https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #28 from Alan Modra ---
Created attachment 35024
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35024&action=edit
modified testcase without bswap optimization
This modified testcase avoids triggering the bswap optimization but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|2015-03-10 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65350
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65352
--- Comment #3 from TC ---
Depends on how http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2443 comes out in
LEWG, it might be a good idea to go with a solution that maintains the
`constexpr`-ness so that it doesn't have to be redone again if the c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
Honggyu Kim changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.9.2
--- Comment #9 from Honggyu Kim ---
eck
{
using default_check::check; // #1
using type = decltype(check(0));
};
int main() {}
gcc HEAD 5.0.0 20150312 (experimental) reports
prog.cc:9:31: error: expected primary-expression before 'void'
using type = decltype(check(0));
^
prog.cc:9:31: er
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #8 from Honggyu Kim ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #6)
> (In reply to Honggyu Kim from comment #4)
>
> > Can I add this testcase with your modification as my first gcc contribution?
> > :)
>
> Sure, just attach it t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65355
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hubicka at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65394
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Yep, a testsuite issue - we now get a mismatch earlier because the non-volatile
case turns out to be pure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65408
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65269
--- Comment #5 from GK ---
Confirming that origin library and the gcc (c-concepts) built with no errors.
make test
1 test failed out of 60
58 - test_range_algo_none_of (OTHER_FAULT)
seems expected
It(none_of.cpp) fails because the test i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65323
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65323
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Mar 12 23:55:49 2015
New Revision: 221402
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221402&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-12 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/65323
* decl.c (che
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65413
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Actually, similarly inefficient code is generated even for aggregates that do
fit into a register. The trigger appears to be that the aggregate not take up
an even multiple of a register. For example, return
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: doko at gcc dot gnu.org
seen with r221296
https://launchpadlibrarian.net/200077696/buildlog_ubuntu-vivid-arm64.gcc-5_5-20150312-1ubuntu11_BUILDING.txt.gz
make[6]: Leaving directory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65413
Bug ID: 65413
Summary: inefficient code returning aggregates on powepc64le
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65412
Bug ID: 65412
Summary: missing control flow optimisation
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65376
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Works for me, I don;t know what I was doing incorrect.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65269
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Sutton ---
> Seems to me that return requires() as yet does not do "type requirement"
> as mentioned in n3701.pdf, pg 6
I needed to push the relevant changes to Origin, which I just did.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65411
Bug ID: 65411
Summary: Unsafe(?) repeated call to fclose() in
config/io/basic_file_stdio.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65409
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Summ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64847
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65410
Bug ID: 65410
Summary: "Short local string array" optimization doesn't happen
if string has NULs
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #54 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I assume that it works on x86 because subtracting 1 from PC in libbacktrace,
and then subtracting 1 again in runtime/pprof/pprof.go, still gives you a PC
within the call instruction. On PPC, subtracting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65269
--- Comment #3 from GK ---
built
commit e90da6bc78cf84e8b11680171aba9a58abc68fb1
2015-03-03 Andrew Sutton
origin compile error shifts to
origin/core/concepts.hpp
error: expected primary-expression before ‘;’ token
Line 63
//
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65409
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #53 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
I was taking the approach of only fixing what was known to be broken, and I was
not aware that this was broken on other platforms. Minimizing risk. I can
change it for all platforms but these test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65409
Bug ID: 65409
Summary: ICE in store_field
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, on my version of the testcase with r210843 -O3 -mcpu=power8 there are like
49
32 bit load in host endianness found at: _105 = MEM[(const unsigned char
*)load_src_25];
occurrences, so I've added a quick h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59683
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60898
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65408
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65408
Bug ID: 65408
Summary: powerpc64 function argument passing may access invalid
memory
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65407
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34010
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65407
Bug ID: 65407
Summary: Extra mask register move in
gcc.target/i386/avx512f-kandnw-1.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65406
Bug ID: 65406
Summary: Wrong namespace in error message for missing
"typename" in lambda parameter type list
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60898
--- Comment #25 from Mikael Morin ---
Author: mikael
Date: Thu Mar 12 17:26:17 2015
New Revision: 221400
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221400&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/60898
fortran/
* resolve.c (resolve_symbol): Check tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65405
Bug ID: 65405
Summary: improve locations of diagnostics in c-pragma.c
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65403
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
In fact, this version seems much more straightforward:
Index: opts-global.c
===
--- opts-global.c (revision 221118)
+++ opts-global
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65403
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
For harmonizing how -Wno-X and -Wno-error=X work, it is a bit more convoluted.
This mostly works:
Index: opts-global.c
===
--- opts-globa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65337
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64172
--- Comment #16 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Vlad,
are you planning a 4.9 backport ?
Ramana
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64916
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.0 |---
--- Comment #4 from Ramana Ra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65404
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65404
--- Comment #5 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Thu Mar 12 16:41:28 2015
New Revision: 221396
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221396&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR go/65404
go/build: cgo works on linux/pcc.
Modified:
tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #25 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Jakub's reduced- and the unreduced testcase also started to fail
with r210843.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65404
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
OK, found it. Thanks. Will send patch shortly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65404
Stéphane Graber changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stgraber at stgraber dot org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65045
--- Comment #4 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Tobias,
Thanks. I found one or two similar testcases that still fail. As soon
as I find some time, I will submit a complete fix.
How was the sailing in Scotland?
Paul
On 12 March
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65403
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60898
--- Comment #24 from Mikael Morin ---
Author: mikael
Date: Thu Mar 12 16:08:48 2015
New Revision: 221395
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221395&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/60898
fortran/
* resolve.c (resolve_symbol): Check tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65404
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose ---
see http://paste.ubuntu.com/10586128/
afaics it is both running the go tool from GCC 5. no other go tool is
installed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63491
--- Comment #10 from Peter Bergner ---
Strange, this fails with my builds on our internal POWER8 box, but doesn't with
my build on the external gcc112 POWER8 compile farm system. I'll try and track
down what the difference is and see if I can re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65404
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
There is nothing in the cgo tool which would cause this error.
When the command runs "go", which go tool is actually running? The difference
may be that on platforms other than powerpc-linux-gnu it is ru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65045
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65400
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Jakub,
at that time we do not have the __tsan_func_entry calls, only
the __TSAN_FUNC_EXIT thing.
in opcua_string.c.038t.local-pure-const1
OpcUa_String_Clear looks like it has OpcUa_String_Clear.part.0
at t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #18 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
trippels@gcc2-power8 ~ % valgrind --track-origins=yes ./a.out
==152914== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==152914== Copyright (C) 2002-2013, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==152914== Using Va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #24 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 35020
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35020&action=edit
Unreduced translation unit of the test program.
Compil and run like so:
$ gcc -O3 -Wall -Werror gcc-65369.i &
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 35019
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35019&action=edit
pr65369.c
Adjusted testcase that now works reliably at -O0, and even with -O3
-fno-inline, but fails with -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #22 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Could you please attach the unreduced testcase?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65376
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65376
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
Targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looking at https://git.lysator.liu.se/nettle/nettle/blob/master/md4.c I see
there:
bit_count = (ctx->count << 9) | (ctx->index << 3);
data[MD4_DATA_LENGTH-2] = bit_count;
data[MD4_DATA_LENGTH-1] = bit_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yeah. In md4_digest, for (i = 0; i < 16 - 2; i++) look writes data[0] through
data[13], data[14] is stored after the loop, but data[15] is uninitialized,
but md5_transform reads it and uses it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #20 from Martin Sebor ---
The original test doesn't show any valgrind errors so these could be the result
of using delta to reduce the test case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65400
--- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger ---
I think the trouble starts at opcua_string.c.039t.fnsplit :
OpcUa_String_Clear (struct OpcUa_String * a_pString)
{
...
:
# _25 = PHI <0(2), 1(3), 0(4)>
if (_25 == 0)
goto ;
else
goto ;
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #52 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Why not just
pc++;
on all targets? Why the #ifdef? It seems to me that we should aim for
consistent results on all platforms.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52579
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've tried to add
__builtin_memset(ctx, 0, sizeof (*ctx));
to the beginning of md4_init and it changes the result of the program at -O0,
so I expect the testcase relies on some particular pattern of uninitia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563
--- Comment #29 from Richard Biener ---
Sth like
@@ -672,8 +650,18 @@ cleanup_tree_cfg_bb (basic_block bb)
if (single_succ_p (bb)
&& can_merge_blocks_p (bb, single_succ (bb)))
{
- merge_blocks (bb, single_succ (bb));
- r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65404
Bug ID: 65404
Summary: cgo tool on powerpc-linux-gnu maybe incomplete
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65403
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Besides that the error also complains about -Werror= instead of -Wno-error=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65403
Bug ID: 65403
Summary: -Wno-error= is an error
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #51 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
Here is the change I made to go-callers.c. This patch along with my previous
changes to extern.go and pprof.go allows the test identified in this issue to
report the correct line number on ppc64le.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #15 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #13)
> Markus, are you sure about comment #9? I completely disabled the bswap pass
> and still see a failure of the testcase at -O3.
>
> Incidentally, if I compil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65235
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Known to fail|5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
--- Comment #14 from Alan Modra ---
That should be -O3 -fno-inline.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65369
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-03-12 00:00:00 |2015-03-10 0:00
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65401
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
In the
9345 else if (GET_CODE (rhs) == AND
9346 && paradoxical_subreg_p (XEXP (rhs, 0))
9347 && GET_CODE (SUBREG_REG (XEXP (rhs, 0))) == MEM
9348 && CONST_INT_P (XEXP (rhs,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65235
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktkachov
Date: Thu Mar 12 13:40:50 2015
New Revision: 221387
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221387&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[simplify-rtx] PR 65235: Calculate element size correctly
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65399
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (Also you should have seen the duplicate bug with *exactly* the same error
> message when submitting this one)
Agreed, I should have done, but I didn't. It l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65401
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
I was in this code recently, so mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65402
Bug ID: 65402
Summary: global register variables miscompiled when unit
contains sse4.2 functions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65399
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(Also you should have seen the duplicate bug with *exactly* the same error
message when submitting this one)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65270
--- Comment #35 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Mar 12 13:02:42 2015
New Revision: 221386
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221386&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-03-12 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/65270
* fold-const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65401
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, not latent, that make_field_assignment stuff has been added in r220249.
So, either we need to disable it altogether for anything but little endian, or
adjust the addresses when adjusting MEMs mode too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64367
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65399
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65401
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65401
Bug ID: 65401
Summary: [5 Regression] make_field_assignment broken for
big-endian
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65394
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65044
ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37954
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39429
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65384
ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65388
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Mar 12 08:34:00 2015
New Revision: 221376
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221376&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/65388
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/C
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
