https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67298
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67636
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67086
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Fixed for 6+.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
Bug 50865 depends on bug 69097, which changed state.
Bug 69097 Summary: [6 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above on
x86_64-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69097
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69097
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69164
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Jan 9 07:37:04 2016
New Revision: 232188
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232188&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/50865
PR tree-optimization/69097
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69097
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Jan 9 07:37:04 2016
New Revision: 232188
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232188&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/50865
PR tree-optimization/69097
* f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69164
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Jan 9 07:34:41 2016
New Revision: 232187
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232187&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69164
* class.c (layout_class_type): Use copy_node
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69205
Bug ID: 69205
Summary: Place a variadic temlate in front of function
parameter when it is knoen
Product: gcc
Version: c++-concepts
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69013
davidxl at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davidxl at google dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69158
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Jan 9 05:12:03 2016
New Revision: 232186
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232186&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69158
* constexpr.c (cxx_fold_indirect_ref): Handl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69188
--- Comment #13 from anthonyfk at gmail dot com ---
I've discovered that the error occurred between 4.9.3 and 5.1.0. I've attached
the .s assembly files for the objects from both of those versions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69188
--- Comment #12 from anthonyfk at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 37292
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37292&action=edit
5.1.0 slamchtst.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69188
--- Comment #11 from anthonyfk at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 37291
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37291&action=edit
5.1.0 slamch.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69188
--- Comment #9 from anthonyfk at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 37289
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37289&action=edit
4.9.3 slamchtst.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69188
--- Comment #10 from anthonyfk at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 37290
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37290&action=edit
5.1.0 lsame.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69188
--- Comment #7 from anthonyfk at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 37287
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37287&action=edit
4.9.3 lsame.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69188
--- Comment #8 from anthonyfk at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 37288
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37288&action=edit
4.9.3 slamch.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69204
--- Comment #2 from bugzil...@reto-schneider.ch ---
Created attachment 37286
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37286&action=edit
Minimal example
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69204
--- Comment #1 from bugzil...@reto-schneider.ch ---
Created attachment 37285
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37285&action=edit
Preprocessed source
Preprocessed test case. Compressed due to the 1MB limit.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69204
Bug ID: 69204
Summary: ThreadSanitizer: False positive on std::promise usage
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69123
--- Comment #15 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 37284
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37284&action=edit
Patch I'm testing to fix the bug
The problem arises because we used to drop overwritten MEMs from loc lists
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69191
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Use ldd to see which library is used at runtime. See what file that symlink
points to. Compare with the version numbers of the releases.
GCC 4.9.0: libstdc++.so.6.0.20
GCC 5.1.0: libstdc++.so.6.0.21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69181
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Candidate patch posted as:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg00496.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69102
--- Comment #2 from Richard Henderson ---
The only additional deps in this entire function by the
quoted patch are three sequential insns involved in a call
that use REG_ARGS_SIZE. But all of these are well-removed
from the ICE.
The instruction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69161
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #16 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68522
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69200
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541
RGomes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Robert.Gomes at igt dot com
--- Comment #25 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69131
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69139
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69187
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Smirnov ---
If that'll help:
katje ~ # gcc-6.0.0-alpha20160103 -c -mfpu=neon ./bug.c -wrapper valgrind
==25016== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==25016== Copyright (C) 2002-2015, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69181
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69202
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
There are two different things:
compounded literals: (type){expression}
Expression statements: ({expression;})
They both have a value associated with them. compounded literal is a lvalue
while an expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #17 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> I think it doesn't. Plus, am not sure if it would be safe to use it
> everywhere in the middle-end (plus, what about LTO, e.g. when you mix
> C/C++/... and Fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69198
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 37283
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37283&action=edit
A different patch
I am testing this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69202
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69203
Bug ID: 69203
Summary: ICE in potential_constant_expression_1, at
cp/constexpr.c:4754
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69177
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69167
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69202
Bug ID: 69202
Summary: semicolon at end of expression statement
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69167
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jan 8 20:50:24 2016
New Revision: 232178
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232178&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/69167
* gimple-fold.c (replace_stmt_w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50865
--- Comment #15 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #13)
> Shouldn't disabling this be language dependent ? I.e. in Fortran this
> transformation is always valid (as integers in conforming programs are
> always in th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66461
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #4)
> Yes, I was looking at this in gdb lst night and I am really suspicious of
> the comment about guaranteed to match. I tried with what you did only I did
> not ret
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69073
DJ Delorie changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dj at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 from DJ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69178
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66461
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Yes, I was looking at this in gdb lst night and I am really suspicious of the
comment about guaranteed to match. I tried with what you did only I did not
return at that point. The fact that it has to do wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69178
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
--- Comment #16 from Richard Henderson ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #15)
> The final split happens a few phases later, so I wondered whether it would
> be feasible to do all the splitting during peep2. There is likely no real CQ
> gain in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69197
--- Comment #2 from Bogdan ---
Any patches?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68629
--- Comment #9 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Necessary, no. I'd defer to others if they think it is better in the cilk
area. Makes sense to me, if someone wants to do that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68629
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69191
--- Comment #9 from eyenseo at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> That only shows how your gcc compiler was built. If I understand correctly
> the Ubuntu packages that provide libstdc++.so.6 come from a different bui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69191
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to eyenseo from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
>
> Thanks for letting me know of the "importance-ignoring" one two less clicks
> next time ;)
Yes, you don't need to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68449
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Jan 8 19:13:32 2016
New Revision: 232177
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232177&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/68449
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_constant_expressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68449
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68449
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Jan 8 19:08:37 2016
New Revision: 232176
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232176&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/68449
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_constant_expressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69191
--- Comment #7 from eyenseo at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
Thanks for letting me know of the "importance-ignoring" one two less clicks
next time ;)
I didn't include the segfault in the precompiled file as I w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
--- Comment #15 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #14)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #12)
> > The only remaining question I had whether it would be possible to use
> > peephole expansions rather than the late splits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69191
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to eyenseo from comment #3)
> I would like to know what a critical or major bug would be if a segfault is
> not? I think that a segfault is quite devastating, especially when working
> with error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69201
Bug ID: 69201
Summary: Remove UNSPEC_LOADU and UNSPEC_STOREU
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69191
--- Comment #5 from eyenseo at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> I can't reproduce this, it might be specific to Ubuntu, maybe caused by
> mixing gcc 4.9 with the lisbtdc++ from gcc 5 (which would mean this is PR
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
--- Comment #14 from Richard Henderson ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #12)
> The only remaining question I had whether it would be possible to use
> peephole expansions rather than the late splits. If they are evaluated in
> order then if th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37267|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69200
--- Comment #1 from Bálint Aradi ---
Created attachment 37280
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37280&action=edit
Self contained example, file 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69200
Bug ID: 69200
Summary: ICE on subsequent block statements with module imports
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69191
--- Comment #4 from eyenseo at gmail dot com ---
The ubuntu system I used is "normal" no testing / unstable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69191
--- Comment #3 from eyenseo at gmail dot com ---
This bug does not appear in 5.3.0 - using Arch Linux.
I would like to know what a critical or major bug would be if a segfault is
not? I think that a segfault is quite devastating, especially when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69191
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I can't reproduce this, it might be specific to Ubuntu, maybe caused by mixing
gcc 4.9 with the lisbtdc++ from gcc 5 (which would mean this is PR 66438).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69191
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69198
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69187
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69161
--- Comment #15 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> CCing Jeff and Bernd on this, just to find out what is preferrable. I'd
> think that using different (non-special) predicate on the instructions wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69192
--- Comment #2 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1)
> May well be a clang bug. Does it also happen if you use gcc to build?
No. Then it drops back to the # 66420 case.
I'll try a build without the -O3 -marc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
--- Comment #12 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #11)
> With your patch expand always emits add instructions with complex immediates
> which then can't be optimized.
OK, so I can change your patch do the right thing with 2 minor c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69198
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That patch is correct, the bug is in ix86_expand_special_args_builtin.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68419
--- Comment #6 from Lauri Kasanen ---
Here's more details on my system.
Host gcc: 4.2.2
Host binutils: 2.25.1
m68k binutils: 2.24
I used make -j13, but a parallel build shouldn't affect things. I doubt the
host gcc version is at fault either, g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69198
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69199
Bug ID: 69199
Summary: Incorrect prototypes for AVX512 unaligned load/store
builtin functions
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69082
--- Comment #13 from Renlin Li ---
This problem can be reproduced using gcc 4.9.3 (r225077), and can be fixed by
r227129.
However, in branch 4.9 with the latest code, this bug cannot be trigger any
more. I have done a quick bisect, and find out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69110
--- Comment #12 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37277
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37277&action=edit
tentative patch
I don't understand the problem well enough yet to say if this is a fix or a
workarou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69030
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Note, before *.ira the pseudo 93 set by the movsicc is actually used by
> another insn, but that is removed early in the ira pass during
> delete_trivially_dea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68887
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66921
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jan 8 16:02:04 2016
New Revision: 232170
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232170&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/66921
* decl.c (cp_complete_array_type): Allow an i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68983
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 66921, which changed state.
Bug 66921 Summary: [4.9/5/6 Regression] failure to determine size of static
constexpr array that is nested within a templated class
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66921
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66921
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67557
--- Comment #20 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jan 8 16:02:10 2016
New Revision: 232171
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232171&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/68983
PR c++/67557
* call.c (unsafe_copy_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68983
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jan 8 16:02:10 2016
New Revision: 232171
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232171&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/68983
PR c++/67557
* call.c (unsafe_copy_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68983
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jan 8 16:01:35 2016
New Revision: 232169
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232169&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/68983
PR c++/67557
* call.c (unsafe_copy_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67557
--- Comment #19 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jan 8 16:01:35 2016
New Revision: 232169
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232169&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/68983
PR c++/67557
* call.c (unsafe_copy_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67557
--- Comment #18 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jan 8 16:01:12 2016
New Revision: 232167
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232167&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/68983 (BE)
PR c++/67557
gcc/
* function.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68983
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jan 8 16:01:12 2016
New Revision: 232167
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232167&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/68983 (BE)
PR c++/67557
gcc/
* function.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68983
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jan 8 16:01:05 2016
New Revision: 232166
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232166&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/68983 (FE)
PR c++/67557
* call.c (unsafe_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67557
--- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jan 8 16:01:05 2016
New Revision: 232166
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232166&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/68983 (FE)
PR c++/67557
* call.c (unsafe_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69176
--- Comment #11 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #10)
> Created attachment 37267 [details]
> proposed patch
>
> Andrew is exactly right re plus being special.
>
> The pluslong hoops that are being jumped through are re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69197
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
1 - 100 of 208 matches
Mail list logo
