https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62102
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka ---
>
> My autotester picked up that commit, and this regression is gone, thanks!
> I'm closing this PR.
Great! I was starring in that patch and did not notice this quite obvious
omision
for at least 20 times :(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63531
--- Comment #1 from Ralf ---
Created attachment 33711
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33711&action=edit
preprocessed file generated by segfaulting call
Sorry. needed to zip the file, because it hit the size-limit. No smaller
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63531
Bug ID: 63531
Summary: gcc segfaults on some sourcefiles when using
'-Weffc++' and '-fsanitize=undefined' together
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63173
--- Comment #2 from Venkataramanan ---
Changed the test case to work with latest GCC trunk
#include
int16x4x2_t foo(int16_t * __restrict pDataA,
int16_t * __restrict pDataB)
{
int16x4x2_t DataA, DataB,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
--- Comment #4 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
> With ifort, are you compiling with whatever flag enforces
> standards conformance. I need to go hunting through the
> standard to see if assumed size arrays are allowed in the
> declaration s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63526
--- Comment #5 from Dávid Éles ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #3)
> (In reply to Dávid Éles from comment #2)
> > I uses the default mechanism to initialization of members.
> > As far as I know the C++ standard says (8.5/5):
> > To
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
--- Comment #21 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #17)
>
> In the 'addsf3_i' pattern, I've tried replacing the
>
> (use (match_operand:PSI 3 "fpscr_operand" "c"))
>
> with
>
> (set (match_operand:PSI 3 "fpscr_oper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59401
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #9)
> (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #8)
> > change the
> > value for gbr in sh.h CALL_USED_REGISTERS from '1' to '0' and confirm that
> > everything is still OK?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59401
--- Comment #9 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #8)
> change the
> value for gbr in sh.h CALL_USED_REGISTERS from '1' to '0' and confirm that
> everything is still OK?
The comment and document about CALL_USED_REGISTER
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63530
Bug ID: 63530
Summary: GCC generates incorrect aligned store on ARM after the
loop is unrolled.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59401
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #7)
> (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #6)
> > Kaz, what's your opinion on making GBR to be call preserved by default?
>
> Looks OK to me for 5.0. It's clearly an AB
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59401
--- Comment #7 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #6)
> Kaz, what's your opinion on making GBR to be call preserved by default?
Looks OK to me for 5.0. It's clearly an ABI change but a change to
the more robust directi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:49:52AM +, russelldub at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
>
> --- Comment #2 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
> (In reply to kargl fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #68 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 33709
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33709&action=edit
CSiBE result-runtime.cvs trunk rev.215912
0.54% runtime regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #67 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 33708
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33708&action=edit
CSiBE result-runtime.cvs sh-lra+c#29+c#55+c#57+c#61+c#66
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #66 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 33707
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33707&action=edit
a possible patch
With it, foo is compiled to
foo:
sts.l pr,@-r15
mov.w .L4,r1
m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #65 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
We can see ~2% code size regression on average with CSiBE.
There are some cases which register elimination doesn't
work well. An example is
int foo (int x)
{
int y[100];
bar (&y[4], x);
return y[4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #64 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 33706
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33706&action=edit
CSiBE result-size.cvs trunk rev.215912
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #63 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 33705
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33705&action=edit
CSiBE result-size.cvs sh-lra+c#29+c#55+c#57+c#61
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63260
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63260
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Tue Oct 14 00:50:18 2014
New Revision: 216173
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216173&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/63260
* config/sh/sh.md (negsf2, negsf2_i, negdf2, n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
--- Comment #2 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> (In reply to russelldub from comment #0)
> > Consider the following "cray_ptr_issue1.f90":
> >
> > MODULE PTR_MOD
> > IMPLICIT NONE
> > REAL :: ptee1(*)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62102
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63527
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63260
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
GDB patch submitted:
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2014-10/msg00334.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63526
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63515
--- Comment #3 from Luka Rahne ---
Extra observations:
It looks to me that assignment "auto c = CurriedImpl<2,some_type>(f);" tries to
construct an operator();
If operator() is renamed to function fun or assignment is replaced by
constructor th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59401
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #5)
> Ugh, there's actually another problem with this thing, I think:
>
> ...
>
> By default, GBR is marked as call-clobbered. Currently, if the GBR mem
> optimization thing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #20 from xur at google dot com ---
Thanks for the comments. I'll work on this to get it fixed this time.
Let me understand your idea correctly:
We will have two patches: The first one will check FTW-API and make
the gcov-tool build co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
Bug ID: 63529
Summary: Bad error and ICE with Cray Pointers in Modules
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #19 from Kai Tietz ---
Hi Xur,
I asked you in my intial support to check for existance of FTW-API, and not to
implement it for Win32.
So first, send patch checking in a valid way if API can be used.
The ftw/nftw emulation you wrote
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63515
--- Comment #2 from Luka Rahne ---
This bug boils to to point where in member function
template
CurriedImpl
//sizeof...(Rem) depends here on size of arguments of std::function
operator()(Rem ... a_rem)
{
}
deduced num
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63515
--- Comment #1 from Luka Rahne ---
Created attachment 33704
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33704&action=edit
Shorter Example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #18 from xur at google dot com ---
This patch is after Kai Tietz's comment. and it does check the nfw headers.
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:40 PM, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #17 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to xur from comment #16)
> I sent a patch to fix this, a few weeks ago, but I have got the review
> or approval.
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00186.html
Kai Tietz, min
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #28 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:53 AM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
>
> --- Comment #27 from H.J. Lu ---
> (In reply to Teresa Johnson from comment #24)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #16 from xur at google dot com ---
I sent a patch to fix this, a few weeks ago, but I have got the review
or approval.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00186.html
Honza, could you take a quick look?
-Rong
On Mon, Oct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59401
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo ---
Ugh, there's actually another problem with this thing, I think:
void other (void);
int test0 (void)
{
int x = ((int*)__builtin_thread_pointer ())[2];
other ();
return ((int*)__builtin_thread_pointer ())
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40958
--- Comment #18 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 33703
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33703&action=edit
Proposed patch to fix module equivalence duplicates
Here is a proposed fix for the problem relate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63528
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61106
--- Comment #22 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to lucier from comment #21)
> so I think it also affects -Wunused-result.
You can always retest the patches in the 4.8 and 4.9 branches and resubmit. And
ping until someone reviews it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63526
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #20 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #19)
> Nobody ever reviewed the changes :(
If precisely you cannot get someone to review your patches, the lack of
manpower in GCC is becoming truly desperate,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61106
lucier at math dot purdue.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lucier at math dot purdue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57622
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61106
--- Comment #20 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
*** Bug 57622 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57622
--- Comment #2 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
This was fixed by the patch for PR61106 and backported to 4.8 and 4.9, so it
should be closed as FIXED.
ocal/bin/g++
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr/local --enable-languages=c,c++ :
(reconfigured) ../configure --prefix=/usr/local --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20141013 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-std=c++14&#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #15 from StaffLeavers at arm dot com ---
tony.wang no longer works for ARM.
Your email will be forwarded to their line manager.
Please do not reply to this email.
If you need more information, please email real-postmas...@arm.com
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #14 from StaffLeavers at arm dot com ---
tony.wang no longer works for ARM.
Your email will be forwarded to their line manager.
Please do not reply to this email.
If you need more information, please email real-postmas...@arm.com
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|tony.wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #13 from StaffLeavers at arm dot com ---
tony.wang no longer works for ARM.
Your email will be forwarded to their line manager.
Please do not reply to this email.
If you need more information, please email real-postmas...@arm.com
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #12 from StaffLeavers at arm dot com ---
tony.wang no longer works for ARM.
Your email will be forwarded to their line manager.
Please do not reply to this email.
If you need more information, please email real-postmas...@arm.com
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #11 from Rainer Emrich ---
Dear friends this issue seems to become a never ending story.
In my understanding the person causing the issue is responsible for a fix.
There are several hints in this thread how to solve the issue. So plea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63527
Bug ID: 63527
Summary: [5 Regression] -fPIC generates more instructions
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63288
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka ---
The original testcase also fails with a very different set of flags:
$ gcc -Os -fno-if-conversion -fsched2-use-superblocks
--param=tracer-min-branch-probability=14 20140326-1.i
$ valgrind -q ./a.out
==8525==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47602
--- Comment #16 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Mon Oct 13 17:26:49 2014
New Revision: 216154
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216154&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/8340
PR middle-end/47602
PR rtl-optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55458
--- Comment #4 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Mon Oct 13 17:26:49 2014
New Revision: 216154
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216154&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/8340
PR middle-end/47602
PR rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8340
--- Comment #9 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Mon Oct 13 17:26:49 2014
New Revision: 216154
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216154&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/8340
PR middle-end/47602
PR rtl-optimization/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63526
--- Comment #2 from Dávid Éles ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Why do you think the member should be zero-initialized? Your constructor
> fails to initialize it.
I uses the default mechanism to initialization of members.
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63471
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63526
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Why do you think the member should be zero-initialized? Your constructor fails
to initialize it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63471
--- Comment #10 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Oct 13 17:02:35 2014
New Revision: 216152
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216152&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libfortran/63471
* config/pa/pa-hpux11.h (TARGET_OS_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63526
Bug ID: 63526
Summary: O1 O2 O3 optimization and inline template constructor
- uninitialized member
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63525
Bug ID: 63525
Summary: unnecessary reloads generated in loop
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63475
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> Created attachment 33699 [details]
> Updated patch
I have started native alpha bootstrap with the above attached patch.
The idea implemented the patch is as follows
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63475
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33695|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63442
--- Comment #2 from Jiong Wang ---
Have done a quick investigation, it's caused by the implementation of
TARGET_LIBGCC_CMP_RETURN_MODE
aarch64_libgcc_cmp_return_mode
AArch64 define the return mode to be SImode which seems broken gcc genric co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57622
lucier at math dot purdue.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lucier at math dot purdue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63523
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63514
--- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> The fortran frontend must do sth wrong here - it seems to mark the function
> pure itself and either fold or the FE even does the optimization (look at
> t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63464
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 33698
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33698&action=edit
bittest.c
Testcase I've been playing with.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #27 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Teresa Johnson from comment #24)
> Arg, looks very similar so maybe another instance of the duplicate
> threading is slipping through? My own lto profiled bootstrap succeeded
> with my patch. I will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #19 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Nobody ever reviewed the changes :(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63464
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 33697
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33697&action=edit
gcc5-pr63464.patch
WIP patch. What is missing:
1) the optimize_range_tests_to_bit_test call should be guarded
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57997
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse ---
I'd rather work on improving the warnings so we can tell the user how bad his
code is, but in case, we had a similar request in GMP, a code that was inspired
by libstdc++ valarray:
https://gmplib.org/list-arch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63442
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57997
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #8 from Jonath
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60519
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57740
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Since r213922 pthread_create should get linked in, but apparently not
pthread_join.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62102
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
Since this testcase also involves VLA, can you, please, test if the patch for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62127
(now in mainline) fixes the problem?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62127
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62127
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Oct 13 14:43:24 2014
New Revision: 216150
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216150&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/62127
* g++.dg/torture/pr62127.C: New testca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57403
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
--- Comment #20 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #19)
>
> No I didn't. That was a patch for PR 63260. Sorry for the noise.
Now I have. For both '-m4 -ml' and '-m4 -mb' there are a few new failures:
FAIL: gcc.dg/attr-i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63376
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63524
Bug ID: 63524
Summary: FAIL:
27_io/basic_ostream/inserters_arithmetic/char/hexfloat
.cc (test for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63379
clyon at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56109
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41628
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57350
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57350
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Oct 13 14:08:44 2014
New Revision: 216149
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216149&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/57350
* include/std/memory (align): Do not adjust c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63260
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #4)
> If the failures on my side go away after that, I'll commit
> the patch from comment #2, OK?
Please go ahead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63496
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60664
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|diagnostic |
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63512
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63514
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60664
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63523
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
