https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64989
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Jul 25 06:54:57 2015
New Revision: 226207
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226207&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/64989
* pt.c (splice_late_return_type): Correct ded
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64079
--- Comment #13 from Danil Ilinykh ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo ---
That came out of a GCC version with has a known wrong-code bug (PR 66930)
Please try again with the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66930#c10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66752
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Sat Jul 25 05:45:42 2015
New Revision: 226206
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226206&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Revert:
PR lto/66752
* tree-ssa-threadedge.c (simplify_con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66985
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Jul 25 03:53:09 2015
New Revision: 226205
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226205&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66985
* constraint.cc (process_introduction_parm):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66985
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67003
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Jul 25 03:29:42 2015
New Revision: 226204
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226204&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67003
* parser.c (cp_parser_template_introduction):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67003
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66988
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66988
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Jul 25 03:19:54 2015
New Revision: 226203
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226203&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66988
* constraint.cc (satisfy_type_constraint): Us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66988
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67003
Bug ID: 67003
Summary: [c++-concepts] Qualified name lookup fails in a
template introduction
Product: gcc
Version: c++-concepts
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65265
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo ---
Actually, this can be also used for xor or and-not etc combinations. E.g. an
and-not sequence:
mov #-1,r12
tst r0,r0 T1
negcr12,r12 !T1
tst r1,r1 T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65249
Kazumoto Kojima changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65249
--- Comment #25 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Sat Jul 25 01:26:55 2015
New Revision: 226201
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226201&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=65249
--- Comment #24 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Author: kkojima
Date: Sat Jul 25 01:24:27 2015
New Revision: 226200
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226200&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=66868
--- Comment #10 from Matthias Klose ---
rechecked with a 5.2.0 release tarball, fails with -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64079
--- Comment #12 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #11)
> Fixed.
Should we have a meta-bug for all uses of %+ that can potentially cause
problems or should we leave open this one as a catch all case? Removing ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50584
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 3 Jul 2015, sergei.ivn+bugzilla at gmail dot com wrote:
> Some excerpts from the C11 standard:
>
> /-
> If the keyword static also appears within the [ and ] of the array type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36587
--- Comment #13 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Kaz Kylheku from comment #11)
> I deployed that change to large team of developers, and the toolchain with
> that change went to customers also. The warning caught problems that were
> fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65995
Daniel Starke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||5.2.0
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Starke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35587
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xinliangli at gmail dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66962
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Sutton ---
There are a couple of other problems in the minimized example (concept int
shows up a couple of times, there's a variable template whose initializer is a
requires expression). I doubt those contribute to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52954
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Ops, wrong PR. Try again: Duplicate.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 35587 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3587
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xinliangli at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52954
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66981
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Pop ---
> Is this related to PR61000?
Yes. Also related to PR14741.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36587
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Kaz Kylheku from comment #11)
> The bug database has an "enhancement" type, so obviously, it is to be used
> for submitting enhancements.
No, it's for submitting enhancement *requests*, i.e.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64079
--- Comment #10 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Jul 24 20:20:13 2015
New Revision: 226191
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226191&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-07-24 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR c++/64079
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64079
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|paolo.carlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66868
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64le-linux-gnu,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66929
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67001
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
Bug ID: 67002
Summary: [5] [SH]: Bootstrap stage 2/3 comparison failure -
gcc/real.o differs
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66962
--- Comment #12 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
This paper claims O(e log d) for size e and alternation depth d:
http://www.win.tue.nl/~jfg/articles/CSR-04-13.pdf
But I'm not sure if it is applicable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66962
--- Comment #11 from Eric Niebler ---
Removing the disjunction in the Constructible concept causes memory usage and
compile time to drop to zero. The word from Andrew is that this is simply a
quadratic algorithm. It is unknown whether a non-quadr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55035
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
Block
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36587
--- Comment #11 from Kaz Kylheku ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #10)
> (In reply to Kaz Kylheku from comment #1)
> > Created attachment 15798 [details]
> > Implements -Wunused-objects warning for C++.
>
> Patches need to be pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67001
Bug ID: 67001
Summary: -fno-plt miscompiles ld in binutils
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67000
Bug ID: 67000
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE in split_complex_args, at
function.c:2325 on ppc64le
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66259
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Jul 24 18:20:44 2015
New Revision: 226183
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226183&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR other/66259
* config-ml.in: Reflects renaming of configu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66999
Bug ID: 66999
Summary: Missing comma in lambda capture causes internal
compiler error
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
--- Comment #11 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I have a version of gcc 5.2.0 compiled with the -fsanitize=undefined option.
This sanitized version gave me a runtime error due to dereferencing
the pointer dst_ctx
which was NULL. After the change I sugges
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66988
--- Comment #2 from Eric Niebler ---
I thought that, too. But this program has the same problem:
#include
template class T, class U>
concept bool _Valid = requires { typename T; };
template
using __t = typename T::type;
template
struct __
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #46 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66873
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|patch |
--- Comment #10 from vries at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66873
--- Comment #9 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #7)
> Created attachment 35986 [details]
> Updated tentative patch
>
> I found that always doing graphite before parloops resulted in failures to
> parallelize reduc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66998
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Tomasz Kamiński from comment #2)
> Should I create separate issue?
Oops, no we can deal with both under this PR.
If I commit my invoke() implementation then we can just use that, and it will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66998
--- Comment #2 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
Sorry for missing using declaration.
> It's certainly a nice QoI improvement. I was basically lazy when I
> implemented it and used decltype(auto) because it's convenient.
Yes, the decltype(auto) is con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63854
Bug 63854 depends on bug 64003, which changed state.
Bug 64003 Summary: valgrind complains about get_attr_length_nobnd in
insn-attrtab.c from i386.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66998
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64003
--- Comment #32 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Fri Jul 24 16:25:56 2015
New Revision: 226173
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226173&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/64003
* config/i386/i386.h (ADJUST_INSN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66988
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Sutton ---
I don't know if that's strictly a concepts issue. My guess is that the template
argument coersion of this argument:
template class
to this parameter:
template class
is not succeeding.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66998
Bug ID: 66998
Summary: not_fn invocation is not SFINAE friendly
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65711
--- Comment #10 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nsz
Date: Fri Jul 24 16:12:58 2015
New Revision: 226169
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226169&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline r226158.
2015-07-24 Szabo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66984
--- Comment #6 from gfunck at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: gfunck
Date: Fri Jul 24 16:10:39 2015
New Revision: 226168
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226168&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-07-24 Gary Funck
PR middle-end/66984
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Vittorio Zecca from comment #8)
> Created attachment 36052 [details]
> To be compiled with -O2
This compiles fine for me (with -O2) both with the current trunk and
the current gcc 5 branch.
(I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65711
--- Comment #9 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nsz
Date: Fri Jul 24 16:00:26 2015
New Revision: 226165
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226165&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline r226158.
2015-07-24 Szabolcs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66996
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66996
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66997
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Using this patch, we don't bail out immediately when graphite didn't set
loop->can_be_parallel, but try a bit harder:
...
diff --git a/gcc/tree-parloops.c b/gcc/tree-parloops.c
index 88f22e8..51f157
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66997
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
loop nest at parloops:
...
parloop (int N)
{
_Bool Cross_BB_scalar_dependence.11_I_lsm.23;
unsigned int Cross_BB_scalar_dependence.11_I_lsm.22;
_Bool Cross_BB_scalar_dependence.13_I_lsm.21;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66997
Bug ID: 66997
Summary: outer loop reduction fails to parallelize with
graphite
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66996
Bug ID: 66996
Summary: [6 Regression] defined but not used
[-Wunused-function]
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66994
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #2)
> Is this caused by r226113?
Maybe.
With r226113 I get: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
With r226112 I get: internal compiler error: output_operand: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66995
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66994
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Is this caused by r226113?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66978
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg02066.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
--- Comment #15 from Mikael Morin ---
Author: mikael
Date: Fri Jul 24 14:44:59 2015
New Revision: 226162
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226162&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix gfortran.dg/class_to_type_4.f90 deallocation code misordering failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66984
--- Comment #5 from Gary Funck ---
(In reply to Jay from comment #2)
> 2 I suggest that gcc's C/C++ frontends expose these other forms of division,
> for the sake of testability.
Perhaps defining a builtin for CEIL_DIV_EXPR and FLOOR_DIV_EXPR mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714
--- Comment #24 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: cesar
Date: Fri Jul 24 14:38:43 2015
New Revision: 226160
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226160&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 66714
gcc/
* tree-cfg.c (struct rep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66984
--- Comment #4 from Gary Funck ---
(In reply to Jay from comment #2)
> 1 please be sure that dividing the most negative number by -1 "works".
> Perhaps just don't optimize anything with negstive numbers.
- Checking for negative numbers at compi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66984
--- Comment #3 from Gary Funck ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> The usual fix in fold-const.c is to make sure to convert operands to the
> required type when building the final expression. Thus instead of
>
> 10828 r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65711
--- Comment #8 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: nsz
Date: Fri Jul 24 14:27:55 2015
New Revision: 226158
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226158&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] Fix LINUX_TARGET_LINK_SPEC to be consistent with ARM
2015
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66995
Bug ID: 66995
Summary: First declaration as inline after definition of
function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66994
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6 Regression] ICE: |[6 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
--- Comment #9 from Vittorio Zecca ---
At line 2473 of ipa-prop.c I have
if (!ctx.useless_p ())
I changed it into
if (!ctx.useless_p () || !dst_ctx)
Now the sanitizer runtime error message disappears.
I am attaching another source, gccerr20-b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
--- Comment #8 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Created attachment 36052
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36052&action=edit
To be compiled with -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66994
Bug ID: 66994
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault during PGO
bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986
--- Comment #14 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com from comment #13)
> A good principle in general is to assume cock-up, rather than
> conspiracy :-) The reason for this spreading between two functions is
> increment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66930
--- Comment #14 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #12)
> The toplevel "make -k check" on sh4-unknown-linux-gnu is running.
> I'll report back when it completes.
I've confirmed that there are no new failures with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66930
--- Comment #15 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #13)
> This would be OK for hardregs (which are clobbered by calls). When working
> on pseudos, it's actually OK to ignore calls. Maybe it'd be a good idea to
> extend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug 65530 depends on bug 66566, which changed state.
Bug 66566 Summary: [CHKP] ICE in early_inliner: internal compiler error: in
operator[], at vec.h:714
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66566
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65530
Bug 65530 depends on bug 66581, which changed state.
Bug 66581 Summary: [CHKP] internal compiler error: SSA corruption
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66581
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66581
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66566
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66566
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Fri Jul 24 13:25:06 2015
New Revision: 226156
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226156&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline r226155.
2015-07-24 Ilya
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66566
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Fri Jul 24 13:15:49 2015
New Revision: 226155
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226155&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR ipa/66566
* ipa-inline-analysis.c (estimate_c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66978
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
I am testing this patch:
diff --git a/gcc/function.c b/gcc/function.c
index c3d00cd..f63c9be 100644
--- a/gcc/function.c
+++ b/gcc/function.c
@@ -5207,6 +5207,10 @@ expand_function_start (tree subr)
SET_DEC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64079
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini ---
Agreed. For now I mean to do a first pass on the warnings, no errors, seems
more urgent given the issue involving the pragmas.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64079
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #7)
> Thanks Jason.
>
> Note that '+' eventually boils down to location_of, which does quite a bit
> more than DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION. Thus either we should be ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66978
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
A small testcase:
[hjl@gnu-6 pr66978]$ cat x.i
extern int foo (int *);
int
bar (int *p)
{
__attribute__ ((noinline, noclone))
int hack_digit (void)
{
return foo (p);
}
return hack_digit ();
}
[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66993
Bug ID: 66993
Summary: Spurious ambiguous symbol error with submodules
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66978
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Jul 24 12:08:00 2015
New Revision: 226150
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226150&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add a testcase for PR bootstrap/66978
PR bootstrap/66978
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66992
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I think we have some dups that are similar.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66991
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66991
--- Comment #5 from Basile Starynkevitch ---
Now Debian bug#793478; sorry for the noise here...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66991
--- Comment #4 from Basile Starynkevitch ---
Known to Debian thru https://lists.debian.org/debian-gcc/2015/07/msg00167.html
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
