https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64783
Bug ID: 64783
Summary: -march=armv8.1-a should be supported
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64784
Bug ID: 64784
Summary: -march=native should be supported
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64782
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||64784
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64782
Bug ID: 64782
Summary: -mcpu=native should be supported on aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64781
Bug ID: 64781
Summary: regex out-of-range submatches should represent an
unmatched sub-expression
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64780
Bug ID: 64780
Summary: toplevel configure should reject jit as a language if
--enable-host-shared is not supplied
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64757
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The following is sufficient to get rid of the ICE:
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c(Revision 220
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64770
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Fixed on trunk, closing.
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64770
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64770
--- Comment #2 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Sat Jan 24 21:52:34 2015
New Revision: 220086
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220086&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libfortran/64770 Segfault when trying to open existing file with
status=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64770
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32834
Bug 32834 depends on bug 56867, which changed state.
Bug 56867 Summary: Missing temporary with string array assignment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56867
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56867
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56867
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Jan 24 21:30:15 2015
New Revision: 220085
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220085&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-24 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/56867
* trans-array.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52482
--- Comment #10 from venture37 at gmail dot com ---
G4 with a 32bit ppc7450 CPU, running OS X Tiger 10.4.11 with Xcode 2.5 (GCC
4.0.1)
Cloned git repo & configured source
Configured it with the following flags (taken from config.log)
./configure
x86_64-apple-darwin14.1.0/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/11.exe.dSYM/Contents/Resources/DWARF/11.exe...done.
done.
(gdb) break main
Breakpoint 1 at 0x3860: file
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc50-5.0.0-1000/gcc-5-20150124/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/22_locale/num_get/get/char/11.cc,
line 104.
(gdb) r
Starting program:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64776
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64598
--- Comment #10 from hayder.alkhalissi at googlemail dot com ---
Guys, I still need your help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49213
--- Comment #23 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The ICE on comment 9 does not occur any more with current trunk:
>
> gcc-Version 5.0.0 20150124 (experimental) [trunk revision 220084] (GCC)
Confirmed. I get the ICE with r219763 (20
-fdiagnostics-color=never -fipa-icf
-fdump-ipa-icf -o pr64307.s
Process 86458 launched:
'/sw/src/fink.build/gcc50-5.0.0-1000/darwin_objdir/gcc/cc1' (x86_64)
GNU C11 (GCC) version 5.0.0 20150124 (experimental) (x86_64-apple-darwin14.1.0)
compiled by GNU C version 5.0.0 20150124 (experime
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49213
--- Comment #22 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The ICE on comment 9 does not occur any more with current trunk:
gcc-Version 5.0.0 20150124 (experimental) [trunk revision 220084] (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64779
Bug ID: 64779
Summary: libffi/src/x86/sysv.S:864: Error: junk at end of line,
first unrecognized character is `@'
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64768
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64768
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> typedef int A[];
> struct { int i; A a; } a;
This is valid code for C99 and above / gnu89 (i.e., it's valid to use a
typedef when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64778
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64778
Bug ID: 64778
Summary: ICE on invalid code on x86_64-linux-gnu: tree check:
expected class ‘type’, have ‘exceptional’ (error_mark)
in create_tmp_from_val, at gimplify.c:491
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64777
Bug ID: 64777
Summary: CO_BROADCAST: Finalization/dealloc of alloc components
missing
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64311
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Still present at r220081.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64776
Bug ID: 64776
Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/pr64307.c (internal compiler error)
on x86_64-apple-darwin14
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64775
Bug ID: 64775
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/ipa/pr64612.C scan-assembler
_ZN5QListI7QStringED1Ev on x86_64-apple-darwin14
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49213
--- Comment #21 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The ICE for the test in comment 8 is now handled by PR64757.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64773
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64774
Bug ID: 64774
Summary: [ARM/thumb] missed optimization: pc relative ldr used
when constant can be derived from register
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64767
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, although C says '\0' has type int the compiler can still distinguish the
token '\0' from 0 during compilation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64773
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Summary|[F2008]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64767
--- Comment #3 from Ulf Magnusson ---
clang also generates a warning for C programs with void *a = '\0' by the way,
so it seems to be able to look at the form of the integral constant there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64773
Bug ID: 64773
Summary: [F2008]
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57023
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32834
Bug 32834 depends on bug 57023, which changed state.
Bug 57023 Summary: [4.8 Regression] Not packing arrays with changing variable
used for size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57023
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57023
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Jan 24 15:20:56 2015
New Revision: 220082
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220082&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-24 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/5702
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64767
--- Comment #2 from Ulf Magnusson ---
Looks like -Wnon-literal-null-conversion is intended to warn for the comparison
case too, though it doesn't seem to be implemented yet as of clang 3.4:
http://llvm.org/klaus/clang/commit/50800fc551ac6b8a95cca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64771
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
Created attachment 34567
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34567&action=edit
Draft patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64771
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64755
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Comment on attachment 34556
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34556
They are 3 files bug.cpp (contain the code to compile), bug.O1 and bug.O2
(contain the assembly code generated by g++)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64772
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64771
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
*** Bug 64772 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64767
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64759
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(well, apart from not checking if the input operation failed ;-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64771
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Dup of 64772.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64759
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Lakshay Garg from comment #2)
> It makes sense to compare against 0 but not 0.0
Huh? Why not?
This code seems perfectly reasonable to me:
double divisor;
std::cin >> divisor;
if (!divisor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64772
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Known to w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64772
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.0 |4.9.4
Summary|[5 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64758
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64771
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64688
--- Comment #11 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 34566
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34566&action=edit
reduced testcase
trippels@gcc20 % g++ -c -O3 -std=c++11 -march=westmere performance.ii
performance.ii: I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64772
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
Thread model: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20150124 (experimental) (GCC)
Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64771
Bug ID: 64771
Summary: ICE on invalid around check_dummy_characteristics /
gfc_zero_size_array
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64678
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52933
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sat Jan 24 13:04:53 2015
New Revision: 220081
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220081&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/49263
PR target/53987
PR target/64345
PR tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #85 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sat Jan 24 13:04:53 2015
New Revision: 220081
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220081&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/49263
PR target/53987
PR target/64345
PR ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54236
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sat Jan 24 13:04:53 2015
New Revision: 220081
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220081&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/49263
PR target/53987
PR target/64345
PR ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59533
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sat Jan 24 13:04:53 2015
New Revision: 220081
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220081&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/49263
PR target/53987
PR target/64345
PR tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64345
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sat Jan 24 13:04:53 2015
New Revision: 220081
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220081&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/49263
PR target/53987
PR target/64345
PR tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53987
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sat Jan 24 13:04:53 2015
New Revision: 220081
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220081&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/49263
PR target/53987
PR target/64345
PR ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49263
--- Comment #25 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sat Jan 24 13:04:53 2015
New Revision: 220081
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220081&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/49263
PR target/53987
PR target/64345
PR ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57023
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Jan 24 12:50:51 2015
New Revision: 220080
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220080&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-24 Thomas Koenig
Backport from trunk
PR fortran/5702
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64757
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #4)
> Actually pr49213 is a collection of different bugs, one being this PR.
Right. Exactly for this reason I want to keep it separate. Makes it much
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64342
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
avx512f-kandnw-1.c fails with -fpic, because there's no kandnw instruction in
the .s file. In postreload, it's still there:
...
(insn 17 40 39 2 (parallel [
(set (reg:HI 0 ax [105])
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64757
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> It it certainly related, but I'm not sure it is an exact duplicate.
> In particular the above PR has quite a history and includes several
> test cases. Let's keep it separate for now.
I disagree. AF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64757
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|internal compiler error: in |[5 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64757
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64678
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Indeed, that's the easy workaround. I'd have thought the obvious definition
> for the single multi-associate statement would be to be a shortcut exactly
> equivalent to nested associates.
In my mind
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64678
--- Comment #3 from Antony Lewis ---
Indeed, that's the easy workaround. I'd have thought the obvious definition for
the single multi-associate statement would be to be a shortcut exactly
equivalent to nested associates.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49213
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mike at rilee dot net
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64692
--- Comment #2 from Antony Lewis ---
May be same/related to http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60322 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64757
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64768
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64692
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64342
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64770
Bug ID: 64770
Summary: [5 Regression] Segmentation fault when opening a file
with status="new" and the file exists.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64769
Bug ID: 64769
Summary: ICE: tree check: expected integer_cst, have parm_decl
in simd_clone_clauses_extract, at omp-low.c:12503 with
-fopenmp-simd
Product: gcc
Ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64768
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
And even better:
typedef int A[];
struct { int i; A a; } a;
Clang accepts the code, we say (released compiler):
ice2.c:2:19: error: array size missing in ‘a’
struct { int i; A a; } a;
^
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64342
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64688
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #8)
> Unfortunately not. The boost testsuite still shows the same issue
> on the same file.
The fix depends on the ability of IRA to push the register to memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64766
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64688
--- Comment #9 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 34563
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34563&action=edit
unreduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64768
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
typedef int A[];
struct { A a; }
ICEs as well (right brace added).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64688
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64768
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64768
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64768
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.5
Summary|internal compil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64768
Bug ID: 64768
Summary: internal compiler error: tree check: expected tree
that contains ‘decl with RTL’ structure, have
‘field_decl’ in set_decl_rtl, at emit-rtl.c:1274
Prod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64767
Bug ID: 64767
Summary: Could GCC warn when a pointer is compared against
'\0'?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64766
Bug ID: 64766
Summary: internal compiler error: tree check: expected block,
have error_mark in lower_function_body, at
gimple-low.c:122
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64764
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r219739.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60922
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60922
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Sat Jan 24 10:11:52 2015
New Revision: 220078
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220078&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-24 Janus Weil
Backport from mainline
PR for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64764
Bug ID: 64764
Summary: internal compiler error: in is_value_included_in, at
tree-ssa-uninit.c:942
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64764
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
Summary|internal compiler
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
