https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84142
simon at pushface dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||simon at pushface dot org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84144
--- Comment #1 from Mingye Wang ---
Oh, the commit's modification on line 31 also fixes a tiny bug in gcc's error
message. TARGET_LOONGSON_VECTORS -- and __mips_loongson_vector_rev -- is now
defined for 2e/2f/3a in git mirror's HEAD (r257218 as o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84144
Bug ID: 84144
Summary: SSE-style intrinsics for loongson?
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84112
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84143
Bug ID: 84143
Summary: Intrinsic output of PDT incorrectly includes type
parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84064
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
WRT c#3, yea, that code is totally broken and probably has been since the day
it was introduced. The good news is its fixable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84064
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84064
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed Jan 31 05:02:30 2018
New Revision: 257217
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257217&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/84064
* i386.c (ix86_adjust_stack_and_probe_stack
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84005
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84095
--- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Arnd Bergmann from comment #8)
I have manually reproduced a similar false positive in the small test case
below it's not quite the same issue but I have a fix for both. They're both
caused by s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141
--- Comment #4 from Jürgen Reuter ---
The reproducer will build an executable ./seg_prod which generates the run time
error in the 7. unit test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141
--- Comment #3 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Created attachment 43304
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43304&action=edit
Corrected reproducer, please ignore the first one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141
--- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #1)
> Created attachment 43303 [details]
> Reproducer for the RT error
Ooops, one correction in the makefile, system_dependencies.f90 must come before
diagnostics.f90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141
Jürgen Reuter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84142
--- Comment #1 from Jere ---
Created attachment 43302
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43302&action=edit
zip archive containing 3 separate causes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84142
Bug ID: 84142
Summary: Implicit_Dereference with Generic Formal Incomplete
Types
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84141
Bug ID: 84141
Summary: [8.0.1 regression] Internal error: type_name(): Bad
type
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746
--- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-01-26 8:57 PM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746
>
> --- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
> On 2018-01-26 8:29 PM, do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83926
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84095
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84140
Bug ID: 84140
Summary: Inline friends are not constrained by concepts
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84131
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84139
--- Comment #2 from Christopher Di Bella ---
An observation by Casey Carter (maintainer for cmcstl2) was made over at
cpplang.slack.org#concepts:
> Presumably a concepts bug being triggered in the
> `std::iterator_traits`-hooking code at
> htt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84131
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 30 22:57:51 2018
New Revision: 257212
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257212&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR debug/84131
* trans-array.c (gfc_get_descriptor_offsets
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84139
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Di Bella ---
Created attachment 43300
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43300&action=edit
example.ii as produced by -save-temps (compressed)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84136
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Summary|[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84139
Bug ID: 84139
Summary: C++17 Filesystem/Filesystem TS + cmcstl2 = GCC ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84138
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
--- a/gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c
@@ -2356,6 +2356,7 @@ cp_fold (tree x)
/* A COND_EXPR might have incompatible types in branches if one or both
arms are bitfields. If folding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84134
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84095
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 43299
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43299&action=edit
Patch under test.
I think that false positive is already being tracked in bug 83456. Let me add
the test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84134
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Jan 30 22:35:34 2018
New Revision: 257211
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257211&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-01-30 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/84134
* array.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84089
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84138
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84138
Bug ID: 84138
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE folding broken constant
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: error-recovery, ice-on-invalid-code
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84127
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82658
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |c++
--- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2)
> You cut away the most interesting part: the insn pattern that does not exist.
> Could you show us?
It is in the #c0 attachment:
(jump_insn/f 178 177 179 14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84068
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> Yes it's latent and the fix is trivial. Testing to see whether it affects
> codequality.
Thanks Wilco, I appreciate it. Errr, we all do :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
--- Comment #3 from Douglas Mencken ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2)
> You cut away the most interesting part: the insn pattern that does not exist.
> Could you show us?
Sure, but how?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82641
--- Comment #23 from Arnd Bergmann ---
I've done some more testing with '#pragma GCC target("arch=armv5te")' in place,
but ran into another problem:
: note: this is the location of the previous definition
In file included from /git/arm-soc/inclu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84095
--- Comment #9 from Arnd Bergmann ---
I found another false-positive -Wrestrict warning, did a manual reduction. Let
me know if I should better open separate bugs for each test case, or you prefer
to have them all here.
$ aarch64-linux-gcc-8.0.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84127
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84134
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40411
--- Comment #38 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Tue Jan 30 21:18:40 2018
New Revision: 257209
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257209&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix use of Solaris values-Xc.o (PR target/40411)
PR target/40411
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84131
--- Comment #4 from Yao Qi ---
(In reply to Yao Qi from comment #3)
> Thanks for the quick fix, Jakub. It fixes 100 FAILs in gdb.fortran tests.
>
> === gdb Summary ===
>
> -# of expected passes 388
> -# of unexpected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84136
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84133
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84133
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Jan 30 20:49:49 2018
New Revision: 257206
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257206&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-30 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/84133
* frontend
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84131
--- Comment #3 from Yao Qi ---
Thanks for the quick fix, Jakub. It fixes 100 FAILs in gdb.fortran tests.
=== gdb Summary ===
-# of expected passes 388
-# of unexpected failures 165
+# of expected passes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84133
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83583
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84112
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Tue Jan 30 20:28:59 2018
New Revision: 257204
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257204&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-30 Vladimir Makarov
PR target/84112
* lr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84115
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84125
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Patch posted but I'm not sure about it:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg02377.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84039
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch is posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg02233.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84106
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
Here are results of small benchmark executed on Xeon E5-2683 v3. Code was
compiled using gcc 4.8.5. This gcc version also splits loops. Manually
vectorized code is 3.5 times faster:
[out]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84133
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84117
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83986
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] ICE in |[6/7 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83986
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 30 20:03:04 2018
New Revision: 257203
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257203&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/83986
* sched-deps.c (sched_analyze_in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78809
--- Comment #33 from Qing Zhao ---
with SPEC2017 on X86, I didn't see any run-time performance change as expected.
due to the date I collected for code size change, looks like that n=3 or n=4
might be a reasonable default. n=3 might be safer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84091
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jan 30 20:01:36 2018
New Revision: 257202
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257202&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84091 - ICE with local class in lambda in template.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84126
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
C++14 version:
template
void sink(Ts...);
template
int bar(T&); // ICE with reference, work with just T
template
void foo(T){
[](auto ... k){
sink (bar(k) ...);
}(0);
}
int main() {
foo(0);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84091
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84134
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78809
--- Comment #32 from Qing Zhao ---
Created attachment 43298
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43298&action=edit
code size impact from inlining str(n)cmp with different n on X86
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84135
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Segfault reading through a NULL value for ubound here:
6032 ubound = GFC_TYPE_ARRAY_UBOUND (type, dim);
6033 if (as->upper[dim] && !INTEGER_CST_P (ubound))
Program received signal SIGSEGV,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84135
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|U
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84120
--- Comment #1 from Neil Carlson ---
This explains the problem underlying PR82205
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83530
--- Comment #7 from Pat Haugen ---
Assuming this is a latent selective scheduling bug since I can reproduce with
r243865 by adding -fsched-pressure --param sched-pressure-algorithm=2.
Looking...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84126
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84098
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84137
Bug ID: 84137
Summary: Typo in gcov online documentation
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-profile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84136
Bug ID: 84136
Summary: Compilation aborted when woking with labels as values
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84098
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jan 30 19:05:12 2018
New Revision: 257199
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257199&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84098 - ICE with lambda in template NSDMI.
* pt.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84131
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84131
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84088
--- Comment #9 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Ha! Thanks...
In the main programme:
struct array00_integer(kind=4) desc.3;
desc.3.dtype = {.elem_len=8, .rank=0, .type=11};
desc.3.data = (void * restrict) &z;
foo (&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84135
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
These analogous cases compile and work :
$ cat z2.f90
program p
integer :: i
integer :: x(3)[2,*]
data (x(i:i+2:i+1), i=1,2) /1,2,3/
print *, x
end
$ cat z3.f90
program p
integer :: i
in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84135
Bug ID: 84135
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_array_cobounds, at
fortran/trans-array.c:6033
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84134
Bug ID: 84134
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE: Floating point exception
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81635
--- Comment #12 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
In the end I agree using range info in split_constant_offset is the right way
to go -- sorry for the runaround. Testing a patch for that.
I'll see if that triggers the same predcom problem I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84133
Bug ID: 84133
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at
gimplify.c:2706
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84127
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56818
Bug 56818 depends on bug 36825, which changed state.
Bug 36825 Summary: [F08] Rank > 7 arrays [will break library ABI] libgfortran
I/O+intrinsics:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36825
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45424
Bug 45424 depends on bug 36825, which changed state.
Bug 36825 Summary: [F08] Rank > 7 arrays [will break library ABI] libgfortran
I/O+intrinsics:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36825
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39627
Bug 39627 depends on bug 36825, which changed state.
Bug 36825 Summary: [F08] Rank > 7 arrays [will break library ABI] libgfortran
I/O+intrinsics:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36825
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39178
Bug 39178 depends on bug 36825, which changed state.
Bug 36825 Summary: [F08] Rank > 7 arrays [will break library ABI] libgfortran
I/O+intrinsics:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36825
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36825
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37577
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Tue Jan 30 18:20:27 2018
New Revision: 257195
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257195&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-30 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/37577
* libgfort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84076
--- Comment #5 from sgunderson at bigfoot dot com ---
Ah, so it's allowed to send structs and classes, just not non-PODs. So that's
why the conversion to a pointer happens.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84095
--- Comment #8 from Arnd Bergmann ---
Created attachment 43295
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43295&action=edit
linux/drivers/isdn/isdnloop/isdnloop.c, preprocessed, compressed
This is the preprocessed file that showed the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84071
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |rtl-optimization
--- Comment #11 from Er
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81611
--- Comment #21 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Author: aoliva
Date: Tue Jan 30 17:40:50 2018
New Revision: 257194
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257194&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR81611] accept copies in simple_iv_increment_p
If there are copies
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758
acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84132
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84132
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69869
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
1 - 100 of 215 matches
Mail list logo
