https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Peslyak ---
(In reply to Alexander Peslyak from comment #8)
> $ gcc -S -Wall -O2 -funroll-loops testcase.c
> testcase.c: In function 'DES_std_set_key':
> testcase.c:14:17: warning: array subscript is above array bou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432
--- Comment #21 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Created attachment 34798
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34798&action=edit
Full Patch
This patch attempts to do it all. I have not tested the mingw/cygwin side of
it.
Any testing/comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51017
--- Comment #19 from Alexander Peslyak ---
(In reply to Alexander Peslyak from comment #17)
> Should we create a new bug for the unnecessary and non-optional use of
> unaligned load instructions for source code like this, or is this considered
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247
--- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-17, at 5:16 PM, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> HPPA isn't a primary architecture, adjusting priority
Why? P1 was set by Richard, a release maintainer, and the regression was
introdu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124
Alexander Peslyak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||solar-gcc at openwall dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51017
--- Comment #18 from Alexander Peslyak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> Note that we have to use movups because DES_bs_all is not aligned as seen
> from DES_bs_b.c (it's defined in DES_bs.c and only there annotated with
> CC_CA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51017
--- Comment #17 from Alexander Peslyak ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #16)
> I'm completely confused now as to what the original regression was reported
> against.
I'm sorry, I should have re-read my original description of the reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #30 from Jan Hubicka ---
>
> I uploaded a patch to check all aliases for parameter alignments. It
> fixes eon on x32.
Thanks for looking into this. The bug is however a bit earlier. The
propagation
stage should never put anything
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #29 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 34797
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34797&action=edit
A reorg patch
This patch should be a no-op. But it changes parameter
alignments for _ZmlRK10ggSpectrumS1_. It look
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65096
--- Comment #1 from Cyril Bur ---
Created attachment 34796
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34796&action=edit
Preprocessed version of the simple test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65096
Bug ID: 65096
Summary: Illegal memory access beyond packed struct ARCH: ppc64
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #28 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #26)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #24)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #18)
> > > There are
> > >
> > > ;; Function operator* (_ZmlRK10ggSpectrumS1_, funcdef_no=48,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #27 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 34794
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34794&action=edit
A patch
We should check all aliases for parameter alignments.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62247
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59375
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59375
--- Comment #9 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #8)
> Adrian, maybe you can provide some comments regarding this issue?
Well, yes. gcc-4.8 builds fine on native sh4 these days so it appears to have
been fixe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #26 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #24)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #18)
> > There are
> >
> > ;; Function operator* (_ZmlRK10ggSpectrumS1_, funcdef_no=48, decl_uid=4292,
> > cgraph_uid=5, symbol_order=465
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59375
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64793
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64793
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Tue Feb 17 21:08:24 2015
New Revision: 220772
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220772&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/64793
* config/sh/sh.md (cbranch define_delay): Set
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65012
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu ---
IPA dump uses node->name () instead of node->asm_name ().
node->name () is kind of useless here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64506
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Fixed on trunk, any other cases identified, please let me know. I will hold
this open for a while just in case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62630
Mircea Namolaru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mircea.namolaru at inria dot fr
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
--- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
WRT the patch in c#12, it looks reasonable for the same reasons as we avoid
propagating in 23821. I can confirm that it prevents the unwanted cprop into
array reference. By DOM2 we have the following arr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64033
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65095
Bug ID: 65095
Summary: Adapt OpenMP diagnostic messages for OpenACC
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openacc
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #24 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #18)
> There are
>
> ;; Function operator* (_ZmlRK10ggSpectrumS1_, funcdef_no=48, decl_uid=4292,
> cgraph_uid=5, symbol_order=46520)
>
> Modification phase of node operator*/465
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62251
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65094
Bug ID: 65094
Summary: An initializer_list cannot be copied with brace syntax
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #20)
> The -fipa-cp-alignment patch looks like a resonable idea. These days you
> want to check opt_for_fn (decl, flag_ipa_cp_alignment). Ok with that change
> and documentat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61949
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64033
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 34793
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34793&action=edit
Dumps from -fdump-ipa-cp-details
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #21 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #19)
> HJ, how do I configure build an x32 gcc? I have working x32 debian
> chroot environment but building gcc fails with:
I suggest you use Ubuntu 14.04 or newer.
> che
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #20 from Jan Hubicka ---
H.J. Can you, please attach the full .cp dump file and release_ssa dump of the
corresponding functions?
The -fipa-cp-alignment patch looks like a resonable idea. These days you want
to check opt_for_fn (decl,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65093
Bug ID: 65093
Summary: [5 Regression]
26_numerics/random/binomial_distribution/operators/val
ues.cc times out
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #19 from Martin Jambor ---
HJ, how do I configure build an x32 gcc? I have working x32 debian
chroot environment but building gcc fails with:
checking for int64_t underlying type... long long
configure: error: error verifying int64_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu ---
There are
;; Function operator* (_ZmlRK10ggSpectrumS1_, funcdef_no=48, decl_uid=4292,
cgraph_uid=5, symbol_order=46520)
Modification phase of node operator*/46520
Adjusting alignment of param 1 to 16, misalign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65092
Bug ID: 65092
Summary: Container adaptors missing allocator-extended
constructors
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63501
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65090
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65084
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
It's related. There's enough of these BZs, that it might make sense to create
a meta-but to track all of them. I'm particularly interested in the narrowing
case as replacement of shorten_binary_op/shorten_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65074
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34791|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 34791
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34791&action=edit
A patch to add -fipa-cp-alignment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53348
--- Comment #14 from Daniel Richard G. ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #13)
> The GCC build process has requirements, including SVR4/POSIX awk. GCC works
> on a wide variety of systems, but needs to have a base set of requirements
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65028
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #14)
> Thanks for looking into that!
> >
> > Why do we think rPrimary is 16-byte aligned when it is only 8-byte aligned?
>
> ipa-cp newly does alignment propagation. You ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65090
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson ---
I can reproduce the wrong-code with g++ 4.7.4 on sparc64-linux, but g++ 4.8.4
and 5 (current trunk) work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
On 02/17/15 02:44, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
>
> --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2015, law at redhat dot com wr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65084
howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at bromo dot med
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65091
Bug ID: 65091
Summary: decltype(~arg) fails for template functions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65090
Bug ID: 65090
Summary: GCC produces instruction with bad alignment on SPARC
when using -O
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-dom.c
===
--- gcc/tree-ssa-dom.c (revision 220755)
+++ gcc/tree-ssa-dom.c (working copy)
@@ -2291,11 +2291,16 @@ cprop_o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53348
--- Comment #13 from David Edelsohn ---
The GCC build process has requirements, including SVR4/POSIX awk. GCC works on
a wide variety of systems, but needs to have a base set of requirements and
limit accommodation to prevent things from getting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48009
--- Comment #17 from David Edelsohn ---
Sorry, I am trying to separate out the patches. It should have been stdlib.h
not inttypes.h. I corrected the commit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|diagnostic |
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #19 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I see a call to runtime.Callers in Profile.Add in
libgo/go/runtime/pprof/pprof.go. If the PC values in question do not come from
there, where do they come from?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65085
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Feb 17 12:44:26 2015
New Revision: 220758
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220758&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65085
* include/bits/basic_string.h (basic_string(ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65085
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65083
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Presumably libatomic should get trivial wrappers for the macros, and
stdatomic.h should add corresponding function declarations.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #18 from Dominik Vogt ---
Created attachment 34788
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34788&action=edit
Different fix
How about this patch to the callback() function in go-callers.c to modify the
incoming pc. The a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65063
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
The tail loop ends up with completely off initial conditions because its
values are computed before pcom transform which ends up releasing the
SSA names used therein. Then unrolling assigns some random new
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64387
--- Comment #5 from tocarip at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tocarip
Date: Tue Feb 17 11:41:55 2015
New Revision: 220756
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220756&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2015-01-14 Ilya Tocar
PR target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65064
--- Comment #14 from Andreas Schwab ---
I've accidentally tested with both patches applied, will try again with only
the first one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #17 from Dominik Vogt ---
runtime.Callers is not called in this test case, so changing it won't help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55701
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
I wonder where the main _int_malloc load comes from.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62630
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
I think we have to XFAIL the testcase - the graphite folks seem to be gone
again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64452
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ra |
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65084
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65081
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64452
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
Created attachment 34787
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34787&action=edit
Tentative patch for 5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65081
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|6.0 |5.0
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64387
--- Comment #4 from tocarip at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: tocarip
Date: Tue Feb 17 10:35:12 2015
New Revision: 220755
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220755&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2015-01-14 Ilya Tocar
PR target
Alexander Klimov ---
GDB can now be build with GCC 5.0.0 20150217 even if the GDB patch is undone:
--- a/gdb/symfile.c
+++ b/gdb/symfile.c
@@ -3441,7 +3441,7 @@ static void
unmap_overlay_command (char *args, int from_tty)
{
struct objfile *objfile;
- struct obj_section *sec = NULL;
+ struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65087
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65089
Bug ID: 65089
Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/io_real_boz(2|_[45]).f90 when tested
with -fsanitize=address
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65085
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65077
--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015, anders.blomdell at control dot lth.se wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65077
>
> --- Comment #15 from anders.blomdell at control dot lth.se ---
> (In re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65081
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217
>
> --- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Yes, any
> particular choice has the potential
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59198
--- Comment #19 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The test in comment 0 compiles with revision r172608 (2011-04-17), but r173450
(2011-05-05) gives the ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65081
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51017
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Alexander Peslyak from comment #14)
> For completeness, here are the results for 4.7.x, 4.8.x, and 4.9.0:
>
> 4.7.0o - 2142K c/s, 29692 bytes, 1267 movaps, 465 movups
> 4.7.0h - 2823K c/s, 296
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51017
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Alexander Peslyak from comment #12)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11)
> > I wonder if you could share the exact CPU type you are using?
>
> This is on (dual) Xeon E5420 (using on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64935
--- Comment #15 from Maxim Kuvyrkov ---
Working right now.
I'm trying a second approach to fixing this problem more cleanly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64935
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65088
Bug ID: 65088
Summary: Does GCC has load/store widening phase?
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65087
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65087
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Honza's suggested change works fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65064
--- Comment #13 from Andreas Schwab ---
This has the same problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65084
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65087
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65087
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 34786
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34786&action=edit
V491
Can you please try the change suggested by Honza, i.e. only copy over section
if it was user provided (if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65075
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65075
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 17 08:25:30 2015
New Revision: 220748
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220748&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65075
* constexpr.c (check_constexpr_bind_expr_vars): Allow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65087
Bug ID: 65087
Summary: [5 Regression] r220742 causes: ICE:
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ipa
A
98 matches
Mail list logo
