https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69617
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Huber ---
Yes, sorry, I meant the load with reservation and store conditional
instructions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70558
Bug ID: 70558
Summary: POD datatype array crash in initialization when using
optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70452
--- Comment #12 from Patrick Palka ---
Turns out that a single line of code is responsible for the 50MB increase in
memory usage relative to 4.9, and that's the call to unshare_expr in
cxx_eval_call_expression:
/* Associate the binding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70557
--- Comment #1 from Albert Cahalan ---
For the 32-bit i386, gcc 4.8.4 doesn't zero a pair of registers. I doubt gcc is
doing the best for -Os regarding addressing, but at least the i386 is getting
better code than the m68k coldfire.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69617
Scott wood changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||scottwood at freescale dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70512
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70512
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Tue Apr 5 23:47:21 2016
New Revision: 234768
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234768&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70512
* class.c (fixup_may_alias): New.
(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254
--- Comment #20 from Julien Margetts ---
It is the gcc_assert (REG_P (operands[0])); in arm_reload_in_hi which fires,
which as far as I can see is still in trunk today.
At this point rtx operands[0] looks like this:
08 2d c2 7a 53 2b 00 00
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70557
Bug ID: 70557
Summary: uint64_t zeroing on 32-bit hardware
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70556
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70018
--- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka ---
Created attachment 38195
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38195&action=edit
Patch I am testing
This patch handles const->pure transition for all functions detected const that
are not neces
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70556
Bug ID: 70556
Summary: ICE in cxx_eval_vec_init_1 on a ill-formed lambda
capture of a VLA in a template
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46002
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45683
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14379
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |
Last reconfirmed|2012-01-22 00:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8960
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |
Last reconfirmed|2008-12-06 09:3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69733
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8757
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70555
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Actually, I did find where N3366
(http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3639.html) disallows
the test case in vla7.C:
Change in 8.3.4 dcl.array paragraph 1 ...:
In a declaration T D wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70555
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70555
Bug ID: 70555
Summary: ICE in expand_expr_real_1 accessing a
multi-dimensional VLA via lambda-capture
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65173
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70336
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6 regression] Incorrect |[5 regression] Incorrect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70336
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 5 21:33:37 2016
New Revision: 234764
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234764&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70336
* match.pd (nested int casts): Limit to GIMP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66223
--- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Apr 5 20:58:56 2016
New Revision: 234762
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234762&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/66223
* ipa-devirt.c (maybe_record_node): Fix com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70549
--- Comment #5 from softadmin.lesia at obspm dot fr ---
finally i can use gcc 4.9
thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70552
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
As an aside, Clang does evaluate both __builtin_constant_p(foo()) expressions
in the test case consistently to 1, and like GCC, also without emitting code
for foo(). Also like GCC, it emits a definition of fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70552
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, thanks for pointing that out. I think the change is r233671. I certainly
agree that it's useful to be able to step through constexpr functions in
non-constexpr contexts. In the test case below, however
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
In this case, the code was deliberately written this way, presumably to avoid
the branching in &&. Using & would be better (and that's what I am suggesting
we optimize it to), but * doesn't seem nonsensical to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70554
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70554
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Apr 5 19:03:46 2016
New Revision: 234761
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234761&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Restore atomic builtins usage in libstdc++-v3
PR libstdc++/70554
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70510
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Apr 5 18:48:26 2016
New Revision: 234760
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234760&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70510
* config/i386/sse.md (iptr): Add V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70510
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70475
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70551
--- Comment #2 from Roland B ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Your interpretation would mean that whether a compiler performs copy elision
> would change whether a program is well-formed or not (rather than only
> changing whet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70510
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Apr 5 18:03:55 2016
New Revision: 234758
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234758&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70510
* config/i386/sse.md (iptr): Add V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70554
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70552
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70554
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70554
Bug ID: 70554
Summary: [6 Regression] _GLIBCXX_ATOMIC_BUILTINS changed value
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70553
Bug ID: 70553
Summary: pr70496.c should exclude Thumb only targets
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70503
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That should be fixed at r234757
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70452
--- Comment #11 from Patrick Palka ---
gcc 5 shows:
Execution times (seconds)
phase setup : 0.00 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall
1311 kB ( 0%) ggc
phase parsing : 2.10 (100%) usr 0.28 (100%) sys 2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70552
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70552
Bug ID: 70552
Summary: __builtin_constant_p fails to reflect the constness of
constexpr calls
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70513
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
All right, I've got it now: we need to catch the extra qualification, similarly
as in
struct T
{
struct U;
struct T::U {};
};
I've got a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70503
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Fixed on trunk so far.
The testcase probably needs some special handling due to -static, it fails on
Fedora 23 with:
spawn -ignore SIGHUP /ssd/uros/gcc-build/./
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70542
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70542
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 5 17:05:23 2016
New Revision: 234756
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234756&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/70542
* ree.c (add_removable_extension
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70551
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Your interpretation would mean that whether a compiler performs copy elision
would change whether a program is well-formed or not (rather than only changing
whether any side effects of the constructor call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70509
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 5 17:01:52 2016
New Revision: 234755
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234755&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/70509
* simplify-rtx.c (simplify_bin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67376
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[5/6 regression] C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70509
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 5 16:58:50 2016
New Revision: 234754
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234754&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/70509
* tree-ssa-forwprop.c (simplify
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70463
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70452
--- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Tue Apr 5 16:40:00 2016
New Revision: 234753
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234753&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR c++/70452 (regression in C++ parsing performance)
gcc/cp/ChangeL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70551
Bug ID: 70551
Summary: member function of template instantiated even though
only declaration is needed
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70549
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70510
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Tue Apr 5 16:26:40 2016
New Revision: 234752
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234752&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/70510
* config/i386/sse.md (iptr): Add V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70513
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
No, I misunderstood, that would make us accept the code. But at least I have
simpler testcase:
struct S
{
enum E : int;
enum S::E : int { foo } e;
};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70550
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 38194
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38194&action=edit
gcc6-pr70550.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70549
--- Comment #3 from julien.brule at obspm dot fr ---
Le 05/04/2016 17:24, ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org a écrit :
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70549
>
> ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70550
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70550
Bug ID: 70550
Summary: -Wuninitialized false positives in OpenMP code
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70549
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69331
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #14 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70549
--- Comment #1 from softadmin.lesia at obspm dot fr ---
Created attachment 38193
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38193&action=edit
preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70549
Bug ID: 70549
Summary: insn does not satisfy its constraints aarch64 gcc-4.8
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70463
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Oops, clipboard fail, that's not what I thought I was pasting, this is:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/shared_ptr.cc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/shared_ptr.cc
@@ -41,7 +41,10 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VER
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70463
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69331
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6 regression] FAIL:|FAIL:
|20_util/shared
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70513
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70539
--- Comment #2 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> Dup?
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 70540 ***
Sorry for the noise; it wasn't intentional. The server somehow wasn't
responding, and I clic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70475
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|UNCONFIRMED
Assignee|ppalka at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69331
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, I'm pretty sure it's not a regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70503
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.0
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69331
--- Comment #12 from Christophe Lyon ---
How do people handle this in practice? I mean it's creating a lot of noise when
you are trying to track regressions.
That's the main reason why I refrained from automating sending regression
warnings :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70526
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70526
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 5 14:26:59 2016
New Revision: 234749
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234749&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-05 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/70526
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69331
--- Comment #10 from Andreas Schwab ---
It really affects all targets and is not a new problem. You can find thousands
of hits on gcc-testresults.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69331
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |libstdc++
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70475
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69331
Bill Seurer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at linux dot
vnet.ibm.com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70503
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Apr 5 13:35:32 2016
New Revision: 234746
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234746&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Ensure std::thread helpers have internal linkage
PR libstdc++/70
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70548
Bug ID: 70548
Summary: gdb pretty printers hang and spin cpu in gdb session.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70520
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab ---
Does this really make a difference? I think the attribute still applies to the
object, not the type.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70540
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
*** Bug 70539 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70539
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70539
Bug ID: 70539
Summary: ICE on invalid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in
cxx_incomplete_type_diagnostic, at cp/typeck2.c:569
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70520
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70520
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70542
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 38191
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38191&action=edit
gcc6-pr70542.patch
Perhaps better fix. Looking at PR64286, the comment is right, if we change
somehow the defi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70474
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70542
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 38190
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38190&action=edit
gcc6-pr70542.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70437
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70474
--- Comment #6 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Tue Apr 5 11:52:34 2016
New Revision: 234744
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234744&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Cherry-pick r224315,221379 and r241487 from upstream.
libsa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70526
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Component|rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70437
--- Comment #3 from ville at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ville
Date: Tue Apr 5 11:31:30 2016
New Revision: 234743
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234743&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/70437
* include/bits/stl_pair.h (_C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65438
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70436
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Priority|P3
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
