https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66895
Bug ID: 66895
Summary: Array to pointer decay in list initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66891
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150715 (experimental) [trunk revision 225804] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O1 small.c; ./a.out
$ gcc-5.1 -Os small.c; ./a.out
$
$ gcc-trunk -Os small.c
$ ./a.out
Floating point
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66842
Bin Fan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |c++
--- Comment #4 from Bin Fan ---
Since I d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66893
Bug ID: 66893
Summary: disallowed initialization of reference with
user-defined conversion function
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66892
Bug ID: 66892
Summary: Fix of core language defect 355 has status c++11 but
is not implemented yet
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: e
nux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc/configure --enable-languages=c,c++
--prefix=/home/ams/src/gcc/install
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150715 (experimental) (GCC)
[ams@hal comctl32]$ gcc -m32 -oblah -g -O2 propsheet.i -c
../../../wine-git/dlls/comctl32/propsheet.c: In function ‘PROPSHEET_Do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65249
--- Comment #23 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Thu Jul 16 00:48:33 2015
New Revision: 225856
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225856&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65249
* config/sh/sh.md (movdi): Split simple reg move to t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66889
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Related to PR66879 (maybe a dup)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66888
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Related to PR66879 (maybe a dup)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66890
--- Comment #1 from Andi Kleen ---
The problem seems to be that
bb-reorder.c:find_rarely_executed_basic_blocks_and_crossing_edges
returns no edges without profile feedback, which prevents generation of a
section split note.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66866
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
Summary|[miscompile] inco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66866
--- Comment #8 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Jul 15 22:20:17 2015
New Revision: 225852
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225852&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66866
* config/i386/i386-protos.h (ix86_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66890
Bug ID: 66890
Summary: function splitting only works with profile feedback
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66626
--- Comment #22 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #20)
> Testcase in comment #1 still fails with r225789.
Sorry, I did not check the 1st test. I checked only the 2nd one which has a
different reason for failure than th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66878
--- Comment #3 from Anders Granlund ---
The following bug that I also reported is related:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66888
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66889
Bug ID: 66889
Summary: Accepting ill-formed program trying to define a struct
via using-directive
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66888
Bug ID: 66888
Summary: Compiler accepting ill-formed program trying to define
a struct via using-declaration
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66885
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #1)
> The second condition is *not* always false.
After some further thought, agreed.
Would this be more clearly coded as
switch (bytes % 4)
{
case 1:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66885
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66873
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #8 from vrie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66846
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from vrie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66887
Bug ID: 66887
Summary: trunk/libmpx/mpxrt/mpxrt.c:158: possible performance
problem
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66886
Bug ID: 66886
Summary: trunk/boehm-gc/darwin_stop_world.c: 2 * redundant code
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66885
Bug ID: 66885
Summary: trunk/gcc/config/mcore/mcore.c:1656: poor code order ?
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66884
Bug ID: 66884
Summary: trunk/boehm-gc/cord/cordbscs.c:455: bad if ?
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: boehm-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66883
Bug ID: 66883
Summary: config/epiphany/udivsi3-float.c:52: bad if test ?
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66882
Bug ID: 66882
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE (Segmentation fault) on
powerpc64-linux-gnu building libjava
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66854
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66854
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Jul 15 17:15:37 2015
New Revision: 225843
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225843&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-07-14 Michael Meissner
PR target/66854
* co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50677
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
Can we make init_recog_no_volatile processor a target hook so
that it can be disabled for x86?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66881
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66881
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50677
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoeppe at google dot com
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66881
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #2)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
> > Dup of PR 50677?
>
> Well, this report has no volatiles in it, so perhaps not?
Can you change init_recog_no_volatile to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66881
--- Comment #2 from Ville Voutilainen ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
> Dup of PR 50677?
Well, this report has no volatiles in it, so perhaps not?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66881
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Dup of PR 50677?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66870
--- Comment #9 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #6)
> > (past a few statements)
>
> Huh?
>
> @@ -158,10 +158,6 @@ go_langhook_init_options_struct (struct gcc_options
> *opts)
> @@ -295,6 +291,11 @@ go_lan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66879
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66881
Bug ID: 66881
Summary: Possibly inefficient std::atomic codegen on x86
for simple arithmetic
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66870
--- Comment #8 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
Created attachment 35989
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35989&action=edit
Clean up checks for flag_split_stack and attribute no_split_stack
Made the change related to Alan's co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66879
--- Comment #3 from Anders Granlund ---
Thanks for the comments! Now I remember the following bug report that I sent to
clang:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24030
That bug has now been confirmed and fixed in clang, so yes this is the ac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66879
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Anders Granlund from comment #0)
> Note that if we remove the member function definition in the given program
> it compiles without errors.
I think that's the real bug. G++ should not accept t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66734
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug 65530 depends on bug 66734, which changed state.
Bug 66734 Summary: Many MPX tests are skipped
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66734
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66556
--- Comment #4 from renlin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: renlin
Date: Wed Jul 15 15:13:36 2015
New Revision: 225835
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225835&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH]Fix PR66556. Don't drop side-effect in
simplify_const_r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66879
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Clang compiles it OK, but EDG says:
"a.cc", line 5: error: class "A" cannot be defined in the current scope
class A { void f() {} };
This seems similar to the G++ error, which is due to the name A r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66880
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Yeah, the problem is that a case label value needs to be an integral constant
expression. 0xEB << 24 contains an overflow so we weren't able to fold it,
thus we emit the __builtin___ubsan_handle_shift_out_of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66880
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||y.gribov at samsung dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66880
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66857
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #4)
> Reverting the change made to ocp_convert in r217814 fixes it:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/cvt.c b/gcc/cp/cvt.c
> index 13bc1f7..6d4bd9a 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/cvt.c
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66880
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And why do you think it is wrong? 0xEB << 24 is undefined behavior in C99 I
think.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66880
Bug ID: 66880
Summary: 'error: case label does not reduce to an integer
constant' with -fsanitize=shift -std=gnu99.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65091
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Jul 15 14:13:22 2015
New Revision: 225831
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225831&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65091
* parser.c (cp_parser_unqualified_id): Don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66879
Bug ID: 66879
Summary: Error message when defining a member function inside a
class definition
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
--- Comment #18 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Jul 15 13:42:07 2015
New Revision: 225829
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225829&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/58066
* config/i386/i386.md (*tls_globa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66878
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
This is infinite recursion in push_inner_scope_r -> stack overflow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65249
--- Comment #22 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #21)
> Before RA, during expand phase. It's generated by function.c:
> expand_function_end with
> emit_move_insn (crtl->return_rtx,
>DECL_RTL (DECL_RES
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66878
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66878
Bug ID: 66878
Summary: Segmentation fault when compiling
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65249
--- Comment #21 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #20)
> Just for my understanding ... at which time does the modified expand pattern
> kick in? Before RA, during RA or after RA? It's a bit confusing, because
> operan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65742
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65099
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Wed Jul 15 11:55:13 2015
New Revision: 225824
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225824&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR libgomp/65099] nvptx offloading: only 64-bit configurations are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66332
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Wed Jul 15 11:55:00 2015
New Revision: 225822
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225822&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR libgomp/65742, PR middle-end/66332] OpenACC acc_on_device fixes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65742
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Wed Jul 15 11:55:00 2015
New Revision: 225822
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225822&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR libgomp/65742, PR middle-end/66332] OpenACC acc_on_device fixes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65249
--- Comment #20 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #19)
Just for my understanding ... at which time does the modified expand pattern
kick in? Before RA, during RA or after RA? It's a bit confusing, because
operands[0]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66877
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66877
Bug ID: 66877
Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-3-big-array.c -flto
-ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times vect
"vect_recog_over_widening_p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66871
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to David Woodhouse from comment #2)
> It would still be extremely useful for it to emit dependencies on those
> files which are actually included (after preprocessing).
>
> Otherwise we end up scre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66875
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66875
--- Comment #4 from Patrick S. ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> Yes, please try -fsanitize=undefined. This looks like an invalid.
I am guessing this would allow the compiler to detect the loop is undefined and
would generate wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66875
--- Comment #3 from Patrick S. ---
argh...
my mistake to not check the termination condition is actually matching the size
of the prot_short_str[] array. fixing that by properly calculating the array
size would fix the compilation now. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66869
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Miles
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66875
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66872
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66875
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I'm just guessing that
for(i = 1; i <= (188 + 1); i++) {
if (prot_short_str[i]) {
is accessing prot_short_str out of bounds.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66873
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35983|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66876
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug 65530 depends on bug 66734, which changed state.
Bug 66734 Summary: Many MPX tests are skipped
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66734
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66734
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66876
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66734
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Wed Jul 15 09:56:00 2015
New Revision: 225815
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225815&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/66734
* gcc.dg/lto/lto.exp: Initialize MP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66876
Bug ID: 66876
Summary: vrp: changing unsigned to signed comparison
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66865
--- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to kugan from comment #12)
> Thanks. I can now reproduce it. However, If I just use the changes to
> gcc/postreload.c (changes for bug 66838), I can get the trunk to work.
I can confrim this with [
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66872
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66866
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #6)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> > "Safe" fix:
>
> No, no... pextr to a temporary should be used here.
>
> I plan to introduce pextr handling to "insv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66866
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|uros at gcc do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66731
--- Comment #2 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nsz
Date: Wed Jul 15 09:03:15 2015
New Revision: 225810
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225810&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add missing PR target/66731 to gcc/testsuite/Changelog
Modified:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66854
--- Comment #4 from Sebastian Huber ---
(In reply to Michael Meissner from comment #3)
> Created attachment 35978 [details]
> Proposed patch to fix the problem
>
> I believe this patch fixes the problem. I was able to build libgcc with
> this p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66838
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Fixed for mainline, needs backport to gcc-5 branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66626
--- Comment #21 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #20)
> Testcase in comment #1 still fails with r225789.
Please note comment #3, where I recalled the testcase from Comment #2:
>> A better testcase:
>
> Nope. This one works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66875
Bug ID: 66875
Summary: entire for loop got eliminated at cddce2 tree-opt
stage
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61936
hr.jonas.hansen at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hr.jonas.hansen at gmai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65956
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64
Component|rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
--- Comment #16 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Jul 15 07:39:30 2015
New Revision: 225807
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225807&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/58066
* calls.c (expand_call)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66838
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Jul 15 07:28:33 2015
New Revision: 225806
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225806&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/66838
* postreload.c (reload_c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66861
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66865
--- Comment #12 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to austinenglish from comment #5)
> (In reply to kugan from comment #4)
> > Ok, I downloaded wine-1.7.47.tar.bz2 and built it with trunk gcc. What do I
> > have to do to reproduce this pl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66861
--- Comment #8 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Wed Jul 15 07:00:23 2015
New Revision: 225805
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225805&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 66861 Fix null pointer crash on mingw.
2015-07-15 Janne Blomqvist
100 matches
Mail list logo
