https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Huber ---
Indeed -std=gnu++98 gets rid of this error. So this is working as intended for
C++11 and later? This is really nice in combination with defines and macros
that use ( ) around its content.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
C++11 rules about (x) have changed. If you use -std=gnu++98 you would get the
same behavior as before.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67064
Bug ID: 67064
Summary: Register asm variable broken
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67021
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jul 30 05:48:40 2015
New Revision: 226383
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226383&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
DR 1558
PR c++/67021
* pt.c (tsubst_decl) [TYPE_DE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67021
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67021
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jul 30 05:31:09 2015
New Revision: 226382
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226382&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
DR 1558
PR c++/67021
* pt.c (tsubst_decl) [TYPE_DE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67021
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jul 30 05:27:34 2015
New Revision: 226381
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226381&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
DR 1558
PR c++/67021
* pt.c (tsubst_decl) [TYPE_DE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67021
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67061
--- Comment #2 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #1)
> Hm ..
>
> for (result.insn = stepfunc (insn); result.insn != NULL_RTX;
>previnsn = result.insn, result.insn = stepfunc (result.insn))
>
> that "previnsn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67061
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67038
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jul 30 03:29:00 2015
New Revision: 226380
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226380&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67038
* constraint.cc (satisfy_constraint): Use dum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67038
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67045
Gary Funck changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66217
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Jul 30 02:34:09 2015
New Revision: 226378
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226378&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66217
PR target/67045
* config/rs6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67045
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Thu Jul 30 02:34:09 2015
New Revision: 226378
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226378&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/66217
PR target/67045
* config/rs6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67063
Bug ID: 67063
Summary: segfault in opening a formatted file at second time
with status="replace"
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67062
Bug ID: 67062
Summary: -no-pie check breaks cross compilation of GCC [OS X ->
Windows]
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67049
--- Comment #2 from Yaakov Selkowitz ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #1)
> My bad. Could you please try this patch?
That gets me through libgcc, but when I get to newlib I see bug 67061.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67061
Bug ID: 67061
Summary: sh64-elf: internal compiler error: in
sh_find_set_of_reg, at config/sh/sh-protos.h:235
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67015
--- Comment #9 from Ville Voutilainen ---
(In reply to Tim Shen from comment #8)
> Well we've decided not to do so...
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2015-07/msg00083.html
Yes, I read that, that's why I commented on this bug, I'd like to
chan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64401
Yaakov Selkowitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64424
Yaakov Selkowitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64403
Yaakov Selkowitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67015
Tim Shen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67060
Bug ID: 67060
Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr56228.c (test for excess
errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67059
--- Comment #1 from Vedran Miletic ---
Created attachment 36090
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36090&action=edit
Patch
Output from git diff, hope this is OK.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67059
Bug ID: 67059
Summary: gfortran --version output is inconsistent with the
rest of GCC
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67035
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66978
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Thanks, H.J., your patch has been integrated into the incremental patch in the
git branch aoliva/pr64164.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66983
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55986
Shafik Yaghmour changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yaghmour.shafik at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66521
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to ctice from comment #4)
> Created attachment 36082 [details]
> Tentative patch to fix this issue.
>
> I believe the attached patch will fix this problem. I would appreciate it
> if Eric would co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66808
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #0)
> Created attachment 35932 [details]
> gzipped C++ source code
>
> gcc trunk dated 20150707 does this
>
> $ ../results/bin/gcc -c -O2 bug216.cc
> /home/dcb/rp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63679
--- Comment #35 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So it should be happening in dom2. On x86, input to dom2 is
vect_cst_.9_31 = { 0, 1, 2, 3 };
[...]MEM[(int *)&a] = vect_cst_.9_31;
[...]vect__13.3_20 = MEM[(int *)&a];
resulting in:
Optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66650
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67058
--- Comment #2 from Lenjoy ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1)
> This is an LLVM bug.
okay, filed https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24304
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66650
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Jul 29 17:45:07 2015
New Revision: 226360
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226360&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgfortran/66650
* libgfortran.h (GFC_DTYPE_SI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67052
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
(s/removed/reviewed/)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67052
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The uses of the *nonnegative* functions should be removed to determine
what semantics are expected for for floating-point arguments.
If the semantics are "sign bit is 0", NaNs should return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67010
Anders Granlund changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66650
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Jul 29 17:12:28 2015
New Revision: 226357
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226357&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgfortran/66650
* libgfortran.h (GFC_DTYPE_SI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67058
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67058
Bug ID: 67058
Summary: Segmentation fault: 11 with >= in lambda in c++11
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66650
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Jul 29 15:42:03 2015
New Revision: 226355
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226355&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libgfortran/66650
* libgfortran.h (GFC_DTYPE_SI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67056
--- Comment #4 from Henning Baldersheim ---
Using the -fsanitize-undefined caused this error.
configretriever.cpp: info: running test suite 'configretriever.cpp'
/home/y/include/c++/5.2.0/bits/unique_ptr.h:76:2: runtime error: execution
reached
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55095
--- Comment #14 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #13)
> Implemented for GCC 6.
Suggestion for improvement, based on compiling Linux kernel.
3901 Wshift-overflow warning messages were produced, of which 3780
(97%
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67054
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67056
--- Comment #3 from Henning Baldersheim ---
valgrind does not complain about anything undefined, but will try the sanitize
option too.
Will also try to isolate it as much as possible.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66829
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66829
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jul 29 14:56:11 2015
New Revision: 226354
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226354&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/66829
* testsuite/lib/libstdc++.exp (v3-buil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67056
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67057
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #0)
> Combine is looking for a pattern:
>
> Failed to match this instruction:
> (set (reg:SI 162 [ D.1652 ])
> (plus:SI (zero_extract:SI (reg:SI 4 r4 [ a ])
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66752
--- Comment #15 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Causes bootstrap failure on ppc64 that I haven't had time to dig into.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66917
--- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The 007t.lower one looks like:
try
{
MEM[(char * {ref-all})&a] = MEM[(char * {ref-all})ap];
MEM[(char * {ref-all})&b] = MEM[(char * {ref-all})bp];
D.5587 = a.u[0];
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67057
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo ---
For some cases where T+const_int is calculated, like ...
int foo (int a, int b)
{
return a == b ? 5 : 4;
}
comiled with -O2:
cmp/eq r5,r4
movtr0
rts
add #4,r0
..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66917
--- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> Probably because you access a.u/b.u which is uint64_t and thus the union
> is laid out as having 8 byte alignment?
>
> How do the original GENERIC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66917
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67057
Bug ID: 67057
Summary: [SH] Use negc to calculate 1-T+const_int
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67049
--- Comment #1 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
My bad. Could you please try this patch?
diff --git a/config/sh/sh.md b/config/sh/sh.md
index a86eaad..387ffe3 100644
--- a/config/sh/sh.md
+++ b/config/sh/sh.md
@@ -10597,7 +10597,7 @@ label:
if (TARG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67056
--- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
There are some tips and instructions at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/
A reduced, preprocessed testcase would be ideal.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67056
Bug ID: 67056
Summary: Wrong code generated
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66917
--- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The slp2 dump at tree level says about the ap pointer:
base_address: ap_2(D)
offset from base address: 0
constant offset from base address: 0
step: 0
align
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66849
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Mil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Actually, it started with r221040 aka PR bootstrap/65150 fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60970
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jul 29 12:41:23 2015
New Revision: 226347
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226347&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-07-29 Ville Voutilainen
PR libstdc++/60970
* inc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #8)
>
> Maybe we can add gcc/real.o to the ignore list for the time being?
Not sure if this is a good idea.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #8 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #7)
> A rare indeterminacy of the register choice. Both codes are valid.
Ok, that's what I thought as well.
> It seems very hard to find where has this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055
--- Comment #5 from Henning Baldersheim ---
Actually -fno-inline-functions was enough as a workaround. Then I can still use
the same general -O3 option.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66650
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Patch that rewrites GFC_DTYPE_SIZE_MASK definition to avoid "left shift of
negative value" warning:
--cut here--
Index: libgfortran.h
===
--- lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055
--- Comment #4 from Henning Baldersheim ---
If I use -O2 instead of -O3 it builds fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055
--- Comment #3 from Henning Baldersheim ---
Created attachment 36089
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36089&action=edit
.s file
I also add the .s file that was generated with the -save-temps option
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055
--- Comment #2 from Henning Baldersheim ---
Created attachment 36088
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36088&action=edit
the .ii file in gziped format
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66975
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to vries from comment #1)
> This ( https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg02064.html ) patches
> fixes the problem for operations that do not overflow, f.i. min and max.
Updated pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66846
--- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
updated patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg02451.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927
--- Comment #17 from Bill Schmidt ---
Argh, sorry, Markus. Thanks for fixing it up.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63304
--- Comment #21 from David Abdurachmanov
---
I am on vacations now, but I already marked this on my TODO list. Once I find a
free time slot I will give it a spin. I will try to report in a few days.
BTW, I will also show up at GNU Tools Cauldro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67020
--- Comment #5 from karthik ---
Hi!
I am sorry, its my mistake.
I copy pasted the problem area and by mistake I pasted the wrong command with
version 4.7.3
My mistake! my bad!
Below is the script I used for pass 1: FOR 5.2.0
../gcc-5.2.0/config
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67020
--- Comment #4 from karthik ---
Hi!
I am sorry, its my mistake.
I copy pasted the problem area and by mistake I pasted the wrong command with
version 4.7.3
My mistake! my bad!
Below is the script I used for pass 1: FOR 5.2.0
../gcc-5.2.0/config
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67020
karthik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.7.3 |5.2.0
--- Comment #3 from karthik ---
Hi!
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67043
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66752
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63304
--- Comment #20 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #19)
> (In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #18)
> > I'm taking a look into this.
>
> RFC here - https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/ms
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055
Bug ID: 67055
Summary: Segmentation fault in fold_builtin_alloca_with_align
in tree-ssa-ccp.c
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66752
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67054
Bug ID: 67054
Summary: Constructor inheritance with non-default constructible
members
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67047
--- Comment #5 from Anders Granlund ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Yes you can verify that with
>
> static_assert( std::is_same::type,
> unsigned __int128>::value, "");
>
> I suppose there should be a diagnostic with -Wpeda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67020
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67053
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67053
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
Summary|[6 R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67053
Bug ID: 67053
Summary: [6 Regression] AIL:
experimental/optional/constexpr/make_optional.cc
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67015
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67048
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67047
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67052
Bug ID: 67052
Summary: tree_single_nonnegative_warnv_p and
fold_relational_const are inconsistent with NaNs
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67051
Bug ID: 67051
Summary: symtab_node::equal_address_to too conservative?
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
