-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20160629 (experimental) [trunk revision 237855] (GCC)
$
$ clang++-3.8 -c -std=c++1z small.cpp
$
$ g++-trunk -c -std=c++1z small.cpp
small.cpp: In substitution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66519
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71579
--- Comment #2 from Antony Polukhin ---
You are right.
But those wrong usages are simple to catch and a static_assert with a readable
message would be a huge help for users:
template
struct assert_complete {
typedef char yes_type;
stru
-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20160629 (experimental) [trunk revision 237855] (GCC)
$
$ g++-6.1 -c -std=c++11 small.cpp
$ clang++-3.8 -c -std=c++11 small.cpp
$
$ g++-trunk -c -std=c++11 small.cpp
small.cpp: In substitution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71699
--- Comment #5 from Manish Goregaokar ---
So, the fix would be to add an || POINTER_TYPE_P?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71699
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
>if (ANY_INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type) && TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (type))
That is false for pointer types. Because ANY_INTEGRAL_TYPE_P is false for
pointer types.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71699
--- Comment #3 from Manish Goregaokar ---
Looks like
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/4e1b04b0cc2248df1b7820c04743935147bd138e/gcc/fold-const.c#L13202
already handles this? Unless it doesn't know about sizeof.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71707
Anton Blanchard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anton at samba dot org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60950
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
This one seems to be fixed by now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71709
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Before the first RTL CSE, we have on that second strcpy:
(call_insn 47 46 0 2 (parallel [
(set (reg:DI 3 3)
(call (mem:SI (symbol_ref:DI ("strcpy") [flags 0x41]
) [0 __built
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71709
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71709
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
GCC must be thinking saved_command_line and static_command_line are the same
...
Because strcpy returns the 1st argument.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71709
Bug ID: 71709
Summary: powerpc64le: argument to strcpy() optimised out
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71698
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2016-06-29 00:00:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71698
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2016-6-29
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71699
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71698
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at vnet dot ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71698
--- Comment #2 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 38798
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38798&action=edit
preprocessed test case
/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/7.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.0.0 20160629 (experimental) [trunk revision 237837
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68095
--- Comment #8 from David ---
I doubt this patch is ever going anywhere. Now that v6 has shipped, producing
an error for both using and clobbering flags would "break backward
compatibility." On the plus side it would probably have caught your i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67037
--- Comment #11 from notasas at gmail dot com ---
FWIW I've tried sending a backport patch, but it was ignored:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03116.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71707
--- Comment #1 from Christophe Lyon ---
Created attachment 38797
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38797&action=edit
ns_print.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71707
Bug ID: 71707
Summary: [regression] ICE in get_stridx_plus_constant
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66519
--- Comment #1 from Krzysztof Sinica ---
Created attachment 38796
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38796&action=edit
Reduced repro.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71067
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Gerhard Steinmetz from comment #0)
> With a missing parameter attribute, or value not initialized :
>
> $ cat z1.f90
> program p
>integer :: i = 0
>integer :: z(2)
>data z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004
Bug 55004 depends on bug 55039, which changed state.
Bug 55039 Summary: std::addressof vs. constexpr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55039
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55039
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71686
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Jun 29 19:04:58 2016
New Revision: 237861
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237861&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-29 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/71686
* gfortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71677
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 38795
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38795&action=edit
Proposed patch to fix the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71686
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Wed Jun 29 18:48:37 2016
New Revision: 237860
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237860&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-29 Jerry DeLisle
PR fortran/71686
* scanne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71706
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
$ cat z2.f90
program p
sync images (1_1)
sync images (1_2)
sync images (1_4)
sync images (1_8)
sync images (1_16)
end
$ gfortran-7-20160626 -fcoarray=single -fcheck=all -c z2.f90
$ gfor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71706
Bug ID: 71706
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE on using sync images with
integer(kind<>4), with -fcoarray=lib -fcheck=bounds
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71705
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Compiles with save status :
$ cat z2.f90
subroutine s
real, save :: x
!!$omp declare target(x)
x = 0.0
!$omp target update to(x)
!$omp target
x = x + 1.0
!$omp end target
end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71705
Bug ID: 71705
Summary: ICE in lower_omp_target, at omp-low.c:16136
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71704
Bug ID: 71704
Summary: ICE with -fopenmp and some omp constructs
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71703
--- Comment #2 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Whereas :
$ cat z4.f90
program p
type t1
end type
type t2
integer :: n
class(t1), allocatable :: a
end type
type(t1) :: x = t1()
type(t2) :: y = t2(1, null())
print *, s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71703
--- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Backtrace with gfortran-7-20160626 :
z2.f90:10:0:
print *, same_type_as(x, y%a)
internal compiler error: in wide_int_to_tree, at tree.c:1487
0xca0093 wide_int_to_tree(tree_node*,
generic_wide_int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71703
Bug ID: 71703
Summary: ICE in wide_int_to_tree, at tree.c:1488
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70524
--- Comment #7 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
> The ICEs should only happen with --enabled-checking.
Correct.
Here is a small reproducer (wrong code) to experiment with :
$ cat z1.f90
subroutine s(x)
integer :: x(:)
integer :: n = size(lbou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71375
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71294
--- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt ---
Just recording that this patch was rejected on the list at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg02136.html, so we still need a
fix for this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71702
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov ---
Created attachment 38794
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38794&action=edit
qsortchk.c
quick'n'dirty LD_PRELOAD transitivity validator for qsort comparator
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71702
Bug ID: 71702
Summary: dr_group_sort_cmp violates transitivity required for
qsort
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71066
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> The ICE appeared between revisions r162456 (2010-07-23, compiles) and
> r1635293
read r163529.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70814
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #10)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> > On x86, they use ifuncs for this purpose inside libatomic. Basically the
> > requirement is only one libatomi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71066
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Confirmed, ICEs since GCC 4.6.0.
The ICE appeared between revisions r162456 (2010-07-23, compiles) and r1635293
(2010-08-24, ICE). The ICE is due to the gcc_assert
/* An unknown size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71699
--- Comment #1 from Pedro Alves ---
Created attachment 38792
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38792&action=edit
Testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71697
--- Comment #5 from Matteo Croce ---
$ x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE
-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing
-Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wmissing-format-attribute -Wov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71701
--- Comment #5 from Pedro Alves ---
See original context here, where the warning was truly puzzling:
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-06/msg00515.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71701
--- Comment #4 from Pedro Alves ---
This was with: gcc version 7.0.0 20160503 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71701
--- Comment #3 from Pedro Alves ---
Created attachment 38791
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38791&action=edit
Preprocessed testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71701
--- Comment #2 from Pedro Alves ---
Created attachment 38790
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38790&action=edit
Testcase.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71701
--- Comment #1 from Pedro Alves ---
I tried to reduce this manually, but failed. My attempt made gcc warn about
the original variable in my test case:
strtok.c: In function ‘main’:
strtok.h:30:10: warning: ‘saveptr’ may be used uninitialized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71698
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |segher at gcc dot
gnu.org
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71701
Bug ID: 71701
Summary: bogus token in -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71625
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Martin, the changes you wanted to do are desirable in any case.
The changes I've committed don't fix this, they are just preparation for
further changes that might help. But there still would be the subopti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70385
Viktor Ostashevskyi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ostash at ostash dot kiev.ua
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71697
--- Comment #4 from Matteo Croce ---
/home/matteo/src/openwrt/build_dir/toolchain-i386_pentium4_gcc-5.3.0_glibc-2.22/gcc-5.3.0-final/./gcc/collect-ld
-plugin
/home/matteo/src/openwrt/build_dir/toolchain-i386_pentium4_gcc-5.3.0_glibc-2.22/gcc-5.3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71700
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71700
Bug ID: 71700
Summary: [4.9/5/6/7 Regression] wrong code with struct
assignment with sub-word signed bitfields
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Key
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71697
--- Comment #3 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
The running the failing command yourself with the -v option and see which
options are being passed to the linker.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71697
--- Comment #2 from Matteo Croce ---
I run Ubuntu 16.04, how can I check if --no-add-needed is default?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71699
Bug ID: 71699
Summary: bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning: gcc misses that
non-NULL pointer + offset can never be NULL
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71695
Martin Husemann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71697
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Note that as far as I can tell that error is only emitted by the GNU linker
when the --no-add-needed option is passed to the linker. Is something on your
system adding that option or making it the default
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71693
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71692
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
The relevant failures are:
--- FAIL: TestCloneNEWUSERAndRemapNoRootDisableSetgroups (0.00s)
exec_linux_test.go:74: Cmd failed with err fork/exec /usr/bin/whoami:
in
valid argument, output:
--- FA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71698
Bug ID: 71698
Summary: ICE related to decimal float when compiling with
-mcpu=power9
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71665
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71697
Bug ID: 71697
Summary: go link error
Product: gcc
Version: 5.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
Assignee: ian at airs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71688
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
The nesting tree structure contains decls but is built from call graph, in
which there are two different cgraph_nodes for a single decl (s).
Unnesting is done on call graph again but the translation from decl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45274
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15826
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Steven Bosscher from comment #6)
> The tree dump for the original test case now looks like this for me:
>
> ;; Function foo (foo)
>
> foo (p)
> {
> :
> return (unsigned int) ((BIT_FIELD_REF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15256
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19987
Bug 19987 depends on bug 15256, which changed state.
Bug 15256 Summary: [tree-ssa] Optimize manual bitfield manipilation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15256
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19466
Bug 19466 depends on bug 15256, which changed state.
Bug 15256 Summary: [tree-ssa] Optimize manual bitfield manipilation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15256
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15256
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jun 29 13:48:39 2016
New Revision: 237852
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237852&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-29 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/15256
* gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15256
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Fixed in GCC 6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71696
Bug ID: 71696
Summary: Libiberty Demangler segfaults (6)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71688
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> The change occurred between revisions r201266 (2013-07-26, OK) and r201631
> (2013-08-09, ICE), likely r201526 (pr57987).
Indeed. But I believe the probl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55266
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71695
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71535
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71499
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48696
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||71509
--- Comment #16 from Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18041
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
GCC 6 at -O2 on x86_64 produces
foo:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
movzbl (%rdi), %eax
movl%eax, %edx
shrb%dl
orl %eax, %edx
andl$-2, %eax
an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61954
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
--- Comment #58 from Eric Botcazou ---
> OK, so the fix is that the System.Address type must be changed in GNAT
> to be handled as pointer in the GCC middle-/back-end. Is any GCC/GNAT
> developer please working on this?
That's at last implemente
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71695
Bug ID: 71695
Summary: m68k: long long multiplication broken
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61954
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Jun 29 13:03:22 2016
New Revision: 237850
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237850&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/48835
PR ada/61954
* gcc-interface/gigi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48835
--- Comment #57 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Jun 29 13:03:22 2016
New Revision: 237850
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237850&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/48835
PR ada/61954
* gcc-interface/gig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69869
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69869
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71067
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Thus I would consider the PR as 4.8/4.9/5/6/7 regression, do you agree?
Yes, the change occurred between revisions r190641 (2012-08-24, error) and
r190786 (2012-08-29, ICE). The backtrace is
* thre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71585
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69869
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71488
Bug 71488 depends on bug 71655, which changed state.
Bug 71655 Summary: [7 Regression] GCC trunk ICE on westmere target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71655
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71655
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Wed Jun 29 12:26:40 2016
New Revision: 237846
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237846&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR tree-optimization/71655
* tree-vect-stmts.c (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71655
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71691
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
