http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
Created attachment 32265
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32265&action=edit
preprocessed source (armv7)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60404
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 5 08:46:31 2014
New Revision: 208340
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208340&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/60404
* cfgexpand.c (expand_used_vars): Do not assume all SSA
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60381
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60404
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58595
--- Comment #13 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This patch bootstrapped on a Chromebook and passed regtest fine for me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
--- Comment #4 from Yury Gribov ---
This might have been fixed in trunk already, at least I can't repro for
arm-v7a15. My fresh gcc is configured with
~/src/gcc-master/configure --build=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
--host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --target=arm-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60417
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think Daniel's question is tangential because the testcase can be modified
like so:
B b{};
Or like so:
struct A { explicit A(int = 0); };
struct B { int i; A a; };
int main()
{
B b = { 1 };
}
Now
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60421
Bug ID: 60421
Summary: std::this_thread::sleep_for doesn't sleep for all
arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60422
Bug ID: 60422
Summary: headers should give a diagnostic when
included directly
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60419
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60405
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60418
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x32
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60418
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
> Do we need to verify that basic block DEST has a single predecessor?
No, that's not necessary. In fact that disables all pre-header
removal (because the loop header a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60417
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60418
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #0)
> Since r208165, 435.gromacs in SPEC CPU 2006 is miscompiled on x32 with
>
> -mx32 -O3 -funroll-loops -ffast-math -fwhole-program -flto=jobserver
> -fuse-linker-plugin
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60422
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=59335
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 5 09:52:18 2014
New Revision: 208344
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208344&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR plugins/59335
* config/i386/t-i386 (OPTIONS_H_EXTRA): Add string
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60421
Dennis Lubert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||plasmahh at gmx dot net
--- Comment #1 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60423
Bug ID: 60423
Summary: g++ can treat a dynamic POD variable as an array
without warning/error
Product: gcc
Version: trans-mem
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60423
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60424
Bug ID: 60424
Summary: [4.9 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/lto/20110201-1
c_lto_20110201-1_0.o-c_lto_20110201-1_0.o link, -O0
-flto
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60424
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60424
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
Started to fail between r208309 and r208316.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60425
Bug ID: 60425
Summary: -fopenmp fails when gcc is compiled to /usr/local
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60421
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
should probably be fixed along with PR 58038
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60426
Bug ID: 60426
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE near
expand_builtin_int_roundingfn_2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60425
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=60426
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60427
Bug ID: 60427
Summary: [4.9 Regression] r208312 causes ICE and wrong code for
Fortran with -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60426
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60428
Bug ID: 60428
Summary: non-exception (e.g. C) ARM Linux programs depend on
libgcc_s
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60428
--- Comment #1 from Pierre Ossman ---
Created attachment 32266
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32266&action=edit
patch to weaken unwind symbols
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60427
--- Comment #1 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60427
>
> Bug ID: 60427
>Summary: [4.9 Regression] r208312 causes ICE and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60428
--- Comment #2 from Pierre Ossman ---
Created attachment 32267
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32267&action=edit
test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60427
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60426
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60425
--- Comment #2 from j-frankish at slb dot com ---
Ah - I see the problem now.
I'm using gcc packaged into a squashfs package, loop mounted at /tmp/tcloop/gcc
and symlinked to the root file system. The gcc libs are packaged separately and
mounted a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60425
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60429
Bug ID: 60429
Summary: Miscompilation (aliasing) with -finline-functions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60429
--- Comment #1 from Allan Jensen ---
Created attachment 32268
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32268&action=edit
qregion.cpp intermediate compiled with G++ 4.4 (working)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60429
--- Comment #2 from Allan Jensen ---
Created attachment 32269
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32269&action=edit
qregion.cpp intermediate compiled with gcc 4.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60429
--- Comment #3 from Allan Jensen ---
Created attachment 32270
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32270&action=edit
qregion.cpp assembler compiled with gcc 4.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60429
--- Comment #4 from Allan Jensen ---
Created attachment 32271
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32271&action=edit
qregion.cpp assembler compiled with gcc 4.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
--- Comment #22 from David Kredba ---
I got this now with rev. 208241:
/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-g++ -fPIC -O2 -ggdb -pipe -march=native
-mtune=native -mno-3dnow -mno-sse4.2 -mno-avx -Wnon-virtual-dtor
-Wno-long-long -Wundef -Wcast-align -Wc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57631
Michal Hlavinka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mhlavink at redhat dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60409
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=58880
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59335
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 5 15:06:23 2014
New Revision: 208346
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208346&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR plugins/59335
* Makefile.in (PLUGIN_HEADERS): Add tree-phinodes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
--- Comment #24 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 32272
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32272&action=edit
Unreduced testcase
Here's the unreduced testcase:
markus@x4 tmp % g++ -Wall -Wextra -c -O2 test.ii
markus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60369
--- Comment #1 from Wojciech Migda ---
Created attachment 32273
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32273&action=edit
Patch, as specified in the report body.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58880
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #5)
> Well, one can argue whether a bug in a new feature is a real regression ...
Yeah, but maybe we should rather argue about how to fix it than how to class
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60427
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60424
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60424
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
Everywhere.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
--- Comment #25 from Jason Merrill ---
OK, this testcase wasn't affected by my earlier patch because ~Part is
user-defined, so it's fair game for devirtualization.
I notice, however, that in the unreduced testcase Part is an abstract class, so
it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60381
--- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Created attachment 32274
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32274&action=edit
WIP patch to start combining useless value removal and table reset, after
reverting the faulty patch
I'd prefer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60424
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60430
Bug ID: 60430
Summary: static_assert and reference to const/constexpr
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60381
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I admit I haven't timed the insn-recog.c compilation time with my patch, but I
haven't noticed that the compile time would increase significantly. I guess I
can benchmark it now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60431
--- Comment #1 from Wojciech Migda ---
Created attachment 32275
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32275&action=edit
Proposed patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60431
Bug ID: 60431
Summary: [PATCH] [TIC6X] target description missing abssi2 insn
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60431
--- Comment #2 from Wojciech Migda ---
Created attachment 32276
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32276&action=edit
patch amendment - previous was incomplete
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
--- Comment #26 from David Kredba ---
Hello Markus,
Could you kindly please write here how are you reducing this?
(So next time I can try to do it myself.)
Thank you in advance.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
--- Comment #27 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to David Kredba from comment #26)
> Hello Markus,
> Could you kindly please write here how are you reducing this?
>
> (So next time I can try to do it myself.)
Sure.
First thing is to find o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58842
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3)
> I am running into this error as well. I attached my relevant logfiles in the
> downstream ticket that the OP linked to.
>
> (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60432
Bug ID: 60432
Summary: Member pointer resolution within class definition
causes segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60432
--- Comment #1 from jpelletier at jumptrading dot com ---
Created attachment 32277
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32277&action=edit
full error output
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60432
--- Comment #2 from jpelletier at jumptrading dot com ---
The following code causes a segmentation fault:
#include
struct A
{
int a;
static constexpr int A::*p = &A::a;
};
%g++ -std=c++11 -c member.cc
member.cc:6:35: internal compiler error:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60432
--- Comment #3 from jpelletier at jumptrading dot com ---
Created attachment 32278
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32278&action=edit
preprocessed file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58842
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #4)
> > I lost my results for their testsuites, but I suppose that I can run them
> > again...
>
> So I am back after re-running the testsuites, and it turned out that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60361
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Mar 5 17:53:28 2014
New Revision: 208351
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208351&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60361
* parser.c (cp_parser_template_id): Don't set up a CPP_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60409
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60361
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
Summary|[4.7/4.8/4.9 Reg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60431
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The semantics of the abssi2 insn pattern on the most negative integer are
that it returns the argument unchanged (RTL operations are generally
modulo; the semantics don't depend on whether -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
--- Comment #28 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 32279
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32279&action=edit
New patch
Does this fix KDE?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58678
--- Comment #29 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #28)
> Created attachment 32279 [details]
> New patch
>
> Does this fix KDE?
Yes. Thanks Jason.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60381
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've measured (everything --enable-checking=release bootstrapped) vanilla
trunk, that + my http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg00142.html patch,
trunk with 208220 reverted and the same plus your WIP p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60432
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wake
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60418
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 32280
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32280&action=edit
The assembly difference of good and bad executables
Here is the assembly difference of good and bad executables due
the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60418
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
>
> That's odd. What's the code generation difference in the end
> for the minimal range {to, from} that still shows a difference
> of the result?
In this particular c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60431
--- Comment #4 from Wojciech Migda ---
Ok, my bad. I'll work on the testcases so that I can make gcc emit abs when it
is valid. Should this PR be rejected then?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60433
Bug ID: 60433
Summary: auto-fn24.C:7:8: ICE: in dbxout_type, at dbxout.c:2371
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60409
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Mar 5 19:25:37 2014
New Revision: 208352
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208352&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60409
* semantics.c (force_paren_expr): Only add a PAREN_EXPR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60409
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60418
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
current_loops is setup by
(gdb) bt
#0 set_loops_for_fn (fn=0x715901f8, loops=0x7fffef079e20)
at ../../../../gcc/gcc/function.h:747
#1 0x008fe35e in input_cfg (ib=0x7fffdbc0, data_in=0x1fc4a80,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59308
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Mar 5 20:07:50 2014
New Revision: 208354
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208354&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR testsuite/59308
* gcc.dg/pr46309.c: Don't compile on logical_op_s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60404
--- Comment #6 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Fixed, thanks for reporting this.
Jakub, thanks for the quick fix!
I'm intrigued by Eric's earlier comment. Is it one of the purposes of LTO so
that one could li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58271
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60392
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60418
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
With LTO, current_loops->state may not be set and
loops_state_satisfies_p () may always be false.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60392
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #3)
> So we pass the transposed array with
> transposed bounds -> we pass the original array.
Not exactly in fact:
In my_mul_cont, a.stride[0] == 2 and a.stride[1] == 1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60434
Bug ID: 60434
Summary: False -Wformat warnings about %lld and %Lf are given
on Windows
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59335
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60431
--- Comment #5 from Wojciech Migda ---
So, I'd like to learn some more from this. Suppose I have code like this:
int fn_i1(int x)
{
x /= 2;
return (x >= 0) ? x : -x;
}
or
short fn_s1(short x)
{
return (x >= 0) ? x : -x;
}
In each case th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59335
--- Comment #17 from PaX Team ---
sure, thanks for fixing the already mentioned ones, i verified that all works
fine for my plugins at least. as a related question, isn't there a better way
than playing this whack-a-mole game with gcc headers vs.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60435
Bug ID: 60435
Summary: GCC failes to apply CSE for va_arg with different
types whose representations match
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60431
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
That sounds like another case for adding an target-independent feature.
That is, the target description is accurate here but the
target-independent parts of the compiler could do with new f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48361
John Carter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||john.carter at taitradio dot
com
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57486
Brooks Moses changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
