https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77330
--- Comment #12 from Bernd Edlinger ---
glibc's malloc returns 128-bit aligned on x86-64-linux-gnu.
but what does it return on windows?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66022
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77261
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69620
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71602
--- Comment #15 from Tom de Vries ---
Posted updated patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg01691.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77354
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65964
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68282
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68557
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68561
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77330
--- Comment #11 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #10)
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016, bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de wrote:
>
> > Yes, but isn't that an ABI decision?
>
> It's the sort of ABI decision that's fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65068
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2015-05-15 00:00:00 |2016-8-23
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66196
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77344
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Component|fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77360
Bug ID: 77360
Summary: Self-assignment of allocatable character array
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc-ibm-aix*
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359
Bug ID: 77359
Summary: [7 Regression] AIX bootstrap failure due to alignment
of stack pointer + STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77358
Bug ID: 77358
Summary: [F08] deferred-length character function returns
zero-length string
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38302
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77357
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77357
Bug ID: 77357
Summary: strlen of constant strings not folded
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77330
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016, bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de wrote:
> Yes, but isn't that an ABI decision?
It's the sort of ABI decision that's fixed after it's appeared in a
release (whereas ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18154
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(Never mind those last "addc" insn, they can just as well be plain
"add", I pasted the wrong ones).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18154
--- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The signed version can be done in four insns:
1: subfc r5,r3,r4
subfe r6,r6,r6
and r7,r6,r5
addcr8,r7,r3
(superopt finds 16 versions, all similar).
The unsign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77356
Bug ID: 77356
Summary: regex error for a ECMAScript syntax string
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77330
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #8)
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016, bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de wrote:
>
> > gcc assumes that malloc, calloc, realloc, strdup, strndup
> > and anything with the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77288
--- Comment #7 from Ville Voutilainen ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg01634.html for what the
aforementioned superior approach looks like.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77355
Bug ID: 77355
Summary: FAIL: jit.dg/test-threads.c: error: static declaration
of 'dejagnu_pass' follows non-static declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69860
--- Comment #12 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Gerhard Steinmetz from comment #11)
> And with "kind=4" instead of "kind=1", i.e. with testfile z1.f90 ?
>
>
> for n in `seq 1 1000`
> do
>gfortran-7-20160821 -O2 -mavx -c z1.f90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77327
Fritz Reese changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fritzoreese at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77336
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77330
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016, bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de wrote:
> gcc assumes that malloc, calloc, realloc, strdup, strndup
> and anything with the __attribute__((__malloc__))
> returns a point
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77336
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 39488
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39488&action=edit
Prototype patch.
Attached a lightly tested patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77327
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77333
--- Comment #2 from Keno Fischer ---
Still broken adding both options to the compile.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77354
Bug ID: 77354
Summary: Failure with -fno-ivopts
Product: gcc
Version: 6.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77330
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77353
--- Comment #1 from Berni ---
another example:
if (PINA < PINC)
{
PORTB = 0;
}
compiles to:
6c2: 20 b1 in r18, 0x00 ; 0
6c4: 86 b1 in r24, 0x06 ; 6
6c6: 30 e0 ldi r19, 0x00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77351
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thou shalt not derefernce NULL pointers.
troutmask:sgk[238] svn diff frontend-passes.c
Index: frontend-passes.c
===
--- frontend-pas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77344
--- Comment #2 from Matt Thompson ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> I get a lot of "*error: instruction requires: AVX-512 ISA" when compiling
> gettau.F90 on x86_64-apple-darwin15, Xcode 7.3.1.
I've never tried this on Dar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77330
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016, mikulas at artax dot karlin.mff.cuni.cz wrote:
> And if you add a new type __float256 with 32-byte alignment - does it mean
> that
> glibc suddenly starts being buggy,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77344
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77330
--- Comment #5 from mikulas at artax dot karlin.mff.cuni.cz ---
And if you add a new type __float256 with 32-byte alignment - does it mean that
glibc suddenly starts being buggy, because it couldn't anticipate what types
with what alignment will b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77353
Bug ID: 77353
Summary: [AVR] uint16_t instead uint8_t comparison
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67899
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77352
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77351
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77350
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77352
Bug ID: 77352
Summary: ICE: verify_ssa failed
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77351
Bug ID: 77351
Summary: ICE in remove_trim, at frontend-passes.c:1145
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77350
Bug ID: 77350
Summary: ICE in truthvalue_conversion, at fortran/convert.c:65
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68567
--- Comment #5 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
> We must be using drastically different compilers.
No, I've simply forgotten to include a subcatalog with testfiles zz*.
Sorry for my blotchiness. The patch looks good and works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70853
--- Comment #3 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
Another testcase :
$ cat z7.f90
program p
integer, parameter :: m = 2, n = 3
real, target :: a(m*n)
real, pointer :: z(:,:) => null()
z(1:m,1:n) => null()
end
$ gfortran-7-20160821 z7.f90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69860
--- Comment #11 from Gerhard Steinmetz
---
And with "kind=4" instead of "kind=1", i.e. with testfile z1.f90 ?
for n in `seq 1 1000`
do
gfortran-7-20160821 -O2 -mavx -c z1.f90
done > list 2>&1
grep 'internal compiler' list | wc
9465
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70955
--- Comment #23 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #22)
> (In reply to vries from comment #18)
> > Created attachment 39484 [details]
> > Tentative patch using attributes ms_abi/sysv_abi
> >
> > not build or regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70736
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52602
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72781
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61428
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65182
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||24639
--- Comment #5 from Manuel L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77334
--- Comment #5 from bogdan ---
From now on, "fast" shall have a new degree of comparison beyond the
superlative, spelled "jw-fast" (alternative spelling when appearing in text on
gcc.gnu.org: "redi-fast").
Cheers!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60488
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61112
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Known
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77323
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55496
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72775
Matteo Bertello changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mbertello@feralinteractive.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77308
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wdijkstr at arm dot com
--- Comment #10 from Wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77330
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
When there isn't whole-implementation, including library, support for the
types as "basic types" (see the resolution to DR#445), you need to
consider them as some other kind of type, analog
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
--- Comment #20 from Aldy Hernandez ---
If anyone is interested, here is an even smaller testcase:
int *rw;
int line_height;
int pixel_width;
int text_cols;
int width1, width2, width3;
void *pointer;
void f (int i, int j)
{
void *ptr;
if (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68972
--- Comment #6 from Bill Seurer ---
This test started passing today. I am not sure which update fixed it, though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
--- Comment #21 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 39487
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39487&action=edit
even more^2 reduced testcase
Smaller testcase without any structure nonsense and even less variables.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
--- Comment #19 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Also, unless I'm missing something, in Jeff's analysis, I see no reference to
j, which plays a pivotal role.
In the testcase in comment 14, we can see that the guard for ptr_14 is actually
[i && j==0]:
86_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 20160823 (experimental) [trunk revision 239693] (GCC)
$
$ g++-trunk -c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69789
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Markwalder ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> (In reply to Thomas Markwalder from comment #5)
> > A bit more digging reveals that in the logic expression which fails:
> >
> > {{{
> > // Check if we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61409
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69847
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wdijkstr at arm dot com
--- Comment #27 from Wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77349
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-debug
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77349
Bug ID: 77349
Summary: AIX DWARF debugging offset in 64 bit mode
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77334
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77334
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Aug 23 14:21:16 2016
New Revision: 239702
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239702&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libstdc++/77334 move assign RB trees of non-copyable types
PR li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77334
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Aug 23 14:20:50 2016
New Revision: 239701
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239701&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libstdc++/77334 move assign RB trees of non-copyable types
PR li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77348
David Flater changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dflater at nist dot gov
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #2 from Marcel Böhme ---
Here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg00105.html
Pending review.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77348
Bug ID: 77348
Summary: -march=skylake still not working because config.gcc
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77286
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Aug 23 13:58:19 2016
New Revision: 239700
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239700&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-08-23 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/77286
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77345
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77346
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77347
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.3
Summary|[6 Regression] I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72851
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72851
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Aug 23 13:49:00 2016
New Revision: 239699
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239699&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-08-23 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=76783
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Aug 23 13:49:00 2016
New Revision: 239699
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239699&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-08-23 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
Stephan Bergmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sbergman at redhat dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61460
Stephan Bergmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sbergman at redhat dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70955
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to vries from comment #18)
> Created attachment 39484 [details]
> Tentative patch using attributes ms_abi/sysv_abi
>
> not build or regression tested yet, but at least makes test-case pass.
LGTM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77330
--- Comment #3 from mikulas at artax dot karlin.mff.cuni.cz ---
BTW. gcc thinks that with -m32, allocated memory is aligned to 4 bytes and with
-m64 and -mx32, allocated memory is aligned to 16 bytes. You can try to compile
this program into assem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70955
--- Comment #21 from Steven Shi ---
Vries,
Sorry, my bad. I didn't apply your patch completely. Yes, your patch works.
And with your patch, my UEFU firmware gcc lto build pass and boot successfully.
Hope we could check in a formal fix ASAP, becau
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77330
--- Comment #2 from mikulas at artax dot karlin.mff.cuni.cz ---
Glibc doesn't support types __float128 and decimal float. Only GCC does.
Glibc can't be responsible for decisions made by the GCC developers. Glibc has
been aliging allocated memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77334
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Aug 23 13:15:12 2016
New Revision: 239698
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239698&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libstdc++/77334 move assign RB trees of non-copyable types
PR li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70955
--- Comment #20 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steven Shi from comment #19)
> (In reply to vries from comment #18)
> > Created attachment 39484 [details]
> > Tentative patch using attributes ms_abi/sysv_abi
> >
> > not build or re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69620
--- Comment #2 from Tiago Brusamarello ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Does this fail on 5.4.0? 4.9.4 was the last release of 4.9
We've tested it so far on GCC version 5.3 for PPC64 platforms. In this case the
test result is U
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
