https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79179
--- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Thu Jan 26 04:16:11 2017
New Revision: 244917
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244917&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2017-01-25 Michael Meissner
PR target/79179
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65484
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79160
--- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt ---
Resolution in r244916. Oops, forgot the PR line in the ChangeLog.
2017-01-25 Bill Schmidt
* gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-elemrev-4.c: Change expected code
generation to accept D-mode memory acc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79160
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79190
--- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2017-01-24, at 1:34 PM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Would you be able to test the patch at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-01/msg01910.html on HPUX 11?
The patch fixes all th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71304
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71290
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7 Regression] Flexible |[6 Regression] Flexible
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71290
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed Jan 25 23:11:53 2017
New Revision: 244910
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244910&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71290 - Flexible array member is not diagnosed with -pedantic
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79226
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Hmm, this would automatically work if we had overloads real(complex) etc
instead of a template, it would probably also work if the front-end provided a
conversion from __complex__ float to complex instead of ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78896
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 25 22:36:18 2017
New Revision: 244909
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244909&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/78896
* decl.c (cp_finish_decomp): Disallow memberw
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77914
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79179
--- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner ---
Created attachment 40584
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40584&action=edit
Proposed patch to fix the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79179
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79236
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
To test, one can e.g. move libcuda.so.1 out of the way where dlopen will find
it, or I guess setting say OMP_DEFAULT_DEVICE=1 in the environment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79236
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79236
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79236
Bug ID: 79236
Summary: [7 Regression] Many libgomp tests fail if configured
with --enable-offload-targets=nvptx-none but NVidia HW
or libcuda.so.1 unavailable
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79165
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #19 from David Malc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79165
--- Comment #18 from David Malcolm ---
I wonder if it's worth injecting the equivalent of -fno-diagnostics-show-caret
into the Fortran FE for when it's throwing away diagnostics, perhaps by turning
gfc_buffer_error's bool flag into a tri-state:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79165
--- Comment #17 from David Malcolm ---
I added some instrumentation (covering all files read by input.c) and did some
crude timing:
Release build, with bogus linemap:
nb_read: 1869916
calls to: location_get_source_line: 37494
calls to: read_dat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78496
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So I've been pondering this a bit more. Essentially I see two paths forward.
One is to enhance the backwards threader so that it can do more general
lookups/simplifications. I've cobbled together some c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79235
Bug ID: 79235
Summary: x86 - Can't read stack transferred parameters when
using one of the parameters in a nested function
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79233
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79223
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79222
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, patch
--- Comment #2 from Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79214
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77914
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Jan 25 20:51:10 2017
New Revision: 244907
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244907&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/77914
* parser.c (cp_parser_lambda_declarator_opt):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79234
Bug ID: 79234
Summary: warn on past the end reads by library functions
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60913
--- Comment #9 from Chris ---
Last I heard, gfortran still doesn't invoke finalisation in this situation. In
any case, while (in my main code) I could certainly reduce the volume of leaked
memory via finalisation (by deallocating arrays contained
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60913
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> *** Bug 79231 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Sorry for the duplicate spam... seems the commit button was overly sensitive.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15826
--- Comment #18 from Bill Schmidt ---
I agree with Matthew.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78896
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, we don't ICE on the testcase anymore.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79214
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79233
Bug ID: 79233
Summary: portable p-bit shift with p <= 64 not optimized on
powerpc64
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70754
--- Comment #14 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #13)
> Bin,
>
> Are you likely to backport this fix to GCC-5 and GCC-6 - or is it going to
> be Martin's fix ?
>
> Ramana
I will check if the fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061
--- Comment #28 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #27)
> I think the problem is in the vnode->dynamically_initialized handling, as
> well as in get_translation_unit_decl being totally unreliable.
> When LTO merges V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79231
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
*** Bug 79231 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Summary|[Regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061
--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think the problem is in the vnode->dynamically_initialized handling, as well
as in get_translation_unit_decl being totally unreliable.
When LTO merges VAR_DECLs from multiple TUs, it either should clear th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79176
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70754
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39838
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[5/6/7 regression] |[5/6 regression] unoptimal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061
--- Comment #26 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
(In reply to Maxim Ostapenko from comment #24)
> (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #23)
> > (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #22)
> > > As I recently did some incremental builds, I will retry
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71290
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
I let this one slip through the cracks. Patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-01/msg01983.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79232
Bug ID: 79232
Summary: error: invalid rhs for gimple memory store
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79231
--- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter ---
For us this is a serious regression that would exclude gfortran 7.1 if that
weren't fixed before the official release. Not optimistic that we can easily
work around here.
So please try to fix it in time! Will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79231
Bug ID: 79231
Summary: [Regression on 7.0.1] Run time error: malloc on valid
code
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79230
Bug ID: 79230
Summary: [Regression on 7.0.1] Run time error: malloc on valid
code
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71374
--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
>
> ICEs as well with -O1 and above. Vlad, do you think you could have a look?
Sure, I'll look at this when I am done with PR79131.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79131
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #1)
>
> Probably the fix will need more time than for pr79058 but I hope to fix it
> on this week.
I have a fix for the PR. Unfortunately it brakes some GCC IP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77914
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Created attachment 40578 [details]
> gcc7-pr77914.patch
>
> So like this (untested)?
Looks good.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78896
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Jason, any thoughts on this? Shall we just disallow lambdas in
> decompositions? Shall the standard say anything about those?
Yes, the standard should probably
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79082
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
Only three out of the five patches for bug 78703 have been committed. I'm
still waiting for approval of the substantive patch 4, and patch 5 depends on
it. With those committed I think the warning should be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64697
--- Comment #18 from Václav Haisman ---
And I have just verified it is still the same with GCC 6.3.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53659
--- Comment #8 from Siarhei Siamashka ---
Since my report predates bug 68664 by several years, shouldn't bug 68664 be a
duplicate? In addition, my report was much more detailed, since it also
provided a practical use case, showcasing the importan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061
--- Comment #25 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Maxim Ostapenko from comment #24)
> Perhaps you use strict_init_order=true option (e.g.
> ASAN_OPTIONS=check_initialization_order=true:report_globals=3:
> strict_init_order=true)?
strict_init_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79218
--- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt ---
At the moment, swap optimization doesn't attempt to handle __int128 values, for
which swaps don't deal with elements of a vector, but pieces of a cohesive
integer value. This may be overly conservative, and w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79227
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 40579
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40579&action=edit
Patch to tweak Wmisleading indentation
This patch removes the "(guard_exploc.line == body_exploc.line)" conditi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78896
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Jason, any thoughts on this? Shall we just disallow lambdas in decompositions?
Shall the standard say anything about those?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78337
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77914
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 40578
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40578&action=edit
gcc7-pr77914.patch
So like this (untested)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61791
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79227
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Some notes:
There are 7 cases in the reproducer, but it only warns for the 3rd case (lines
34-35).
In each of the 7 cases in the reproducer, NEXT_STMT_LOC and BODY_LOC are on the
same line:
/* If NEXT_ST
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70607
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79082
--- Comment #9 from Franz Sirl ---
With r244892 and -O2 -Wformat-truncation=2 I nearly get the warnings I expect.
What remains is case 3, but this seems to be a small deficiency in VRP. For the
term I used ((val < 0) ? -(val % 100) : (val % 100
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72758
tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70607
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jan 25 15:01:05 2017
New Revision: 244900
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244900&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/70607 make proj(T) and conj(T) return complex
PR li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61791
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jan 25 15:01:05 2017
New Revision: 244900
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244900&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/70607 make proj(T) and conj(T) return complex
PR li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78559
--- Comment #12 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Sorry, long pause while editing that comment made me leave out part of what I
was trying to say - I meant only discard notes that reference the CC reg. But
it seems an unnecessary complication.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78559
--- Comment #11 from Bernd Schmidt ---
Looks like other_insn is only used for cases where we rewrite cc sets in this
way, so Bin's patch does look reasonably narrow. We could maybe record the CC
reg being changed and only discard reg notes, but i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79224
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=76957
--- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I will have a look. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68664
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc*-*-*, aarch64*-*-* |powerpc*-*-*, aarch64*-*-*,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79173
--- Comment #4 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
Also, make sure that the optimization is still done when a variable is a
constant or replaced by a constant (with Clang, the optimization is no longer
done in such a case).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68664
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||siarhei.siamashka at gmail dot
com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53659
James Greenhalgh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71463
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71374
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77468
--- Comment #21 from PeteVine ---
It would be great if https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53659 could
get squashed in one fell swoop.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71290
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
On 2017.01.25 at 15:43 +0200, Oren Twaig wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to report a bug in GCC. However, can't create a user in
> the bug report system.
> Any suggestions?
>
> Here are some more details:
>
> i can't create a new account here:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/createaccount.cgi
>
>
Hi,
I would like to report a bug in GCC. However, can't create a user in
the bug report system.
Any suggestions?
Here are some more details:
i can't create a new account here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/createaccount.cgi
It say something like :
"User account creation filtered due to spam."
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70929
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
I wonder why we don't simply do the following, which checks the type of the
originally built CALL_EXPR from the frontends which should have done the
job of matching up the actual arguments closely enough wit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79229
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78985
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
On aarch64 r242068 (Date: Fri Nov 11 12:53:36 2016 +)
fails with error in gcc/config/aarch64/cortex-a57-fma-steering.c.
I'm going to test merge base of gcc-6-branch and current trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69264
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.0
Summary|[5/6/7 regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72850
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 25 13:14:41 2017
New Revision: 244898
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244898&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-01-25 Richard Biener
PR testsuite/72850
* gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72850
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79229
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=76957
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70768
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
When comparing r224581 (the first cc1plus that doesn't ICE on the gcc5
preprocessed source) with r244763 cc1plus on the same source (though, both are
checking builds), the latter eats less memory, not more.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79212
--- Comment #5 from davids at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Started with r233913, I'll have a look.
Hi Jakub, just to let you know I posted a possible fix for 7.0 release on the
mailing list yesterday if you wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79212
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061
--- Comment #24 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #23)
> (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #22)
> > As I recently did some incremental builds, I will retry it after a full
> > bootstrap.
>
> Didn't make a dif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70929
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70768
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69264
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jan 25 12:30:41 2017
New Revision: 244897
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244897&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-01-25 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/69264
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
