http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59801
Bug ID: 59801
Summary: GCC does not warn on unused global variable
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59775
--- Comment #10 from David Kredba ---
After your patch applied it not segfaults any more.
Unfortunately it not builds too, link of one module fails:
[build MOD] swext
S=/var/tmp/portage/app-office/libreoffice-4.1.4.2/work/libreoffice-4.1.4.2 &&
O
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59802
Bug ID: 59802
Summary: excessive compile time in loop unswitching
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59494
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 14 09:00:30 2014
New Revision: 206598
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206598&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/59494
* gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-mgrid-resid.f: Chang
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59801
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59494
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59006
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 14 09:04:50 2014
New Revision: 206599
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206599&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-01-14 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/58921
PR tree-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59775
--- Comment #11 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to David Kredba from comment #10)
> After your patch applied it not segfaults any more.
> Unfortunately it not builds too, link of one module fails:
>
> [build MOD] swext
> S=/var/tmp/portage
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58921
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59006
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58921
Bug 58921 depends on bug 59006, which changed state.
Bug 59006 Summary: [4.9 Regression] internal compiler error: in
vect_transform_stmt, at tree-vect-stmts.c:5963
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59006
What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58921
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 14 09:04:50 2014
New Revision: 206599
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206599&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-01-14 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/58921
PR tree-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57795
Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yselkowitz at users dot
sourcefor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58172
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52023
--- Comment #17 from Jan-Benedict Glaw ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #16)
> > tree field = build_decl (UNKNOWN_LOCATION, FIELD_DECL, NULL_TREE,
> > ^
> > cc1plus: all warnings being treated as errors
>
> Should be fixed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55946
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alexpux at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57795
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59802
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59802
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Oh, did you configure with --enable-checking=release for 4.9? (I did)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38518
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
With GCC 4.8 we see
loop invariant motion : 16.79 (32%) usr 0.02 ( 3%) sys 16.65 (31%) wall
148 kB ( 0%) ggc
loop unswitching: 10.43 (20%) usr 0.02 ( 3%) sys 10.42 (20%) wall
0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59749
--- Comment #2 from Martin Husemann ---
Unfortunately I can not reproduce the issue with the .i file generated with
-save-temps (but still with the original .c file).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59803
Bug ID: 59803
Summary: [4.8 Regression] s390x -march=z10 reload ICE
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59803
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Miles
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52023
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #18
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28865
--- Comment #24 from Alan Modra ---
Nick's latest patch passes bootstrap and regression testing powerpc64-linux.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59791
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59802
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Oh, did you configure with --enable-checking=release for 4.9? (I did)
No, I used --enable-checking=yes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59800
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59803
Andreas Krebbel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59797
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Yukhin Kirill from comment #1)
> Sorry, didn't get the problem.
>
> According to output you provided - GCC warns ABI changes
>
> Here is analogue for AVX2:
> $ cat 2.c
> typedef long long __m256i __at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59800
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59794
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
[hjl@gnu-17 tmp]$ cat /tmp/f.i
typedef int __v4si __attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (16)));
typedef long long __m128i __attribute__ ((__vector_size__ (16),
__may_alias__));
__m128i
f1(void)
{
return __extension__ (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59802
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59804
Bug ID: 59804
Summary: C++ front-end checking ends in an infinite loop on
erroneous code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59787
Renlin Li changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||renlin.li at arm dot com,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59802
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg00780.html
Even better would be to get rid of the explicit maximum set (just ignore
incoming edges with the maximum set, aka 'unvisited' edges during
bitmap_inter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59805
Bug ID: 59805
Summary: invalid preprocessing directive not diagnosed with
assembler-with-cpp
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59794
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression]|[4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression]
|i38
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59794
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg00784.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59806
Bug ID: 59806
Summary: ICE with -ggdb AND -finit-real=snan AND namelist
variable AND internal procedure
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678
--- Comment #25 from Nick Maclaren ---
On Jan 10 2014, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote:
>
>http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678
>
>--- Comment #24 from Vincent Lefèvre -
>
>(In reply to Nick Maclaren from comment #23)
>
>> If __S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38518
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59791
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59787
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678
--- Comment #26 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Nick Maclaren from comment #25)
> 3.4.3 says:
> undefined behavior
> behavior, upon use of a nonportable or erroneous program construct
> or of erroneous data, for which this Intern
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678
--- Comment #27 from Nick Maclaren ---
On Jan 14 2014, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote:
>
>http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678
>
>> What "explicit definition of behavior" is there for the case when
>> STDC FENV_ACCESS is set to "
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59807
Bug ID: 59807
Summary: mutex misses destructor if non-function call
initialization is used
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59807
--- Comment #1 from Andrey H. ---
Simplest code which leaks handles on Windows:
for(;;) {
std::mutex op_mutex;
op_mutex.lock();
op_mutex.unlock();
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678
--- Comment #28 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Nick Maclaren from comment #27)
> On Jan 14 2014, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote:
> >The FENV_ACCESS pragma provides a means to inform the implementation when a
> >program might access the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59808
Bug ID: 59808
Summary: [4.9 Regression] r206596 caused: FAIL:
gcc.target/i386/sse-14.c (test for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59808
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59809
Bug ID: 59809
Summary: template non-type parameter in nested class-template
said not be declared
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59810
Bug ID: 59810
Summary: [AArch64] LDn/STn implementations are not
ABI-conformant for bigendian.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59794
--- Comment #9 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Jan 14 16:41:10 2014
New Revision: 206603
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206603&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Consolidate ABI warning into type_natural_mode
gcc/
PR target/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59803
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Created attachment 31832
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31832&action=edit
Experimental fix
This patch fixes the problem. I'll post/commit it when it passed regtesting.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59807
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It a target's pthread_mutex requires cleanup then it should not define
__GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT, it should use the init function, and then it gets a
chance to also run a destroy function.
That can be controlled
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678
--- Comment #29 from Nick Maclaren ---
On Jan 14 2014, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote:
>
>http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678
>
>> >The FENV_ACCESS pragma provides a means to inform the implementation whe
>n a
>> >program might
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59807
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
In other words, we already have all the machinery in place to handle such
cases, it just needs to be used for the target.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59811
Bug ID: 59811
Summary: Huge increase in memory usage and compile time with
gfortran 4.8
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59801
--- Comment #2 from Chengnian Sun ---
Thanks for your reply. One more question regarding this issue. Support I have a
closed program
static volatile int a;
int main() {return 0;}
Even though "a" is not read anywhere in this program, do you mean
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59812
Bug ID: 59812
Summary: Missing aggressive loop optimization warning
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59812
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59787
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Tue Jan 14 19:07:01 2014
New Revision: 206605
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206605&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-01-14 Vladimir Makarov
PR target/59787
* config/arm/a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59808
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |testsuite
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59808
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Kirill, please update also sse-13.c with new builtins.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59808
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> Kirill, please update also sse-13.c with new builtins.
And sse-12.c with new options.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28865
--- Comment #25 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> But the glibc headers case you're mentioning wasn't initializing the flexible
> array members, right? (Or even initialization with {}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59806
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56742
at2010 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||g63marty at yahoo dot com
--- Comment #12 from a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56742
--- Comment #13 from at2010 ---
Hello.
I also observed the 64bit compile problem while muxing. And after using the new
build the problem is indeed resolved. However I still see a remnant wxwiget
error in the logs that you may wish to fix as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
Bug ID: 59813
Summary: tail-call elimintation didn't fired with left-shift of
char to cout
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59814
Bug ID: 59814
Summary: powerpc64le ICE with -O2 -mpower8 -ffast-math
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: targ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #1 from Nikolay Orliuk ---
In 4.7.3 that code works, but changing it to
void foo()
{
cout << "x" << endl; // ok
cout << 'x' << endl; // kills tail-call elimination in gcc 4.8.2
struct {} bar; // kills tail-call elimination
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59815
Bug ID: 59815
Summary: Apparently bogus error: 'Outer' is already declared in
this scope
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
--- Comment #2 from Nikolay Orliuk ---
My 4.5.4 built without graphite support.
Both 4.7.3 and 4.8.2 built with cloog 0.17.0 and isl 0.11.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59815
--- Comment #1 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
Slightly more reduced test:
namespace foo
{
template < typename > class A
{
template < typename > friend class Outer;
};
A a; // comment out -> bug goes away.
template < typename > class Ou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48925
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59774
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I have understood the problem in comment 8. It is illustrated by the following
code
print "(ru,g45.3)", 891.1
print "(rd,g45.3)", -891.1
end
which gives the output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59815
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think this is a duplicate of bug 37804.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58675
--- Comment #1 from Peter Bergner ---
Pat, this doesn't ICE for me anymore. Can we close this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28397
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
See also pr56675.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56675
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678
--- Comment #30 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Nick Maclaren from comment #29)
> It is not an "explicit definition of BEHAVIOR" (my emphasis),
The pragma is just a directive. It has no additional behavior, so that there is
nothing else to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53962
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59500
--- Comment #1 from Andy Lutomirski ---
This might be a duplicate of PR56574
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59814
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59813
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59816
Bug ID: 59816
Summary: [c++11] Incorrect visibility check in template
instantiation when the default constructor is a
variadic template.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59725
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code, patch
Stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59817
Bug ID: 59817
Summary: ICE in extract_affine_chrec with -O2
-ftree-loop-linear
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59780
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-checking,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59799
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59742
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59818
Bug ID: 59818
Summary: [4.9 regression] Bogus error: call of overloaded
is ambiguous
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59782
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Isn't it better to disable this code when not optimizing so that stage 1 is
never miscompiled?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23055
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppluzhnikov at google dot com
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59774
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Very interesting and good sleuthing!
The way this is suppose to work:
For G formatting, we compute the equivalent F or E formatting, as defined in
the standard, and pass this new format to output_float whic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59818
--- Comment #1 from ppluzhnikov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ppluzhnikov
Date: Wed Jan 15 05:35:24 2014
New Revision: 206618
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206618&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
For Google b/12471166 and PR 59818, rollback r206534
(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59819
Bug ID: 59819
Summary: -Wunused-value reports incorrect values as unused
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59808
--- Comment #4 from Yukhin Kirill ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> Kirill, please update also sse-13.c with new builtins.
Fix is posted as part of:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg00761.html
I may strip it into separat
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
