https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64870
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64123
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64871
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64870
--- Comment #4 from Conrad ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #3)
>
> Except when there is an = sign, where you expect the right hand side to be
> evaluated before the left? And maybe a few other cases?
For iostreams which use the << ope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64870
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Conrad from comment #2)
> Notwithstanding loopholes in C++ legalese,
No loopholes, this was a deliberate choice in C.
> the expected result is to
> evaluate things left to right, just like readin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64858
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64870
--- Comment #2 from Conrad ---
Notwithstanding loopholes in C++ legalese, the expected result is to evaluate
things left to right, just like reading words and sentences.
clang produces the least surprising result. With gcc we end up with "wtf?"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64871
Bug ID: 64871
Summary: inline assembly neon
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #31 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So cand_value_at (loop, cand, use->stmt, desc->niter, &bnd) with arguments as
below:
cand->iv->base:
(unsigned long) ((char *) &A + (sizetype) i_6(D))
cand->iv->step:
0xFFF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64580
--- Comment #12 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Fixed for gcc-5. Many thanks.
I'll leave this bug open for possible backports.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64870
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64870
Bug ID: 64870
Summary: value not set via reference
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64580
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Fri Jan 30 05:35:52 2015
New Revision: 220272
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220272&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/64580
* config.rs6000/rs6000.c (compute_vrsave_ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64123
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xur at google dot com
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64123
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
Note that -fno-ipa-icf does not seem to solve the crash for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64123
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
OK,
I get:
(gdb) bt
#0 _IO_fread (buf=0x77fe6740 <__gcov_var+32>, size=size@entry=1,
count=count@entry=4096, fp=0x0) at iofread.c:43
#1 0x77fe1719 in gcov_read_words (words=words@entry=2) at
../..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64365
--- Comment #13 from Brooks Moses ---
FWIW, if you haven't done the 4.9 backport yet, this is what I ended up with.
I'm not sure it's optimal, but it seems to work.
Index: gcc/tree-data-ref.c
===
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63386
Damiano changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmonax at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64869
Bug ID: 64869
Summary: "use all type" clause is ineffective
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ada
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61880
--- Comment #7 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Jan 30 00:36:14 2015
New Revision: 220269
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220269&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
compiler: Fix -fgo-prefix handling.
There was bug in the fix for P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61880
--- Comment #6 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Fri Jan 30 00:35:44 2015
New Revision: 220268
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220268&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
compiler: Fix -fgo-prefix handling.
There was bug in the fix for P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64123
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2014-12-02 00:00:00 |2015-1-29
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64803
--- Comment #6 from Dodji Seketeli ---
Created attachment 34622
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34622&action=edit
Refined candidate fix patch with regression test and cover letter
I have successfully tested this refined patc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64854
--- Comment #6 from Harald Anlauf ---
(In reply to Lorenz Hüdepohl from comment #4)
> > The right way to fix the problem is to fix the program
> > by using an appropriate programming style. Writing
> >
> > real:: a(n1:) ! not: real :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64854
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Note that the error is detected if the code is compiled with
-fsanitize=address. And IMO the right way to use the array in a 'contains' is
a(:) (for which -fcheck=bounds works).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64855
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64855
--- Comment #7 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mrs
Date: Thu Jan 29 22:09:16 2015
New Revision: 220264
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220264&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-29 Jack Howarth
PR libffi/64855
* testsuite/lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64862
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Note also that gcc.dg/format tests are run both with and without -DWIDE -
the intent there is that wide string formats should be tested, when
supported, with essentially the same tests as n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47781
--- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Thu, 29 Jan 2015, tromey at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> E.g., firefox has a logging printf that accepts "%hs" to print char16_t*
> strings. This extension means that printf checking can't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64855
--- Comment #6 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
Patch posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg02664.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49551
Prathamesh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bilbotheelffriend at gmail dot
com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64855
--- Comment #5 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
Confirmed on x86_64-apple-darwin14 that...
Index: libffi/testsuite/lib/libffi.exp
===
--- libffi/testsuite/lib/libffi.exp(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64814
--- Comment #9 from Anquietas ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> N.B. libc++ changed its copy_n with
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20110221/039404.
> html and then libstdc++ did the same in PR 5011
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64717
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64709
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64709
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Jan 29 21:02:21 2015
New Revision: 220263
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220263&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/64709
* c-typeck.c (pop_init_level): If constructor_elemen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64351
emsr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64854
--- Comment #4 from Lorenz Hüdepohl ---
> The right way to fix the problem is to fix the program
> by using an appropriate programming style. Writing
>
> real:: a(n1:) ! not: real :: a(n1:n2)
>
> one gets the expected check
I realiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867
--- Comment #4 from Tom Tromey ---
Thanks, I'll give it a try.
Here's my test case FWIW and a short demo showing what clang does:
pokyo. cat q.cc
#include
class ConstUTF8CharsZ
{
const char *mData;
public:
ConstUTF8CharsZ() : mData
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64717
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 29 20:40:07 2015
New Revision: 220262
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220262&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64717
* cp-ubsan.c (cp_ubsan_instrument_vptr): Don't wrap v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64868
Bug ID: 64868
Summary: C front-end rejects valid syntax.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64854
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64365
--- Comment #12 from Brooks Moses ---
Thanks, Richard! It looks like I'll need to backport this to our
google/gcc-4_9 branch before that happens; any chance you already have a
version of this patch that works with 4.9? The wide_int pieces don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64047
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64159
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Passing a non-POD to a varargs function is conditionally-supported, with
implementation-defined semantics. In GCC 5 it's supported and treated like
normal pass-by-value. You can get a diagnostic about it wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Jason informs me it's now a warning enabled by -Wconditionally-supported
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>From https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/changes.html:
Diagnostics that used to complain about passing non-POD types to ... or jumping
past the declaration of a non-POD variable now check for triviality rather than
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64862
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||38308
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64862
--- Comment #2 from Tom Tromey ---
Naturally my example was wrong.
Sorry about that. But gcc still doesn't handle it:
#include
#include
extern void p (const char16_t *fmt, ...)
__attribute__((format (__printf__, 1, 2)));
void f()
{
p (u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64862
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
glibc has this in :
extern int wprintf (const wchar_t *__restrict __format, ...)
/* __attribute__ ((__format__ (__wprintf__, 1, 2))) */;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64864
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867
Bug ID: 64867
Summary: warning for passing non-POD to varargs function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64864
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The line markers allows the compiler to properly distinguish between what
tokens come from where, e.g. system headers vs. normal headers (should we warn
about issues in there if -Wsystem-headers is not used a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64717
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64864
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> I really think this is porting_to.html material, rather than a bug report.
I agree that the issue is borderline. Feel free to close this bug.
What is gain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64866
Bug ID: 64866
Summary: Lost visibility of package Interfaces after task or PO
declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64865
Bug ID: 64865
Summary: std::allocator::construct/destroy not called for
specialization of std::allocator
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64864
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I really think this is porting_to.html material, rather than a bug report.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64864
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64864
Bug ID: 64864
Summary: [5 Regression] preprocessor linemarkers break
configure checks
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64855
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #2)
> I apologize for my mis-diagnosis earlier. These tests are not
> expected to pass on Darwin at present. Disabling them in the
> testsuite is the best thing to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64521
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64844
--- Comment #7 from Chris Jones ---
Confirmed fixed at TOT. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64863
Bug ID: 64863
Summary: error for use of members of a forward declared enum is
poor
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64862
Bug ID: 64862
Summary: printf attribute should accept other string types
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64521
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jan 29 16:47:32 2015
New Revision: 220255
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220255&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64521
* repo.c (repo_emit_p): It's OK for a clone to be ext
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47781
Tom Tromey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64855
--- Comment #3 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
FYI, I reported struct5.exe execution failures upstream earlier in the
thread...
https://sourceware.org/ml/libffi-discuss/2015/msg00019.html
https://sourceware.org/ml/libffi-discuss/2015/msg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64855
--- Comment #2 from Richard Henderson ---
I apologize for my mis-diagnosis earlier. These tests are not
expected to pass on Darwin at present. Disabling them in the
testsuite is the best thing to do for now.
Long term, someone needs to figure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64780
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Jan 29 16:25:14 2015
New Revision: 220253
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220253&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR jit/64780: configure: --enable-host-shared and the jit
ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64861
Bug ID: 64861
Summary: Possible wrong code with BIND(C) and PRIVATE +
slightly bogus warning
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49508
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49508
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jan 29 16:10:08 2015
New Revision: 220252
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220252&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/49508
* semantics.c (finish_return_stmt): Suppress -Wreturn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64521
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jan 29 16:09:56 2015
New Revision: 220251
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220251&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64521
* repo.c (repo_emit_p): It's OK for a clone to be ext
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64810
--- Comment #19 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to ramana.radhakrish...@arm.com from comment #18)
[...snip...]
> Yes this value is bogus as are the other .cpu values - the assembler
> output suggests to me that the configure time options aren't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64670
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
This seems like a bug in the user's code, not the compiler. If the class is
defined in a header with #pragma interface, there needs to be a matching
#pragma implementation somewhere to cause the typeinfo and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64394
Jana Saout changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jana at saout dot de
--- Comment #1 from Ja
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49508
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64860
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||lto, wrong-code
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64860
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
t=x86_64-suse-linux
Thread model: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20150129 (experimental) (SUSE Linux)
gcc-4.8.3 and 4.9.2 compile and link the same code just fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64717
--- Comment #2 from Gert-jan Los ---
Created attachment 34616
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34616&action=edit
test case with virtual base class
version: gcc version 5.0.0 20150128 (experimental) (GCC)
options: -O -fsanitiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64717
Gert-jan Los changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerrit.los at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49508
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64859
Bug ID: 64859
Summary: -Wabi-tag is not documented
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64858
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64839
--- Comment #1 from Harald van Dijk ---
FWIW, libsanitizer builds just fine if the rpc references are forcibly removed,
like so:
--- a/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cc
+++ b/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61798
--- Comment #3 from Manuel Kessler ---
Thank you both for trying to help.
@Andrew: This is on x86_64, running kernel 3.1.0 on an (admittedly old)
openSUSE 11.4.
@Jakub: You are probably right, but the question remains, how a SIGPROF
(probably
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60925
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15184
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15184
--- Comment #32 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Jan 29 14:30:45 2015
New Revision: 220249
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220249&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/15184
* combine.c (try_combine): If I0 is a memory load
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51153
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64858
Bug ID: 64858
Summary: [5 Regression] Libreoffice build failure caused by ICF
crash
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64746
--- Comment #3 from ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu Jan 29 13:52:28 2015
New Revision: 220248
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220248&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR tree-optimization/64746
* tree-if-conv.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64853
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 29 13:50:37 2015
New Revision: 220247
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220247&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-29 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/64853
* tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64853
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64844
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64844
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 29 12:53:39 2015
New Revision: 220244
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220244&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-29 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/64844
* tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64809
--- Comment #10 from ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu Jan 29 12:20:55 2015
New Revision: 220241
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220241&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/
PR middle-end/64809
* gcc.dg/pr
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
