:07 2016
New Revision: 236860
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236860&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2016-05-29 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/71105
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71105
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sun May 29 08:29:46 2016
New Revision: 236861
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236861&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2016-05-29 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/71105
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367
Bug 54367 depends on bug 71105, which changed state.
Bug 71105 Summary: [6/7 regression] lambdas with default captures improperly
have function pointer conversions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71105
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71105
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71332
Bug ID: 71332
Summary: Passing non-copyable type by reference to variadic
generic lambda after a copyable type by value results
in a compile-time error
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71331
--- Comment #1 from Chen Gang ---
Oh, lucky enough! The diff below should be OK for this issue.
diff --git a/gcc/config/tilegx/tilegx.c b/gcc/config/tilegx/tilegx.c
index 06c832c..bc41105 100644
--- a/gcc/config/tilegx/tilegx.c
+++ b/gcc/config
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71333
Bug ID: 71333
Summary: Broken Python extension produced
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69067
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=71086
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71332
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70824
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70824
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71333
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71215
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71291
--- Comment #8 from Georg Koppen ---
Looking at the stack trace again. It says "Memory access at offset 112
underflows this variable" yet ASan reports stack-buffer-overflow. I am
confused. Shouldn't it report a stack-buffer-underflow then?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71245
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Sun May 29 20:50:32 2016
New Revision: 236863
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236863&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/71245
* config/i386/sync.md (define_peep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71086
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson ---
This was fixed by r218623.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71334
Bug ID: 71334
Summary: gccjit's sized integers have different underlying
types than stdint.h
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71334
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't see why this is an issue. for LP64 targets, long unsigned int and long
long unsigned int are the same size. For gccjit, just uses the GCC internal
definition of compatible. That is long unsigned in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71252
--- Comment #20 from H.J. Lu ---
As of r236857, on x86-64, I still got
Error with make 'specmake -j `/usr/bin/getconf _NPROCESSORS_ONLN` build': check
file
'/export/gnu/import/git/gcc-test-spec/spec/2006/x86_64/spec/benchspec/CPU2006/416.gamess/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71099
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67310
--- Comment #7 from jol_indien at yahoo dot fr ---
Created attachment 38595
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38595&action=edit
patch to properly detect VIA nano CPU against gcc git repository as for Sun May
29 17:29:42 2016 +00
/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/7.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20160529 (experimental) [trunk revision 236861] (GCC)
$: gcc-trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71336
Bug ID: 71336
Summary: Suboptimal x86 code generated for "(a & 1) ? (CST1 +
CST2) : CST1"
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71314
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71337
Bug ID: 71337
Summary: temp_directory_path(error_code&) shouldn't throw from
!exists(p) || !is_directory(p)
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54882
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69675
--- Comment #3 from Arseny Solokha ---
Can someone confirm this still fails on 6.1 and trunk w/ newer isl? I cannot
reproduce it any more w/ isl 0.17.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71077
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
31 matches
Mail list logo