https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70084
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70084
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Mar 5 06:50:23 2016
New Revision: 234004
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234004&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70084
* tree-inline.c (copy_tree_body_r): When canc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69196
--- Comment #23 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Sat Mar 5 06:12:09 2016
New Revision: 234003
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234003&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/69196
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr69196-1.c:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69196
--- Comment #22 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Thanks for the dumps folks. BRANCH_COST strikes again!
My primary goal was to make sure I hadn't missed something important in how we
calculate the cost of a particular thread path.
BRANCH_COST differenc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69973
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Sat Mar 5 05:36:42 2016
New Revision: 234002
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234002&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/69973
* targhooks.c (default_vector_alignment): Limit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69973
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69941
--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Sat Mar 5 05:30:10 2016
New Revision: 234001
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234001&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/69941
* postreload.c (reload_combine_re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69941
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69824
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Sat Mar 5 05:22:01 2016
New Revision: 234000
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234000&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/69824
* c-decl.c (get_parm_info): Don't queue implicit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69196
--- Comment #21 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Sat Mar 5 05:10:58 2016
New Revision: 233999
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233999&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/69196
* tree-ssa-threadbackward.c (fs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70061
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70089
Bug ID: 70089
Summary: ARM/THUMB unnecessarily typecasts some rvalues on
memory store
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66786
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66786
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Sat Mar 5 01:59:04 2016
New Revision: 233997
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233997&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR c++/66786 (ICE with nested lambdas in variable template)
gcc/cp/C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70087
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70058
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #4)
> The problem does not exist on Linux for sure. Not sure if this is a TDM
> distribution problem, a Windows problem, a MingW problem, or gfortran.
>
> I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70087
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70058
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The problem does not exist on Linux for sure. Not sure if this is a TDM
distribution problem, a Windows problem, a MingW problem, or gfortran.
I am going to have to get set up on Windows so this may take a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66543
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67164
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #8)
> I've now fixed (for GCC 6) all the bugs that affect Hana except for 47226.
That is, that break parts of 'make check'. There's also bug 66543, but that's
just a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67164
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
I've now fixed (for GCC 6) all the bugs that affect Hana except for 47226.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69203
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69203
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 4 22:53:29 2016
New Revision: 233987
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233987&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69203
* cp-tree.h (COND_EXPR_IS_VEC_DELETE): New.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70085
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70035
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6 Regression] Calling a |[5 Regression] Calling a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70086
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70035
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 4 22:10:49 2016
New Revision: 233984
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233984&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70035
* cp-tree.h (cp_ubsan_maybe_initialize_vtbl_p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67364
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 4 22:09:19 2016
New Revision: 233983
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233983&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67364
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_component_reference
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67364
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 4 22:08:22 2016
New Revision: 233982
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233982&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/67364
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_component_reference
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70086
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67415
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70062
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 4 20:28:27 2016
New Revision: 233979
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233979&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70062
* config/i386/i386.c (decide_alg): Add REC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70087
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70085
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
I think David changed that a couple days ago (PR 68187), could you try a more
recent snapshot?
orl %edx, %eax
movzbl %al, %eax
ret
.p2align 4,,10
.p2align 3
.L4:
movl$1, %eax
movzbl %al, %eax
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE1:
.size bar, .-bar
.comm at,4,4
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 6.0.0 2016030
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70087
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Different (worse?) code |Different (worse?) code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70087
Bug ID: 70087
Summary: Different (worse?) code generated for if (a || (b ||
c)) generates different (worse?) code than if (a || b
|| c)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70086
Bug ID: 70086
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn_cached,
at recog.c:2202 (insn does not satisfy its
constraints) with -mavx512vl -ffloat-store
Product: g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70065
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70085
Bug ID: 70085
Summary: False positive -Wmisleading-indentation
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59666
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 4 Mar 2016, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59666
>
> --- Comment #5 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
> (In reply to jos...@codesourcery
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70083
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70070
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70084
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70082
--- Comment #5 from Carlos O'Donell ---
Would it be a better solution to:
(a) Fix PLT initialization on arm and ppc64 (allows some function calls to be
made).
(b) Document safe functions in glibc manual.
(c) Have gcc manual reference glibc man
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70071
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70084
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 37869
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37869&action=edit
gcc6-pr70084.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70084
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70084
Bug ID: 70084
Summary: [6 Regression] va_arg ((ap), int) regression on
s390*-*
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68187
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70082
--- Comment #4 from Carlos O'Donell ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> I don't think the compiler should do the policeman here, it is enough if
> glibc documents what it does and doesn't support in ifunc (which is of
> course gener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70055
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #9)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> > Inlining mempcpy uses a callee-saved register:
> >
> ...
> >
> > Not inlining mempcpy is preferred.
>
> If codesize is the only th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70067
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70067
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 4 16:08:06 2016
New Revision: 233974
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233974&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70067
* tree.c (strip_typedefs): Handle TYPENAME_T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70067
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Mar 4 16:07:20 2016
New Revision: 233973
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233973&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70067
* tree.c (strip_typedefs): Handle TYPENAME_T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70082
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't think the compiler should do the policeman here, it is enough if glibc
documents what it does and doesn't support in ifunc (which is of course
generally arch dependent, it really depends on if you nee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70083
Bug ID: 70083
Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: in assign_stack_local_1, at
function.c:409 with -fschedule-insns @ i686
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70082
--- Comment #2 from Carlos O'Donell ---
There might be the case where it is argued that documentation is all that is
needed, but that doesn't yield a robust implementation. My biggest worry after
seeing gperftools/tcmalloc use IFUNC is that it wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68187
--- Comment #8 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Mar 4 15:50:27 2016
New Revision: 233972
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233972&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/68187: fix overzealous -Wmisleading-indentation (comment #1)
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70082
--- Comment #1 from Carlos O'Donell ---
... and non-local variable access should be disallowed, as well as TLS
variables, and anything that needs a constructor to be initialized (non-POD).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68187
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Mar 4 15:45:19 2016
New Revision: 233971
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233971&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/68187: fix overzealous -Wmisleading-indentation (comment #0)
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70082
Bug ID: 70082
Summary: Attribute ifunc marked functions should not be allowed
to call other functions.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69195
--- Comment #17 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Is this reproducible on trunk? What are the exact flags required to pass to
cc1? I'm not getting a difference in REG_EQUIV notes between -fdce and
-fno-dce.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70059
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69195
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37863|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70059
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 4 14:59:23 2016
New Revision: 233970
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233970&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70059
* config/i386/sse.md (vec_set_lo_,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70068
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70059
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 4 14:54:00 2016
New Revision: 233969
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233969&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70059
* config/i386/sse.md (vec_set_lo_,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70013
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alan.lawrence at arm dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70059
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 4 14:45:56 2016
New Revision: 233968
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233968&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70059
* config/i386/sse.md (vec_set_lo_,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69879
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Gutson
---
BTW, please reassign this to gabriel.iba...@tallertechnologies.com since
Aurelio is still working on qemu.
Sorry for the inconveniences.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70081
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70081
Bug ID: 70081
Summary: Document how to add new symbols to libstdc++ exports
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: documentation
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69879
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Gabriel Ibarra from comment #2)
> I had to add the new functions in the gnu.ver in order to be acceded from
> the application. They were added in the GLIBCXX_3.4.22 section, is it the
> right p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70035
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Is there any reason why the compiler couldn't warn in this case at compile
> time?
I think that would be a useful warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57676
Bernd Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57676
--- Comment #12 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Author: bernds
Date: Fri Mar 4 14:12:36 2016
New Revision: 233967
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233967&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Avoid terminating early in LRA, unless -fchecking (PR57676)
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70035
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 37867
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37867&action=edit
gcc6-pr70035.patch
As for the crash in libubsan, the problem is that -fsanitize=vptr
instrumentation pretty muc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70064
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
I think -mred-zone should be disallowed in 32-bit to avoid any potential
issues.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69976
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> But even if you clear the sensitive data from the stack array, it might
> still live in the registers from which you stored the sensitive data into
> that array e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70026
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70044
--- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton ---
Patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg00357.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69976
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #5)
> From a user's perspective, would this be better as a property of the data
> (or of its *type*), rather than of the function? i.e. have the user mark
> the on-sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69976
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69582
Bug 69582 depends on bug 69798, which changed state.
Bug 69798 Summary: ICE on invalid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in
c_parser_braced_init, at c/c-parser.c:4338
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69798
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69798
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69798
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Fri Mar 4 13:26:25 2016
New Revision: 233965
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233965&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/69798
* c-parser.c (c_parser_postfix_expression):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51017
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
GCC 4.5 vs GCC 5 still shows GCC 4.5 is faster almost everywhere
Benchmarking: Traditional DES [128/128 BS SSE2-16]... DONE Benchmarking:
Traditional DES [128/128 BS SSE2-16]... DONE
Many salts: 3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70035
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70064
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The comment in the source says pretty much that -mred-zone defines a new ABI
for ia32, and that user is responsible to make sure the stack in the red zone
is preserved. In non-leaf functions, I believe red z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70044
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70055
--- Comment #9 from Wilco ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> Inlining mempcpy uses a callee-saved register:
>
...
>
> Not inlining mempcpy is preferred.
If codesize is the only thing that matters... The cost is not at the caller
side
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70080
Doetoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70080
Bug ID: 70080
Summary: gslice_array's copy constructor doesn't work correctly
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70078
--- Comment #2 from Dominik Vogt ---
(I'll make a patch with these and some more corrections once it's clear how the
wording should be.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70077
--- Comment #3 from Michele Caini ---
On SO there is a discussion about this issue:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/35790350/noexcept-inheriting-constructors-and-the-invalid-use-of-an-incomplete-type-that
The standard is cited and it looks lik
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70078
--- Comment #1 from Dominik Vogt ---
Hijacking this bug report for more unclear documentation in that section;
proposed changes in marked with <...>.
Apart from the bad grammar, the meaning of this sentence is a mystery:
Splitting of jump ins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70064
--- Comment #7 from Zdenek Sojka ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #4)
> (In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #0)
> > Created attachment 37854 [details]
> > autoreduced testcase
> >
> > The testcase is likely very fragile due to the se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70072
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68418
Paolo Bonzini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
