http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59941
--- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Mon Feb 3 08:16:06 2014
New Revision: 207417
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207417&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-03 Janus Weil
PR fortran/59941
* expr.c (repl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60038
--- Comment #1 from Kostya Serebryany ---
I expect this also happens with the clang version of ASAN, please confirm.
This is related to the hackish way we extract stack and tls bounds,
and CentOS 5.10 may have different version of glibc or some o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59850
--- Comment #5 from Tom Tromey ---
(In reply to Josh Triplett from comment #4)
> What version of sparse did you try that with? I can't seem to reproduce
> that with the current version, nor with older versions.
The one from Fedora 20:
bapiya.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59941
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60038
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #1)
> I expect this also happens with the clang version of ASAN, please confirm.
Unfortunately, I don't have clang installed on this (fairly old) machine, so
I'm not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60038
--- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak ---
> This is related to the hackish way we extract stack and tls bounds,
> and CentOS 5.10 may have different version of glibc or some other difference.
> What is the version of glibc on your OS?
Looking at libsan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60038
--- Comment #4 from Kostya Serebryany ---
> GNU C Library stable release version 2.5
2.5 is way too old.
You may try to comment out this CHECK and see if the rest works
The main ASAN's functionality will probably not notice the lack of correct d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60038
--- Comment #5 from Kostya Serebryany ---
> We probably just have to fill in correct values for glibc 2.5.
This may help. A patch is welcome, please check
https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/wiki/HowToContribute
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60038
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #5)
> > We probably just have to fill in correct values for glibc 2.5.
> This may help. A patch is welcome, please check
> https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitiz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60039
Bug ID: 60039
Summary: sh3 optimisation bug with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Ass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60038
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
BTW, you could supposedly use
#include
...
char buf[64];
size_t len = confstr (_CS_GNU_LIBC_VERSION, buf, sizeof buf);
int result =
if (strncmp (buf, "glib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60038
--- Comment #8 from Kostya Serebryany ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> size_t len = confstr (_CS_GNU_LIBC_VERSION, buf, sizeof buf);
> if (strncmp (buf, "glibc 2.", 8) == 0)
Yea, such patch is even more welcome.
I was thinki
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60039
--- Comment #1 from Nick Hudson ---
With -O2 I see invalid pointer derefs in the morecore function called by
imalloc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60039
--- Comment #2 from Nick Hudson ---
/wrk/obj/landisk/wrk/netbsd/gcc48x/src/tooldir.NetBSD-6.99.28-amd64/bin/shle--netbsdelf-gcc
-fvisibility=hidden -fstack-protector -Wstack-protector
-Wno-error=stack-protector --param ssp-buffer-size=1 -g -std
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60039
--- Comment #3 from Nick Hudson ---
1b6: 93 60 mov r9,r0
1b8: 76 02 mov.l r7,@(r0,r2)
while (--nblks > 0) {
1ba: 10 41 dt r1
1bc: 03 8f bf.s1c6
1be: 73 62 mov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60038
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 32021
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32021&action=edit
gcc49-pr60038.patch
This seems to work for me on glibc 2.17, Uros, can you please try it on your
CentOS 5?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60038
--- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 32022
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32022&action=edit
Proposed patch
Jakub's solution from Comment #7 in the form of a patch.
Tested with RUNTESTFLAGS=asan.exp. The pa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57915
--- Comment #9 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> I'd say if (plus:SI (symbol_ref:SI ...) (const_int ...)) not surrounded by
> (const:SI ) is considered invalid IL, then trying to workaround cprop bug in
> so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58742
--- Comment #25 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #24)
> Thank you.
> Sadly, for the example in comment #15, this is not quite enough, I need to
> add forwprop+ccp right before the VRP1 pass (and then the range check is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60038
--- Comment #11 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> Created attachment 32021 [details]
> gcc49-pr60038.patch
>
> This seems to work for me on glibc 2.17, Uros, can you please try it on your
> CentOS 5?
Uh, that was
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60032
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60030
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60029
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60026
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60026
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|4.8.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60023
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60017
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI, wrong-code
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60015
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60013
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener ---
This may be now fixed ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60038
--- Comment #12 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #11)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> > Created attachment 32021 [details]
> > gcc49-pr60038.patch
> >
> > This seems to work for me on glibc 2.17, Uros, ca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58742
--- Comment #26 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #25)
> VERSION=0 and VERSION=1 are the same speed for me now,
They aren't quite for me (2.5 vs 2.7) but
> VERSION=2 is a lot slower still.
that's the part I am concer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60033
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58609
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58742
--- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58742
>
> --- Comment #26 from Marc Glisse ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #25)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60030
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58611
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58703
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60040
Bug ID: 60040
Summary: AVR: error: unable to find a register to spill in
class 'POINTER_REGS'
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60040
--- Comment #1 from Sebastian Huber ---
Created attachment 32024
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32024&action=edit
Test case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60041
Bug ID: 60041
Summary: Strange behavior
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60042
Bug ID: 60042
Summary: vectorizer still does too many dependence tests for
himeno:jacobi
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimiz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60042
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 32027
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32027&action=edit
patch to prune deps to scalar globals
My patch to prune dependences to scalar global vars.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58871
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57662
--- Comment #7 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Mon Feb 3 12:00:23 2014
New Revision: 207421
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207421&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR rtl-optimization/57662
* sel-sched.c (code_motion_path_d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60018
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60006
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
This PR has been fixed/hidden by r207382. Is this expected?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58703
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60043
Bug ID: 60043
Summary: -fschedule-insns2 breaks anti-dependency
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60042
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
With some more dumping I seee
himenobmtxpa.c:296:9: note: === vect_prune_runtime_alias_test_list ===
himenobmtxpa.c:296:9: note: merging ranges for *_205, *_324 and *_49, *_324
himenobmtxpa.c:296:9: note: me
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34928
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Bud,
Will the following patch be good enough before closing this PR as WONTFIX?
--- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi2014-01-04 15:51:42.0 +0100
+++ gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi2014-02
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60012
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
--- Comment #20 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #19)
> This may be now fixed ...
I believe it is! Nice work. I don't see vect-96.c failing anymore on r207423
of trunk. The last spectester result we have is from 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
>
> --- Comment #20 from Bill Schmidt ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60024
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Feb 3 15:06:31 2014
New Revision: 207427
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207427&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Check if mode is OK first
PR rtl-optimization/60024
* sel-sc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60024
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #22
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59121
Mircea Namolaru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mircea.namolaru at inria dot fr
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59598
Denis Kolesnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58028
Tobias Grosser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Gro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
--- Comment #23 from Bill Schmidt ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #20)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #19)
> > This may be now fixed ...
>
> I believe it is! Nice work. I don't see vect-96.c failing anymore on
> r207423 o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60023
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin13 |x86_64-apple-darwin13,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59778
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60044
Bug ID: 60044
Summary: Template argument of alias template not evaluated
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60045
Bug ID: 60045
Summary: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-[23].c compilation times
out
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60045
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60044
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppluzhnikov at google dot com
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #9)
> I see the same issue on some Solaris 10/SPARC systems on UltraSPARC T2:
do you use the default mutex-based implementation for lib atomic?
(I suspect that this is whe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56865
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60018
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
The issue is that at -O0 conversion_warning gets (fn3(), 0) || 0 and doesn't
call unsafe_conversion_p on it, while on -O fold_binary folds away the || 0
part and conversion_warning sees COMPOUND_EXPR, it then
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60021
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60026
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Summa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60026
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 32030
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32030&action=edit
gcc49-pr60026.patch
The problem is that for -O0 we don't create vdef/vuse at all, but I'd say we
shouldn't be clo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60046
Bug ID: 60046
Summary: internal compiler error: in nothrow_spec_p, at
cp/except.c:1280
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60026
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Created attachment 32030 [details]
> gcc49-pr60026.patch
>
> The problem is that for -O0 we don't create vdef/vuse at all, but I'd say we
> shouldn't be cloning -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60026
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59947
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
So far I was trying to make the users of ipa-devirt to not query ipa-devirt
with -fno-devirtualize or at wrong time. With fold I guess it is only way to
make it do nothing before we build the graph. So the patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #4 from Cong Hou ---
Author: congh
Date: Mon Feb 3 18:15:56 2014
New Revision: 207433
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207433&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-03 Cong Hou
PR tree-optimization/6
* tree-vect-loop.c (ve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59261
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58871
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58871
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Feb 3 18:22:46 2014
New Revision: 207434
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207434&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-02-03 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/58871
* method.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #5 from Cong Hou ---
Author: congh
Date: Mon Feb 3 18:23:56 2014
New Revision: 207435
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207435&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-03 Cong Hou
Backport from mainline
2014-02-03 Cong Hou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60026
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Not so easily, the problem is that copy_forbidden is called without fun
> being actually cfun, and set_cfun is very expensive.
I think we can do the test without
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59924
--- Comment #3 from Richard Henderson ---
The memory hog bug is caused by not handling incorrect input:
the variable dist_x in the function mat_object_woozka is
conditionally uninitialized.
A nice bit of meta-circularity, that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 53802, which changed state.
Bug 53802 Summary: Spurious 'may be used uninitialized' related to shifts
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53802
What|Removed |Added
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53802
lukeocamden at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60026
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 32032
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32032&action=edit
gcc49-pr60026.patch
If you prefer say this, sure, it can be done instead (and fixes the testcase
too).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60026
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Created attachment 32032 [details]
> gcc49-pr60026.patch
>
> If you prefer say this, sure, it can be done instead (and fixes the testcase
> too).
Yes, I do. Tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60047
Bug ID: 60047
Summary: ICE with defaulted copy-constructor and virtual base
class
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60047
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53017
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Mon Feb 3 19:07:55 2014
New Revision: 207436
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207436&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-03 Marc Glisse
PR c++/53017
PR c++/59211
gcc/c-family/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59211
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Mon Feb 3 19:07:55 2014
New Revision: 207436
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207436&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-02-03 Marc Glisse
PR c++/53017
PR c++/59211
gcc/c-family/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53017
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59211
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60041
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60044
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59924
--- Comment #4 from Richard Henderson ---
Created attachment 32033
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32033&action=edit
proposed patch
Properly handling default definitions wasn't enough, so
also add a pointer set to avoid proces
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60047
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ICE with defaulted copy |[4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression]
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
