https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68983
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68729
--- Comment #10 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sat Dec 19 01:54:34 2015
New Revision: 231847
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231847&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/68729
* config/pa/pa.c (pa_emit_move_sequ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68729
--- Comment #9 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sat Dec 19 01:52:17 2015
New Revision: 231846
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231846&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/68729
* config/pa/pa.c (pa_emit_move_seque
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68729
--- Comment #8 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sat Dec 19 01:50:00 2015
New Revision: 231845
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231845&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/68729
* config/pa/pa.c (pa_emit_move_seque
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68991
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Also
subreg:V4SI (reg:TI 247 [ MEM[(const struct bitset &)FeatureEntry_115 + 8] ])
0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68991
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Here is the misaligned source:
(subreg:V4SI (unspec:V16QI [
(mem:V16QI (subreg/s/v:SI (reg/v/f:DI 219 [ Bits ]) 0) [14
MEM[(long unsigned int *)Bits_12(D)]+0 S16 A32])
] UNSPEC_LOADU) 0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68991
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66764
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68991
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x32 |x86
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68276
--- Comment #5 from Ville Voutilainen ---
The enhancement PR is https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68989.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68978
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68991
Bug ID: 68991
Summary: -O3 generates misaligned xorv4si3
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68978
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Fri Dec 18 23:16:33 2015
New Revision: 231841
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231841&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR c++/68978 (bogus error: lvalue required as left operand of assignm
gcc version 6.0.0 20151218 (experimental) [trunk revision 231807] (GCC)
$:
$: gcc-trunk -m32 small.c -w -O3 ; ./a.out
$: gcc-trunk -m32 small.c -w -O2 ; ./a.out
g_95=0
$: gcc-trunk -m32 small.c -w -O0 ; ./a.out
g_95=0
$:
$: cat small.c
short a;
int b = 1, f;
char c, e = 1;
long long d;
static short
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68917
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68860
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 18 22:16:24 2015
New Revision: 231840
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231840&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/68860
* ipa-split.c (split_function): Only perfor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68989
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68989
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68989
Bug ID: 68989
Summary: Core issue 1992 will make catching
bad_new_array_length unnecessary in _M_grow_words
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68276
--- Comment #4 from Ville Voutilainen ---
The current approach still needs to catch bad_new_array_length exceptions. That
is intended to be solved by
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1992 so once we get
to stage 1 for g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66764
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
I also looked into this some time ago and did not reproduce the ICE, so perhaps
we can close the PR.
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68763
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 37092
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37092&action=edit
gcc6-pr68763.patch
SO, I've tried to write a patch for this, and it passed bootstrap, but
introduced:
+FAIL: g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68819
--- Comment #10 from David Malcolm ---
Updated patch, which addresses the LINE_MAP_MAX_LOCATION_WITH_COLS limit:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg01921.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68983
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68988
Bug ID: 68988
Summary: reload_pseudo_compare_func violates qsort requirements
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68988
--- Comment #1 from Yury Gribov ---
The bug was detected with SortChecker tool (https://github.com/yugr/sortcheck).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68987
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67592
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67592
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Dec 18 18:18:47 2015
New Revision: 231824
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231824&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2015-12-18 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/67592
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60044
Roman Perepelitsa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68987
Bug ID: 68987
Summary: double free or corruption in _gfortran_st_write_done
when a write statement to an internal file uses an
invalid format and the ERR= specifier appears.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68770
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68770
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 37091
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37091&action=edit
unreduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65421
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-03-18 00:00:00 |2015-12-18
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68120
--- Comment #2 from Paul Eggert ---
(In reply to Paul Eggert from comment #0)
> I am working around the problem with macro definitions like this:
>
> # define INT_ADD_OVERFLOW(a, b) \
>(__builtin_constant_p ((a) == (b)) \
> ? _GL_INT_AD
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68967
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37069|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68971
--- Comment #8 from Paul Eggert ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #7)
> Perhaps what's needed is for GCC to treat the builtins as constant
> expressions when they're invoked with them as operands. If you agree with
> that approach, I s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68473
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Created attachment 37089
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37089&action=edit
Another testcase,
Attaching another testcase. Hopefully it's fixed by the pending patch from
David.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
--- Comment #40 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Dec 18 17:17:14 2015
New Revision: 231821
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231821&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PATCH] [PR rtl-optimization/49847] Fix ICE in CSE due to cc0-setter and
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68978
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68971
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
I didn't mean to sound like I was lecturing you, just trying to draw a clear
distinction between the cases.
Perhaps what's needed is for GCC to treat the builtins as constant expressions
when they're invoked
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65479
--- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor ---
The sanitizer tests are still failing and this bug still hasn't been fixed.
The patch in r224402 was only partial, committed on the assumption that the
LLVM AddressSantitizer maintainers would approve my pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55598
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58967
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68986
--- Comment #1 from jas...@3db-labs.com ---
Created attachment 37088
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37088&action=edit
preprocessed output file from gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68986
Bug ID: 68986
Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65479
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc64*-*-linux*
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68985
Bug ID: 68985
Summary: braced initializer bug when defining a static
constexpr int within a class
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68913
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68674
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68763
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The reason for the weird behavior of build_method_type_directly are default
args.
We call this function with one argument list and return type etc., where one
argument type in TYPE_ARG_TYPES has TREE_PURPOSE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68674
--- Comment #13 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37084
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37084&action=edit
preliminary fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68895
--- Comment #3 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37083
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37083&action=edit
fix under validation
Initial patch to recompute DECL_MODE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65931
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Any news on this? If we want to workaround it, it should be bisected and
> analyzed what is the difference in the debug info.
> Or just use a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68674
--- Comment #12 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #8)
> (In reply to chrbr from comment #7)
> > I was suggesting in #68934 to make this code invalid and report an error.
> > Since SIMD types should not be used fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68982
--- Comment #2 from Roger Orr ---
Created attachment 37082
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37082&action=edit
Example of failure, against code using boost 1.57.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67710
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Unfortunately, it doesn't work on Mac OS X 10.11.2: every link test
FAILs with
FAIL: 17_intro/freestanding.cc (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
ld: warning: object file
(/var/folde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68276
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68276
--- Comment #2 from ville at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ville
Date: Fri Dec 18 15:17:09 2015
New Revision: 231819
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231819&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-12-18 Ville Voutilainen
PR libstdc++/68276
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68770
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
trippels@gcc2-power8 ~ % ../gcc/configure --enable-checking=valgrind
--with-cpu=power8 --disable-libsanitizer --disable-bootstrap
--disable-libstdcxx-pch --disable-libvtv --disable-libitm --disable-libc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68984
Bug ID: 68984
Summary: error: ‘constexpr bool std::isinf(double)’ conflicts
with a previous declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68770
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68835
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68835
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 18 14:38:17 2015
New Revision: 231817
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231817&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2015-12-17 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68763
--- Comment #12 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
*** Bug 66745 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66745
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68763
--- Comment #11 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Isn't this related or dup of PR66745 ?
>
> As for the lvalue error, reduced testcase is:
> template
> int
> foo (int max, int i, int radix, int c)
> {
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68763
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68983
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 37081
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37081&action=edit
unreduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68977
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
As the code is ill-formed, and IIUC the error only happens if we;ve seen an
error, I suggest
push_gimplify_context (!seen_error ());
No point making the compiler work harder than necesary in the usual case?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68975
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I see that clang supports __decltype (but not __decltype__, strangely)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68983
Bug ID: 68983
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: in store_field, at expr.c:6659
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68982
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67639
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68970
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68776
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68776
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 18 13:52:11 2015
New Revision: 231815
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231815&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-12-18 Richard Biener
PR testsuite/68776
* tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68982
Bug ID: 68982
Summary: Missing explicit qualification for std::forward in
functional
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68981
Bug ID: 68981
Summary: [4.9/5/6 Regression] g++.dg/ipa/pr60640-4.C FAILs with
-ftree-vectorize
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68980
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68980
Bug ID: 68980
Summary: [6 regression] ps -o cmd in gotest isn't portable
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68979
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> Why do you think this is a bug? Note that -1 << 4 is rejected in a context
> where an integer constant expression is required only in C++11/14.
I think th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68977
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68979
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68979
Bug ID: 68979
Summary: [6 Regression] error: left operand of shift expression
‘(-1 << 4)’ is negative
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67598
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66764
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65931
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65980
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62236
--- Comment #5 from Victor Porton ---
Not fixed in 5.3.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66827
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #8 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62235
--- Comment #7 from Victor Porton ---
Not fixed in 5.3.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68763
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62042
--- Comment #9 from Victor Porton ---
Not fixed in 5.3.1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68385
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68978
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68649
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68910
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
> In case I revert (e.g. double revert) to enable the LRA for SPARC
>
> commit a28f6dc56909fc35dd83d4364bc68c69e2450a51
> Author: davem
> Date: Tue Sep 22 03:52:45 2015 +
>
> Revert LRA SPARC ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68978
Bug ID: 68978
Summary: [6 Regression] bogus error: lvalue required as left
operand of assignment
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
