https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65869
--- Comment #2 from Botond Ballo ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1579
I don't think the resolution of this issue affects the validity of my code
example, i.e. it remain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65869
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1579
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34503
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Fri Apr 24 04:49:34 2015
New Revision: 222398
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222398&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-24 Thomas Preud'homme
Steven Bosscher
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52981
--- Comment #5 from David Stone ---
After thinking about this some more, we are not answering the question that
splitting it into two warnings is really trying to get at.
The first, and most important is not "Is there padding in the middle of th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53313
--- Comment #8 from David Stone ---
I have changed my opinion on this and agree that warning levels are probably
not the way to go. The two things from this that I do still want are
-Weverything-and-I-really-mean-it-this-time
All warnings eithe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65871
Bug ID: 65871
Summary: bzhi builtin/intrinsic wrongly assumes bzhi
instruction doesn't set the ZF flag
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64918
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53730
Matt Godbolt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at godbolt dot org
--- Comment #4 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61022
--- Comment #2 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
Still fails with trunk @r222386
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62236
Victor Porton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.9.2 |5.1.0
--- Comment #4 from Victor Porton
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62235
Victor Porton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.9.2 |5.1.0
--- Comment #5 from Victor Porton
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62042
Victor Porton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.9.0 |5.1.0
--- Comment #2 from Victor Porton
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65868
--- Comment #2 from Victor Porton ---
Your suggestion to build in a separate directory helped. It compiled
completely.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64918
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65870
Bug ID: 65870
Summary: Explicit function instantiation with default valued
lambda causes duplicate symbol
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65869
Bug ID: 65869
Summary: Incorrect overload resolution in function return
statement
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456
--- Comment #18 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Thu Apr 23 21:03:40 2015
New Revision: 222386
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222386&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2015-04-23 Bill Schmidt
Backport from mainline r222349
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65868
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65866
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65868
Bug ID: 65868
Summary: "cannot find -lstdc++" for GNAT compilation
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: ada
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65863
Victor Porton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65757
--- Comment #8 from dhbbugs ---
Jerry DeLisl'e output is certainly not correct -- anint should invariably
return the nearest whole number. It should be the equivalent of this code:
if (x >= 0.0) then
anint = aint (x + 0.5)
else
anint = aint
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52251
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65865
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52085
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65867
Bug ID: 65867
Summary: [5 Regression] bootstrap fails for mingw32 due to
missing header in ssp.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65865
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
[hjl@gnu-6 gcc]$ cat /tmp/x.cc
extern unsigned long indirect_call_wrapper;
typedef unsigned long size_t;
template
F IndirectExternCall(F f) {
typedef F (*WrapF)(F);
return indirect_call_wrapper ? ((WrapF)i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65805
--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Thu Apr 23 19:07:52 2015
New Revision: 222383
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222383&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-23 Vladimir Makarov
Backport from trunk r23.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65856
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Helfer Thomas from comment #7)
> can you give me the rationale of this usage ?
Performance.
See also -Wsuggest-final-types -Wsuggest-final-methods in the gcc manual.
Although Stroustrup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65856
--- Comment #7 from Helfer Thomas ---
can you give me the rationale of this usage ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65854
Tom Honermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[c++-concepts] Type |[c++-concepts] Type
|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65863
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Victor Porton from comment #1)
> Linux victor.local 3.10-2-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 3.10.7-1 (2013-08-17) x86_64
> GNU/Linux
>
> with 32 bit userland
Try configure GCC with
./configure --prefix=/usr/loca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65856
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
If you want some real life examples, grep e.g. the Firefox source tree
for "final override" or "override final".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65856
Helfer Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65865
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65866
Bug ID: 65866
Summary: Wrong warning when using list-initialization:
operation on 'b' may be undefined [-Wsequence-point]
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65865
Bug ID: 65865
Summary: [6 Regression] Bootstrap failure on x86
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65864
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek ---
I think they should simply cast the controlling expression to int--that should
quash the warning. Does this workaround sound reasonable to them?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65864
Bug ID: 65864
Summary: Consider emitting -Wswitch-bool less aggressively?
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65863
--- Comment #1 from Victor Porton ---
Linux victor.local 3.10-2-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 3.10.7-1 (2013-08-17) x86_64
GNU/Linux
with 32 bit userland
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65863
Bug ID: 65863
Summary: GCC does not compile with weird error messages
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65296
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||link-failure
Status|ASSIG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65862
--- Comment #2 from Robert Suchanek ---
That's correct. It was just easier to expose this problem by compiling the
kernel.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65858
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
Those two bugs seems to be caused by same issue. Unforutnately it is bit hard
to guess what it is coming from - it seems that we manage to store
error_mark_node into the LTO object file.
If you can patch your
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65862
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The kernel should have been compiled with -msoft-float and I thought it was.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65862
Bug ID: 65862
Summary: [MIPS] IRA/LRA issue: integers spilled to
floating-point registers
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50800
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Apr 23 15:55:21 2015
New Revision: 222377
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222377&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/50800
* tree.c (strip_typedefs): Add remove_attributes par
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65646
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Apr 23 15:55:11 2015
New Revision: 222376
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222376&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65646
* pt.c (check_explicit_specialization): Don't
SET
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65861
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And even if they don't read the libstdc++ documentation, std::search doesn't
work with input iterators, that's always been true:
https://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/search.html
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65861
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jack Howarth from comment #3)
> Is the use of _GLIBCXX_CONCEPT_CHECKS well enough advertised in the
> documentation that we can expect the average developer to know to invoke it?
It's document
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
--- Comment #28 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> And Example #2 is: ...
Confirmed too, but no ICE under debugger.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65861
--- Comment #4 from Jack Howarth ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> This is user error, std::search() requires forward iterators and the library
> is not required to diagnose it. Defining _GLIBCXX_CONCEPT_CHECKS causes it
> to b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65861
--- Comment #3 from Jack Howarth ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> This is user error, std::search() requires forward iterators and the library
> is not required to diagnose it. Defining _GLIBCXX_CONCEPT_CHECKS causes it
> to b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65860
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
--- Comment #27 from Jürgen Reuter ---
And Example #2 is:
module foo
type :: t
integer :: n
character(32), dimension(:), allocatable :: md5
contains
procedure :: init => t_init
end type t
contains
subroutine t_init (thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65861
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is user error, std::search() requires forward iterators and the library is
not required to diagnose it. Defining _GLIBCXX_CONCEPT_CHECKS causes it to be
rejected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65861
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/ext_compile_checks.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65859
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26702
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26702
--- Comment #11 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
Author: ramana
Date: Thu Apr 23 14:49:45 2015
New Revision: 222371
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222371&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR target/26702
For Kwok Cheung Yeung.
Added:
trunk/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65861
Bug ID: 65861
Summary: libstdc++ is silently generating wrong code when its
std::search is given an input iterator
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65345
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Apr 23 14:35:12 2015
New Revision: 222370
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222370&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/65345
* c-decl.c (set_labels_context_r): New function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65860
Bug ID: 65860
Summary: Stringification of User Defined Literals
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preproce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65859
Bug ID: 65859
Summary: Optimizes out TLS variable called in a child function
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #26 from Dominiqu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
Assignee|unass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
--- Comment #25 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Example 1:
module foo
type :: t
integer :: n
real, dimension(:,:), allocatable :: val
contains
procedure :: make => t_make
generic :: get_int => get_int_array, get_int_element
p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
--- Comment #13 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #12)
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> > On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > > https://
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65848
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Sutton ---
> I think that is actually not so unfortunate. Statically asserting
> concept models has helped me find numerous issues in my own code.
> I'm glad to hear the proposal is being extended to cover this.
U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65695
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65721
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59766
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill ---
And 4.9.3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65727
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
--- Comment #24 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Could you please post complete tests: i.e. triggering only the relevant error?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65721
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Apr 23 13:21:11 2015
New Revision: 222366
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222366&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65721
* name-lookup.c (do_class_using_decl): Complain about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65695
--- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Apr 23 13:21:17 2015
New Revision: 222367
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222367&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65695
* cvt.c (cp_fold_convert): Avoid wrapping PTRMEM_CST
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65727
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Apr 23 13:21:22 2015
New Revision: 222368
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222368&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65727
* lambda.c (maybe_resolve_dummy): Handle null return.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59766
--- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Apr 23 13:21:06 2015
New Revision: 222365
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222365&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/59766
* decl.c (grokdeclarator): Do not flag friends with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65727
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Apr 23 13:20:14 2015
New Revision: 222364
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222364&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65727
* semantics.c (maybe_resolve_dummy): Handle null retu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65721
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Apr 23 13:20:08 2015
New Revision: 222363
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222363&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65721
* name-lookup.c (do_class_using_decl): Complain about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
--- Comment #12 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11)
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
> >
> > --- Comment #10 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65858
Bug ID: 65858
Summary: ICE in varpool_node::get_constructor during chromium
build on arm-linux-gnueabihf with LTO during LINK
chrome
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
--- Comment #23 from Jürgen Reuter ---
The other failure occurs for
allocate (foo (this%n), source=this%bar)
where n is integer, foo has type
character(32), dimension(:), allocatable
and bar as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
--- Comment #22 from Jürgen Reuter ---
One thing is:
allocate (foo (0:this%dim-1), source=this%get_integral())
where this is some derived type with integer component dim
and TBP get_integral which is a function
generic :: get_integral => get_in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51976
Bug 51976 depends on bug 57456, which changed state.
Bug 57456 Summary: [OOP] CLASS + CHARACTER ALLOCATE with typespec: For arrays,
the typespec is ignored
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57456
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57456
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58754
Bug 58754 depends on bug 57456, which changed state.
Bug 57456 Summary: [OOP] CLASS + CHARACTER ALLOCATE with typespec: For arrays,
the typespec is ignored
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57456
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
--- Comment #21 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to vehre from comment #20)
> Juergen, could you meanwhile check, that the patch fixes the issue?
Damn, it seems my text didn't get posted. Being in Japan at the moment, and
sometimes not having th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548
vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|WAITING
--- Comment #20 from v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
>
> --- Comment #10 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
--- Comment #10 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> (In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #3)
> > Hi,
> > I tried to reproduce the error with a reduced test-case:
> >
> > #include "arm_neon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #3)
> Hi,
> I tried to reproduce the error with a reduced test-case:
>
> #include "arm_neon.h"
>
> float32x2_t a, b, c, e;
>
> int main()
> {
> e = __builtin_neo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60322
--- Comment #8 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vehre
Date: Thu Apr 23 11:32:00 2015
New Revision: 222361
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222361&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2015-04-23 Andre Vehreschild
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
--- Comment #8 from ramana.radhakrishnan at arm dot com ---
On 23/04/15 09:18, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
>
> Richard Biener changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65857
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65857
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65857
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
The pattern it tries has the load of a in it. Not sure what you are
expecting...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65857
Bug ID: 65857
Summary: combine won't generate zero-extend from HImode memory
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65844
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65851
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, so it goes like
Visiting PHI node: f_12 = PHI <0B(2), f_8(5)>
Argument #0 (2 -> 6 executable)
0B Value: CONSTANT 0B
Argument #1 (5 -> 6 not executable)
PHI node value: CONSTA
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
