https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67199
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61441
--- Comment #4 from Sujoy ---
Yes, I agree to your comment.
With -fno-signaling-nans (which is the default), we need to fix the ccp so that
the sNaN is converted to qNaN when the value is propagated.
With -fsignaling-nans, we need to ensure tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67002
--- Comment #25 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Ok, this seems to have been fixed:
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1objplus-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1plus-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66070
Andrey Turkin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrey.turkin at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67200
Bug ID: 67200
Summary: Copy elision and implicit move in return performed in
cases not allowed by standard
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66870
--- Comment #22 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Thu Aug 13 05:25:02 2015
New Revision: 226848
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226848&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
More split-stack fixes
Backport rev 226443
2015-07-31 Alan Modra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #62 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #61)
> (In reply to amker from comment #60)
> > (In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #59)
> > > We don't have a lot of data yet, but we have seen several ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25529
--- Comment #3 from naveenh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: naveenh
Date: Thu Aug 13 04:37:22 2015
New Revision: 226847
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226847&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-13 Naveen H.S
PR middle-end/25529
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #61 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to amker from comment #60)
> (In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #59)
> > We don't have a lot of data yet, but we have seen several examples in SPEC
> > and other benchmarks where turning on -fun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67199
Bug ID: 67199
Summary: ICE with compile bug related to vector_size
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67153
--- Comment #11 from ncm at cantrip dot org ---
Aha, Uroš, I see your name in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62011
Please forgive me for "teaching" you about micro-ops.
The code being generated for all versions does use (e.g.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #60 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #59)
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #57)
> >
> > It's been a long time since I've done SPEC measuring with/without
> > -funroll-loops (or/and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67153
--- Comment #10 from ncm at cantrip dot org ---
I found this, which at first blush seems like it might be relevant.
The hardware complained about here is the same Haswell i7-4770.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/25078285/replacing-a-32-bit-loo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67198
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boger at us dot ibm.com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67153
--- Comment #9 from ncm at cantrip dot org ---
I did experiment with -m[no-]bmi[2] a fair bit. It all made a significant
difference in the instructions emitted, but exactly zero difference in
runtime. That's actually not surprising at all; those
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67198
Bug ID: 67198
Summary: gccgo: change of type of syscall.RawSockaddr.Data on
ppc64 breaks compilation of existing programs
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66214
Anton Blanchard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anton at samba dot org
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53330
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53330
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Aug 12 22:38:04 2015
New Revision: 226840
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226840&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-12 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/53330
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67071
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Aug 12 21:54:23 2015
New Revision: 226836
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226836&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2015-08-12 Michael Meissner
PR target/67071
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67172
--- Comment #5 from Matt Breedlove ---
On previous builds, you could have DWARF2_UNWIND_INFO be defined and have
EH_FRAME_SECTION_NAME undefined within libgcc2.c (the section name was still
defined within cygming-crtbegin.c - crtbegin.o). When c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61441
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Bugs in -fsignaling-nans (in this case, that a conversion of a signaling
NaN from float to double is incorrectly folded) should be fixed just like
any other bug. That sentence is simply wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67172
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015, breedlove.matt at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67172
>
> --- Comment #3 from Matt Breedlove ---
> In gcc/defaults.h, it gets def
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67196
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66631
--- Comment #18 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Andy Lutomirski from comment #17)
> I'll chime in, possibly uselessly.
>
> Before Linux 4.1, only CS was saved. (Unless you go *way* back.) In 4.1
> or newer, SS is saved, too.
>
> In 64-bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67197
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67197
Bug ID: 67197
Summary: GCC_FINAL causes bootstrap failure on AIX
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66631
Andy Lutomirski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luto at mit dot edu
--- Comment #17 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67196
Bug ID: 67196
Summary: Another false positive from -Wmaybe-uninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709
--- Comment #19 from Jeffrey Walton ---
(In reply to Yann Collet from comment #18)
> This issue makes me wonder : how to efficiently access unaligned memory ?
>
>
> The case in point is ARM cpu.
> They don't support SSE/AVX, so they seem unaffe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709
--- Comment #18 from Yann Collet ---
This issue makes me wonder : how to efficiently access unaligned memory ?
The case in point is ARM cpu.
They don't support SSE/AVX, so they seem unaffected by this specific issue,
but this issue force writin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49409
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
I meant "agree with closing".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67161
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67104
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 12 18:08:45 2015
New Revision: 226833
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226833&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67104
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_array_reference): Fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49409
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
-Wtautological-compare has been added to GCC 6. -Wlogical-op is older, but the
part of it that warns about "i && i" is new and has only been added to GCC 6.
I agree about closing the bug now, BTW.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67161
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 12 18:05:49 2015
New Revision: 226831
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226831&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67161
* error.c (dump_decl) [TEMPLATE_ID_EXPR]: Pas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67108
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67104
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 12 18:02:43 2015
New Revision: 226830
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226830&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67104
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_array_reference): Han
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67108
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 12 18:02:35 2015
New Revision: 226829
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226829&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67108
* decl2.c (c_parse_final_cleanups): Set at_eo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67195
Bug ID: 67195
Summary: cpp and g++ does not define __GLIBCXX__
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49409
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67161
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 12 17:33:39 2015
New Revision: 226827
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226827&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67161
* error.c (dump_decl) [TEMPLATE_ID_EXPR]: Pas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55095
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55095
--- Comment #19 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Wed Aug 12 17:25:23 2015
New Revision: 226826
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226826&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/55095
* c-common.c (maybe_warn_shift_overflow):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67194
Bug ID: 67194
Summary: Missed jump thread and false positive from
-Wuninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52742
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|M at ttDiese
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52742
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Aug 12 17:18:14 2015
New Revision: 226824
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226824&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-12 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/52742
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66941
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63809
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63809
--- Comment #2 from Ivan Sorokin ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #0)
> g++ fails to warn about the extra parameter list. clang does warn, see
> PR63750.
Why is it a warning? Isn't this code incorrect? I can not find anything in
[temp.e
(char *p) {
^
$ bin/g++ -O -c -Wstack-usage=898989 t.cc
$ bin/g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 6.0.0 20150812 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66521
--- Comment #14 from ctice at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ctice
Date: Wed Aug 12 15:40:11 2015
New Revision: 226820
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226820&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix warnings when bootstrapping on darwin with vtable verificat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67092
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67098
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67099
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67098
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Aug 12 15:13:35 2015
New Revision: 226819
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226819&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Remove --with-host-libstdcxx
2015-08-12 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67092
--- Comment #15 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Aug 12 15:13:35 2015
New Revision: 226819
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226819&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Remove --with-host-libstdcxx
2015-08-12 Tom de Vries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49409
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||polacek at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49409
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67192
Bug ID: 67192
Summary: Backward-goto in loop can get wrong line number
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: deb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67108
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47461
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47461
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Aug 12 14:47:58 2015
New Revision: 226816
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226816&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-12 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/47461
* g++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67191
Antoine Balestrat changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||antoine.balestrat at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67191
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Oh, maybe just the reduced testcase no longer fails after r226814.
Still fails on ppc64le after r226814. So a cross should reproduce this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67191
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Oh, maybe just the reduced testcase no longer fails after r226814.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67191
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67161
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35234
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67191
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47461
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
Let's add a testcase and close the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67170
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Ok, the argument may go like "foo (&D.3438) may not modify *arg_29(D)
because then the fnspec on foo would be incorrect - *arg_29(D) would be
modified".
Untested patch (works for the testcase):
Index: gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67099
--- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If this ( https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-08/msg00603.html ) gets
approved, --with-host-libstdcxx will be removed, and we can mark this as
resolved-wont-fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67098
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from vrie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67092
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #14 from vri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55095
--- Comment #18 from Marek Polacek ---
Testing a fix for the sign bit problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55095
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67191
Bug ID: 67191
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: in before_dom_children, at
tree-ssa-sccvn.c:4372
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67127
--- Comment #1 from Yvan Roux ---
Author: yroux
Date: Wed Aug 12 13:27:41 2015
New Revision: 226811
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226811&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-08-12 Yvan Roux
PR target/67127
* config/arm/arm.md (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63809
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vanyacpp at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29256
--- Comment #59 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #57)
>
> It's been a long time since I've done SPEC measuring with/without
> -funroll-loops (or/and -fpeel-loops). Note that these flags have
> secondary effects
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67190
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25702
--- Comment #11 from Mark Eklund ---
-Wsizeof-pointer-memaccess is definitely a good targeted fix and probably hits
a majority of what I've seen. I'm good with this being resolved.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67190
Bug ID: 67190
Summary: gcc allows extra template <> on explicit template
specializations
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35694
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10138
Bug 10138 depends on bug 27120, which changed state.
Bug 27120 Summary: Should warn about uninitialized use of variable array element
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27120
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27120
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 27120, which changed state.
Bug 27120 Summary: Should warn about uninitialized use of variable array element
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27120
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25702
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65452
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
We now warn for the testcase in Comment 2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55892
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65143
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67184
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65143
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gpderetta at gmail dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67184
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gpderetta at gmail dot com |
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67132
--- Comment #4 from Giacomo Tesio ---
Indeed, this is a request for an enhancement, not a bug report.
I mean, being able to decide how gcc defines wchar_t is an enhancement, given
the poor definition of such type in the standard.
With -Wno-point
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66801
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66994
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67183
--- Comment #3 from Jay ---
https://github.com/modula3/cm3/commit/14d5e667e19abaab679b52bc8fd35a4e38073330
is a simple patch against 4.7 that establishes a partial ordering,
separating the indirect functions from the indirect data,
and appears t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67132
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |preprocessor
--- Comment #3 from Marek P
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
