https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66425
Lucas De Marchi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lucas.de.marchi at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66501
Bug ID: 66501
Summary: Default move assignment does not move array members
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66425
--- Comment #9 from Filipe Brandenburger ---
Or, conversely, please explain to me how changing the behavior (to allow a
void-cast to silent the warning on a call to a warn_unused_result function)
would actually affect anyone today...
If it's a p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66425
--- Comment #8 from Filipe Brandenburger ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> Again this has nothing to do with other lints, this attribute was designed
> so you can't ignore the return value.
I obviously *can* ignore the return val
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66425
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Filipe Brandenburger from comment #6)
> Then please explain to me how this:
>
> (void) foo();
>
> is any worse than this:
>
> int ignored __attribute__((unused));
> ignored = foo();
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66425
--- Comment #6 from Filipe Brandenburger ---
Then please explain to me how this:
(void) foo();
is any worse than this:
int ignored __attribute__((unused));
ignored = foo();
/* do nothing with ignored here */
You can force me to assign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66425
Konstantin Khlebnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||koct9i at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66425
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66425
--- Comment #3 from rusty at rustcorp dot com.au ---
Indeed, cast to void has been a standard "I really want to ignore this"
notation. It's intuitive and obvious, and ISTR seeing it in the early 90s for
lint warning suppression, for example.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66500
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66484
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66500
Bug ID: 66500
Summary: C/C++ inconsistency in diagnostic context involving
macros
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66499
Bug ID: 66499
Summary: Letters with accents change format behavior for X and
T descriptors.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66498
--- Comment #1 from wong.terry at yandex dot com ---
Created attachment 35751
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35751&action=edit
post pre processed files
These exceeed the limits uncompressed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25509
Filipe Brandenburger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||filbranden at google dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66498
Bug ID: 66498
Summary: internal compiler error when compiling chrome and
webkit
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66425
Filipe Brandenburger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||filbranden at google dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38812
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66493
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|kargl at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65091
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66493
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35750
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35750&action=edit
Patch that gets rid of ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66493
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35749
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35749&action=edit
test program with tbp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66493
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 35748
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35748&action=edit
test program without type bound procedure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64078
--- Comment #13 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 35747
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35747&action=edit
Proposed Fix
that's what I think should fix the sporadic fall-out on both test cases.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64089
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62002
Viacheslav Chernyshev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.9.2 |5.1.0
--- Comment #5 from Viache
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66493
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66497
Sharad Singhai changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66497
Bug ID: 66497
Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/abi/aarch64_guard1.C
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66493
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66494
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66495
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66489
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66484
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66473
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66473
--- Comment #8 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Jun 10 18:37:34 2015
New Revision: 224342
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224342&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66473
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66480
--- Comment #7 from Nicolas Bock ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #6)
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 05:20:58PM +, nicolasbock at gmail dot com wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66480
> >
> > --- Comment #5 from Nic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66473
--- Comment #7 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Jun 10 18:23:31 2015
New Revision: 224340
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224340&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66473
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34422
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66487
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Compiling with -fno-lifetime-dse should make it work again.
-fsanitize=undefined doesn't currently catch this issue (relying on the value
of storage persisting into the lifetime of an object created there).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66474
--- Comment #6 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Jun 10 17:34:12 2015
New Revision: 224336
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224336&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-10 Michael Meissner
Backport from mainline:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66480
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 05:20:58PM +, nicolasbock at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66480
>
> --- Comment #5 from Nicolas Bock ---
> Thanks for the comments. I should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66480
--- Comment #5 from Nicolas Bock ---
Thanks for the comments. I should have understood this exception better before
posting this as a bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66492
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66474
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Jun 10 17:16:58 2015
New Revision: 224335
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224335&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-10 Michael Meissner
Backport from mainline:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66474
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Jun 10 17:15:58 2015
New Revision: 224334
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224334&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-10 Michael Meissner
Backport from mainline:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66474
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Jun 10 17:15:25 2015
New Revision: 224333
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224333&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-10 Michael Meissner
Backport from mainline:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31893
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
My bad, now I see my error.
What do you think about adding this new attribute to mark function arguments as
out only? I think it would allow to eliminate more dead or unnecessary code
(e.g. when value is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66496
Bug ID: 66496
Summary: Static hash_map causes segfault in static constructor
of the compiler compilation unit
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66474
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Jun 10 16:51:49 2015
New Revision: 224332
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224332&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-10 Michael Meissner
PR target/66474
* do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66488
--- Comment #5 from Stanisław Halik ---
Created attachment 35746
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35746&action=edit
preprocessed filter.cpp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66488
--- Comment #4 from Stanisław Halik ---
Line information:
../modules/imgproc/src/filter.cpp: In member function 'operator()':
../modules/imgproc/src/filter.cpp:3084:10: internal compiler error:
Segmentation fault
This is: template struct RowFil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47582
--- Comment #3 from Tony Poppleton ---
Ignore the last comment - hadn't spotted the "int" return value on main...
So the code is actually more correct than previous versions, and no change to
the status of this bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66495
Bug ID: 66495
Summary: [5 Regression] Issue with same name for embedded
function
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66494
Bug ID: 66494
Summary: ICE on using same name for embedded subroutine
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61047
--- Comment #24 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I agree that this is too risky to backport, but I disagree with the decision
> not to fix it on the trunk. We have plenty of time to watch for performance
> regressions and/or bugs it introduces there, an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66493
Bug ID: 66493
Summary: ICE on alternate return argument for typebound
procedure
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47582
--- Comment #2 from Tony Poppleton ---
Re-testing this with GCC 5.1, the code appears to be even less efficient, for
both cases;
DM1:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
movss b(%rip), %xmm0
xorl%eax, %eax
movss %xmm0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61047
--- Comment #23 from Bernd Edlinger ---
sorry, which patch are we discussing here?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66193
--- Comment #15 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Created attachment 35745
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35745&action=edit
test case pr66193_3_diverse_new.f90
Better test, replaces pr66193_3_diverse.f90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61047
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #21)
> > I think that the patch is clear in scope, only fixes a specific case unless
> > rtx_addr_can_trap_p_1() was refactored, it should be feasible to apply to
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66253
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from Michael Matz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66491
--- Comment #2 from dhowells at redhat dot com ---
Possibly -mcmodel=kernel shouldn't be overloaded, but -fstack-protector should
be - perhaps to have a -fstack-protector-gs option or similar.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61047
--- Comment #21 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I think that the patch is clear in scope, only fixes a specific case unless
> rtx_addr_can_trap_p_1() was refactored, it should be feasible to apply to
> trunk, 5.1 and 4.9.
No, the patch is way too risky
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66492
Bug ID: 66492
Summary: std::messages unsafe and inefficient
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66491
--- Comment #1 from dhowells at redhat dot com ---
Configured with:
CXXFLAGS=' -O2 -g -Wformat-security -fstack-protector-strong
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -mtune=generic ' \
CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET='-g -O2 -Wall -fexceptions' \
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61047
Bernhard Kaindl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernhard.kaindl@thalesgroup
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66491
Bug ID: 66491
Summary: x86_64 target cross-compiler generates stack protector
code unsuitable for the Linux kernel if the compiler
wasn't built against a C library
Product:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66448
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35734|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66484
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66289
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jun 10 15:17:57 2015
New Revision: 224331
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224331&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66289
* cp-tree.h (TEMPLATE_DECL_COMPLEX_ALIAS_P):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66214
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alserkli at inbox dot ru
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66490
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66489
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
For floating point, tree-ssa-math-opts.c handles the FMA and then expand is
supposed to handle the neg inside the FMA_EXPR but for some reason on this
testcase it is not.
def0 = get_def_for_expr (tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #42 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 35743
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35743&action=edit
PPC64LE Linux Testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #41 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 35742
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35742&action=edit
AIX PowerPC testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66489
--- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This was the reason why the pass on the tree level to fused multiply add was
> added. Maybe we can do the same.
>
> Do you know how often this show
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66489
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This was the reason why the pass on the tree level to fused multiply add was
added. Maybe we can do the same.
Do you know how often this shows up?
ot/core/meta/src/TClingCallFunc.cxx (commit e1ef990 in
root.cern.ch/git/root.git)
g++ (GCC) 6.0.0 20150610 (experimental)
$ g++ -std=c++11 -g -c a.ii
a.ii: In instantiation of 'class std::vector':
a.ii:156269:29: required from here
a.ii:8693:11: error: TYPE_CANONICAL is not comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66489
Bug ID: 66489
Summary: combine fails to merge insns if some are reused later
on
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66488
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Ah, then please attach preprocessed source of the file where the crash happens.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66488
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
You mean you bootstrapped gcc 5 with -fipa-pta -flto?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59990
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60656
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66488
--- Comment #2 from Stanisław Halik ---
No, it's invocation of today's 5-branch on my own code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31893
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Daniel Fruzynski from comment #7)
> void __attribute__((const)) func(int* i)
> {
> *i = 44;
> }
You get a warning because you marked this function const, which tells the
compiler it won't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66488
Bug ID: 66488
Summary: -fipa-pta -flto segfault
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66485
--- Comment #2 from Yuri Khan ---
Right, I somehow missed it. The overload is there. Sorry for the noise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66485
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66487
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66487
Bug ID: 66487
Summary: [6 Regression] Firefox segfault with LTO enabled
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66486
Bug ID: 66486
Summary: MMIX code produced is invalid
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: target
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59990
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 10 12:53:09 2015
New Revision: 224327
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224327&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-10 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60656
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 10 12:53:09 2015
New Revision: 224327
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224327&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-10 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66473
--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Kirill Yukhin from comment #5)
> Your patch is fine for sure. No AVX-512* tests fail.
> The only nit is that I that I think we need regtest in patch as well.
Yep, it will be added when the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66473
--- Comment #5 from Kirill Yukhin ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> Kirill, you have much better facilities for testing, do you want to take the
> proposed patch from here?
Your patch is fine for sure. No AVX-512* tests fail.
The o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66485
Bug ID: 66485
Summary: std::string single-character assignment operator
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66482
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66053
--- Comment #1 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Wed Jun 10 11:37:20 2015
New Revision: 224325
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224325&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gomp4] Support C++ "this" in OpenACC directives.
This patch, for gomp-
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
