https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66984
Bug ID: 66984
Summary: ICE: fold_binary changes type of operand, causing
failure in verify_gimple_assign_binary
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25530
--- Comment #3 from naveenh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: naveenh
Date: Fri Jul 24 04:50:41 2015
New Revision: 226137
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226137&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/25530
2015-07-24 Naveen H.S
gcc/testsuite/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25529
--- Comment #2 from naveenh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: naveenh
Date: Fri Jul 24 04:47:48 2015
New Revision: 226136
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226136&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/25529
2015-07-24 Naveen H.S
gcc/testsuite/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66930
--- Comment #13 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #12)
>
> --- a/config/sh/sh-protos.h
> +++ b/config/sh/sh-protos.h
> @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ sh_find_set_of_reg (rtx reg, rtx_insn* insn, F stepfunc,
> {
>if (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66962
--- Comment #9 from Eric Niebler ---
Jason, is there anything I can do in my code to avoid the quadratic explosion
while we wait for Andrew to fix the bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66930
--- Comment #12 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #10)
> Index: gcc/config/sh/sh.c
> ===
> --- gcc/config/sh/sh.c(revision 225987)
> +++ gcc/config
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66653
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #25 from Jeffrey Walton ---
Jonathan, Manuel, et al -
I'm putting this to bed on our side. We've re-enabled -Wall, and are moving
towards -Wextra.
I did come up with one more use case... The "unused parameter" warning.
Typically, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66962
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66758
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jul 23 23:14:32 2015
New Revision: 226129
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226129&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66758
* cxx-pretty-print.c (pp_cxx_parameterized_c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66983
Bug ID: 66983
Summary: [6 Regression] Many testsuite regressions
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66981
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Is this related to PR61000?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66982
Bug ID: 66982
Summary: Internal compiler error: Segmentation fault in C++14
code (followup of #65973)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66962
--- Comment #7 from Casey Carter ---
Created attachment 36044
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36044&action=edit
Manually flattened test case
Doesn't include the contents of any system headers.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66981
Bug ID: 66981
Summary: [graphite] delinearization of arrays
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61929
--- Comment #13 from David Kredba ---
Do you plan a backport to gcc-5.x branch please?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66962
Eric Niebler changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #36028|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66980
Bug ID: 66980
Summary: [graphite] -floop-nest-optimize produces wrong code
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66962
--- Comment #5 from Casey Carter ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #2)
> /usr/local/gcc-concepts/include/c++/6.0.0/initializer_list:47:11: fatal
> error: definition of std::initializer_list does not match #include
>
This is beca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66978
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
or n) y
Starting program: /export/build/gnu/gcc/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/cc1
-fpreprocessed x.i -quiet -dumpbase x.i -mx32 -mtune=generic -march=x86-64
-auxbase-strip x.s -O2 -version -o x.s
GNU C11 (GCC) version 6.0.0 20150723 (experimental) (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
compiled by GNU C versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66752
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66962
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Eric Niebler from comment #3)
> I can't make sense of that error, or understand why you get that and I
> don't. You tried the command line I gave above, with the latest concept-gcc
> built
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66752
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Jul 23 20:42:15 2015
New Revision: 226125
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226125&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/66752
* tree-ssa-threadedge.c (simplify_conrol_stmt_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66962
--- Comment #3 from Eric Niebler ---
I can't make sense of that error, or understand why you get that and I don't.
You tried the command line I gave above, with the latest concept-gcc built from
source?
p.f90
f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
0x5a78e0 ???
../sysdeps/x86_64/elf/start.S:113
[...]
% ~/Desktop/gcc-trunk/bin/gfortran --version
GNU Fortran (GCC) 6.0.0 20150723 (experimental) [trunk revision 226084]
[...]
My system:
% uname -a
Linux o 3.19.0-22-generic #22-Ubuntu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64079
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #5)
> Thanks Manu. I'm going to take care of this specific issue. I will also ask
> if patches proactively replacing those +D and +#D in the C++ front-end are
> welcome
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66962
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66978
Bug ID: 66978
Summary: [6 Regression] bootstrap failure with
--with-multilib-list=m32,m64,mx32
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66752
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
After tracking down a couple bugs in the FSM support, I'm about ready to check
in a patch that should address the missed jump threads.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66962
--- Comment #1 from Eric Niebler ---
This is a blocker for STL2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50818
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Executable testcase:
--cut here--
int
__attribute__((ms_abi))
foo (int n, ...)
{
__builtin_va_list ap;
int sum = 0;
__builtin_va_start (ap, n);
while (n--)
sum += __builtin_va_arg (ap, int);
_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64079
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50818
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66572
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66572
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Jul 23 18:57:25 2015
New Revision: 226120
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226120&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66572
* pt.c (tsubst_copy_and_build): Add warn_l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58066
--- Comment #19 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Jul 23 18:51:56 2015
New Revision: 226119
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226119&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline:
2015-07-17 Uros Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66891
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Thu Jul 23 18:51:56 2015
New Revision: 226119
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226119&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline:
2015-07-17 Uros Bizjak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66976
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Anders Granlund from comment #0)
> For comparison Clang accepts the program without errors.
Not if you use -std=c++11 it doesn't.
Both GCC and Clang reject it with -std=c++11 and accept it wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66760
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jul 23 16:09:56 2015
New Revision: 226114
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226114&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-07-23 Martin Jambor
Backport from mainline r225838.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #43 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Thu Jul 23 15:34:49 2015
New Revision: 226113
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226113&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR64164] Drop copyrename, use coalescible partition as base when opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66976
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66217
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Jul 23 14:37:57 2015
New Revision: 226112
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226112&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66217
* config/rs6000/rs6000-protos.h (rs6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66977
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66977
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66977
Bug ID: 66977
Summary: -fsanitize=shift may introduce uninitialized variables
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66908
--- Comment #15 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #14)
> This particular issue is fixed for GCC 6.
>
> Maxim, could you please open a separate PR for the ARM issue? I'll try to
> fix that one as a follow-up.
Sure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66908
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66908
--- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Jul 23 13:54:06 2015
New Revision: 226110
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226110&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/66908
* c-ubsan.c: Include gimplify.h.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66976
Bug ID: 66976
Summary: Compiler error for well-formed program with a
definition of a constexpr function returning void
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36587
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66930
--- Comment #11 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #10)
>
> I've added this code as part of PR 63986. I've checked with make -k
> ...
Sorry, by "this code" I didn't mean the patch in c#10 of this PR, but the
original sh_spl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66930
--- Comment #10 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #6)
> Created attachment 36040 [details]
> .i file for gengtype.c
>
> I've confirmed a miscompile for gengtype.c with -O1 on my 5/6
> compilers. With them,
>
> i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #24 from Jeffrey Walton ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #23)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #21)
> > Now that you posted a complete example here:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2015-07/msg00070.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64079
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||easyhack
--- Comment #4 from Manue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #23 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #21)
> Now that you posted a complete example here:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2015-07/msg00070.html you seem to actually
> be hitting PR66290, not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #22 from Jeffrey Walton ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #18)
> ...
> Or you could just change the code causing the warnings.
Fair enough.
There are two warnings that are big offenders. First is the "unused variable"
wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #21 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #14)
> (In reply to Jeffrey Walton from comment #13)
> > #if GCC_DIAGNOSTIC_AWARE
> > # pragma GCC diagnostic push
> > # pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64079
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64079
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #2 from Man
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66870
--- Comment #14 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
I did bootstrap a build on ppc64 multilib, using Alan's latest and my patch and
Andreas' patch on a system with glibc >= 2.18. (Without Andreas' patch it
won't bootstrap on the 32 bit build on this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66975
Bug ID: 66975
Summary: parloops to handle signed int reductions
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52987
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #20 from Jeffrey Walton ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #19)
> For what is worth, anyone please feel free to take my WIP patch in comment
> #10 and get it finished. You may also claim for yourself any bounty or
> com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #19 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
For what is worth, anyone please feel free to take my WIP patch in comment #10
and get it finished. You may also claim for yourself any bounty or compensation
that may derive from it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66952
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jul 23 11:19:26 2015
New Revision: 226104
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226104&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-07-23 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/66952
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66569
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug 65530 depends on bug 66569, which changed state.
Bug 66569 Summary: [CHKP] internal compiler error: in assign_by_spills
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66569
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug 65530 depends on bug 66568, which changed state.
Bug 66568 Summary: [CHKP] internal compiler error: in expand_expr_addr_expr_1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66568
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66568
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug 65530 depends on bug 66567, which changed state.
Bug 66567 Summary: [CHKP] internal compiler error: in assign_parms
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66567
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66567
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66134
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug 65530 depends on bug 66048, which changed state.
Bug 66048 Summary: [i386] ICE in create_pre_exit when both AVX and MPX are used
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66048
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug 65530 depends on bug 66134, which changed state.
Bug 66134 Summary: [CHKP] ICE: Unable to coalesce ssa_names 18 and 17 which are
marked as MUST COALESCE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66134
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66048
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66926
--- Comment #5 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu Jul 23 11:13:00 2015
New Revision: 226103
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226103&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR tree-optimization/66926,66951
* tree-vect-loo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66145
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66762
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 36041
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36041&action=edit
Assembly for gfortran.dg/submodule_1.f90 with -flto
Assembly generated with
gfc /opt/gcc/_clean/gcc/tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66964
--- Comment #7 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
No new regressions bootstrapping that path on gcc-5-branch (--with-arch=armv7-a
--with-fpu=neon-fp16 --with-float=hard). However, compiling the testcase with
-dp reveals the bad strd's are actual
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You can't control what warnings users enable, but that's no reason not to use
-Wall -Wno-unused yourself when building cryptopp. Not polluting you command
line seems like a weak excuse given the pollution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66569
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu Jul 23 10:44:19 2015
New Revision: 226102
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226102&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline r224602.
2015-06-18 Ilya
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66568
--- Comment #3 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu Jul 23 10:39:26 2015
New Revision: 226101
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226101&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline r224601.
2015-06-18 Ilya
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66567
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu Jul 23 10:34:48 2015
New Revision: 226100
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226100&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline r224600.
2015-06-18 Ilya
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #17 from Jeffrey Walton ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #15)
> (In reply to Jeffrey Walton from comment #13)
> > This issued caused Crypto++ to remove -Wall (and above) under GCC.
>
> That seems to be throwing the baby
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66134
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu Jul 23 10:22:21 2015
New Revision: 226099
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226099&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline r223215.
2015-05-15 Ilya
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66048
--- Comment #5 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Thu Jul 23 10:19:03 2015
New Revision: 226098
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226098&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline r223114.
2015-05-13 Ilya
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52987
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jul 23 10:11:48 2015
New Revision: 226097
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226097&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2015-07-23 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/52987
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50818
David Woodhouse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dwmw2 at infradead dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66974
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66930
--- Comment #9 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #8)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #7)
> > What do you mean? Using -O1 will trigger all kinds of bugs? Or is it rather
> > about PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66930
--- Comment #8 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #7)
> What do you mean? Using -O1 will trigger all kinds of bugs? Or is it rather
> about PR target/66358?
Just my 2 cents. Even on the primary targets,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
--- Comment #6 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I just found the same issue at line 2479:
dst_ctx->combine_with (ctx);
dst_ctx is again NULL
Maybe the same patch should be applied here? Namely:
if (!dst_ctx)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66930
--- Comment #7 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #6)
> Created attachment 36040 [details]
> .i file for gengtype.c
>
> I've confirmed a miscompile for gengtype.c with -O1 on my 5/6
> compilers.
Just fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66916
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66916
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jul 23 07:29:53 2015
New Revision: 226089
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226089&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-07-23 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/66916
* mat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66945
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66945
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jul 23 07:23:23 2015
New Revision: 226088
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226088&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-07-23 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/66945
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
--- Comment #13 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Dear Mikael,
A good principle in general is to assume cock-up, rather than
conspiracy :-) The reason for this spreading between two functions is
incremental development done at very d
99 matches
Mail list logo
