https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51253
--- Comment #15 from Akim Demaille ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #13)
> (In reply to Akim Demaille from comment #10)
> > auto t = std::make_tuple(incr(), incr());
>
> That's not an initializer-list, it's a function call, so the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58483
--- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to dennis luehring from comment #7)
[clang]
> void *__builtin_operator_new(size_t)
> void __builtin_operator_delete(void*)
I don't understand why N3664 is talking of new expressions instead of operat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61407
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Looks like the Mac OS X's headers are not C99/C++98 compatible at all:
>
> /Applications/Xcode6-Beta.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/
> Develope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61408
--- Comment #1 from Georg Koppen ---
I am happy to debug this further (and am, of course, interested in a
fix/workaround). Let me know what you need.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61408
Bug ID: 61408
Summary: r205695 breaks packaging step of Firefox 24 ESR on
Ubuntu Lucid building with ASan
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61407
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Looks like the Mac OS X's headers are not C99/C++98 compatible at all:
/Applications/Xcode6-Beta.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.10.sdk/usr/include/Availability.h:174
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58483
--- Comment #7 from dennis luehring ---
clang got now support for
(see:
http://clang-developers.42468.n3.nabble.com/missing-optimization-opportunity-for-const-std-vector-compared-to-std-array-td4034587.html#none)
void *__builtin_operator_new(s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61407
Bug ID: 61407
Summary: Build errors on latest OS X 10.10 Yosemite with Xcode
6 on GCC 4.8.3
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61173
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I will backport to 4.9 in the next few days so it will get into 4.9.1
I am not sure how your snapshot is set up. If it is using dynamically loaded
library, you may be getting the newer gfortran calling an o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #18 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #16)
> > unsigned int foo (unsigned short *x)
> > {
> > return x[0] << 16 | x[1];
> > }
> >
> > [...]
> > gets you
> >
> > foo:
> > lduh[%o0], %g1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #17 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
>
> I'd say
>
> Index: tree-ssa-math-opts.c
> ===
> --- tree-ssa-math-opts.c(revis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51253
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Trunk still gives -Wsequence-point warnings, and PR 61382 has an example that
still fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61382
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Thibaut LUTZ from comment #2)
> @Jonathan: you might be referring to 56774. 59716 was a similar issue.
They don't look related. I meant PR 51253
> However I think this case is definitely NOT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61382
Thibaut LUTZ changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thibaut.lutz at googlemail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61404
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61318
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bardeau at iram dot fr
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56166
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think __gnu_cxx::__rc_string has the same problem
There's a patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg00278.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61406
Bug ID: 61406
Summary: ICE on ASSOCIATE construct to literal array expression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58972
--- Comment #3 from Ville Voutilainen ---
[ville@localhost ~]$ g++ --std=c++11 -c dan.cpp
dan.cpp: In instantiation of ‘struct derive::foo(base::type) [with T = char;
base::type = int]::f_t’:
dan.cpp:18:5: required from ‘void derive::foo(base:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58972
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30020
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51976
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou ---
> unsigned int foo (unsigned short *x)
> {
> return x[0] << 16 | x[1];
> }
>
> [...]
> gets you
>
> foo:
> lduh[%o0], %g1
> lduh[%o0+2], %o0
> sll %g1, 16, %g1
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51311
Michael Bruck changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38612
--- Comment #6 from Michael Bruck ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
>
> What do you think?
>
Looks great. My main beef was that the two errors were merged into one
diagnostic.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29383
Walter Spector changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||w6ws at earthlink dot net
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59483
--- Comment #2 from Ville Voutilainen ---
It seems that 58972 is a duplicate, and is fixed by the same patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60966
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60734
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60966
--- Comment #30 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Jun 3 17:58:56 2014
New Revision: 211198
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211198&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-05-16 Jonathan Wakely
PR libstdc++/60
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60734
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Jun 3 17:58:51 2014
New Revision: 211197
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211197&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-04-15 Jonathan Wakely
PR libstdc++/607
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52174
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52174
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Jun 3 17:48:36 2014
New Revision: 211195
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211195&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/cp
2014-06-03 Paolo Carlini
DR 1423
PR c++/52174
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60439
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60439
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Jun 3 17:35:34 2014
New Revision: 211194
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211194&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/60439
* doc/invoke.texi: Document -Wswitch-bool.
* func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60102
--- Comment #12 from Ulrich Weigand ---
(In reply to Sandra Loosemore from comment #9)
> I've been looking at this a little bit more.
>
> DWARF_FRAME_REGNUM is specifically documented to take a hard register number
> as its operand, so the asser
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61227
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61227
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Jun 3 17:26:24 2014
New Revision: 211192
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211192&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-05-20 Tim Shen
PR libstdc++/61227
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60734
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Jun 3 17:26:05 2014
New Revision: 211190
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211190&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-04-15 Jonathan Wakely
PR libstdc++/607
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48062
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61381
vincenzo Innocente changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61227
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Because nothing changed on the 4.9 branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61340
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Blocks|61344
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61405
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61405
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Related to PR53874.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61396
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61344
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
--- Comment #15 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 28 May 2014, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Is any company spending money on GCC Fortran development? That would be
> awesome
> if it were true!
It's true for OpenACC support.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61340
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2014-6-3
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jamb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61405
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
The reason why we do not emit is that in c_do_switch_warnings in
c-family/c-common.c we check that:
/* From here on, we only care about about enumerated types. */
if (!type || TREE_CODE (type) != ENUMER
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61154
--- Comment #9 from christophe.lyon at st dot com ---
I confirm it fixes the regressions I reported.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61405
Bug ID: 61405
Summary: Not emitting "enumeration value not handled in switch"
warning for bit-field enums
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61404
Bug ID: 61404
Summary: Incorrect error message when misusing a structure
component + explicit interface
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61214
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
I wonder why we don't inline Foo::clone, though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61393
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
Alexander, as a temporary workaround, you can use -fno-ipa-cp.
The problem (also present in the trunk) seems to be that the tm_clone
flag of cgrapn_node is not copied over to clones (of tm_clones).
Thus, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60992
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 3 15:39:20 2014
New Revision: 211188
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211188&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60992
* pt.c (tsubst_copy) [VAR_DECL]: Try lookup first. Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61381
--- Comment #2 from vincenzo Innocente ---
I am still at "trunk revision 210507"
will update and test again
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61227
--- Comment #6 from FaTony ---
Hi. I'm using Debain Testing and today according to changelog:
* Update to SVN 20140527 (r210956) from the gcc-4_9-branch.
The bug still persists.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60848
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61381
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46235
--- Comment #5 from chris.a.ferguson at gmail dot com ---
This optimization opportunity is still being missed as of GCC 4.9.
Test cases:
bool IsBitSet1(unsigned char byte, int index)
{
return (byte & (1<> index) & 1;
}
>From GCC 4.9:
IsBit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60848
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 3 14:11:10 2014
New Revision: 211179
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211179&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60848
* call.c (is_std_init_list): Check CLASSTYPE_TEMPLATE_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61173
--- Comment #7 from Keith Refson ---
Is it possible to say which version of gcc will contain the fix? It is not in
the "gfortran.com" snapshot dated 20140528. Will this go in to the 4.9.1
release?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60894
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60848
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61403
Bug ID: 61403
Summary: An opportunity for x86 gcc vectorizer (~40% gain)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61294
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61020
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61134
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8/4.9/4.10 |[4.7/4.8 Regression][C++11]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61046
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59498
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
And the current development version of clang also rejects this testcase:
wa.C:5:34: error: pack expansion used as argument for non-pack parameter of
alias template
using variadic_alias = alias;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61334
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61020
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 3 11:56:58 2014
New Revision: 211178
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211178&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/61020
* varpool.c (ctor_for_folding): Handle uninitialized v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61134
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 3 11:55:28 2014
New Revision: 211175
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211175&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/61134
* pt.c (pack_deducible_p): Handle canonicalization.
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61020
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 3 11:55:36 2014
New Revision: 211176
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211176&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/61020
* varpool.c (ctor_for_folding): Handle uninitialized v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, unpatched and with a cross to sparc-linux (didn't figure out a working
solaris triplet that builds) and
unsigned int foo (unsigned short *x)
{
return x[0] << 16 | x[1];
}
I see
32 bit load in host
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61391
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61394
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I think I've seen a dup. The issue is we fail to set DECL_HARD_REGISTER on
this
bogus decl and/or fail to set it up as proper variable. That leaves the symtab
in inconsistent shape.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61398
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
--- Comment #1 from Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #11)
> > > So I am testing the patch right now and should be able to send it
> > > tomorrow.
> > > However, the code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #10)
> So I am testing the patch right now and should be able to send it tomorrow.
> However, the code already shall already mark the load with the actual
> alig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #11)
> > So I am testing the patch right now and should be able to send it tomorrow.
> > However, the code already shall already mark the load with the actual
> > ali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61402
--- Comment #1 from Thibaut LUTZ ---
I forgot to add that separating declaration and invocation seems to solve the
problem:
--8<8<8<8<8<8<--
#include
template
void foo(T t) {
using namespace std;
cout << endl << "par t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61402
Bug ID: 61402
Summary: [C++1y] Init-capture with side effect not working for
some types
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So I am testing the patch right now and should be able to send it tomorrow.
> However, the code already shall already mark the load with the actual
> alignment the access is being done with. Therefore it s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
So I am testing the patch right now and should be able to send it tomorrow.
However, the code already shall already mark the load with the actual alignment
the access is being done with. Therefore it se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61160
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
The first patch has been approved and committed, the second one
(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg02660.html) is still
pending approval.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61160
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Jun 3 10:13:15 2014
New Revision: 211171
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211171&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-03 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/61160
* ipa-cp.c (cgraph_edge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60866
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61160
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Jun 3 10:09:20 2014
New Revision: 211170
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211170&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-03 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/61160
* ipa-cp.c (cgraph_edge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60866
--- Comment #8 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Tue Jun 3 10:08:58 2014
New Revision: 211169
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211169&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-05-14 Andrey Belevantsev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60901
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60901
--- Comment #10 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Tue Jun 3 10:06:39 2014
New Revision: 211168
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211168&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-05-14 Andrey Belevantsev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61400
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57543
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yyc1992 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51253
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Akim Demaille from comment #10)
> auto t = std::make_tuple(incr(), incr());
That's not an initializer-list, it's a function call, so the order of
evaluation is not specified and that exampl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61328
--- Comment #5 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Tue Jun 3 09:29:06 2014
New Revision: 211166
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211166&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-03 Thomas Preud'homme
PR tree-optimization/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60866
--- Comment #7 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Tue Jun 3 09:25:39 2014
New Revision: 211165
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211165&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-05-14 Andrey Belevantsev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61401
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
