https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61399
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61399
--- Comment #3 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
The variable precision is unavoidable with this format (this is even a feature,
despite the drawbacks). But the fact that the variable precision is problematic
by itself isn't a reason not to try to solve o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61401
Bug ID: 61401
Summary: Wrong treatment of empty template-argument packs
during deduction
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61361
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61383
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jun 3 08:48:28 2014
New Revision: 211163
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211163&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-03 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/61383
* tree-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60901
--- Comment #9 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Tue Jun 3 09:20:36 2014
New Revision: 211164
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211164&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-05-14 Andrey Belevantsev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61401
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60866
--- Comment #7 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Tue Jun 3 09:25:39 2014
New Revision: 211165
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211165&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-05-14 Andrey Belevantsev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61328
--- Comment #5 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Tue Jun 3 09:29:06 2014
New Revision: 211166
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211166&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-03 Thomas Preud'homme
PR tree-optimization/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51253
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Akim Demaille from comment #10)
> auto t = std::make_tuple(incr(), incr());
That's not an initializer-list, it's a function call, so the order of
evaluation is not specified and that exampl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57543
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yyc1992 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61400
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60901
--- Comment #10 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Tue Jun 3 10:06:39 2014
New Revision: 211168
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211168&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-05-14 Andrey Belevantsev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60901
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61160
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Jun 3 10:09:20 2014
New Revision: 211170
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211170&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-03 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/61160
* ipa-cp.c (cgraph_edge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60866
--- Comment #8 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
Author: abel
Date: Tue Jun 3 10:08:58 2014
New Revision: 211169
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211169&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-05-14 Andrey Belevantsev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60866
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61160
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Jun 3 10:13:15 2014
New Revision: 211171
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211171&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-06-03 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/61160
* ipa-cp.c (cgraph_edge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61160
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor ---
The first patch has been approved and committed, the second one
(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg02660.html) is still
pending approval.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
So I am testing the patch right now and should be able to send it tomorrow.
However, the code already shall already mark the load with the actual alignment
the access is being done with. Therefore it se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> So I am testing the patch right now and should be able to send it tomorrow.
> However, the code already shall already mark the load with the actual
> alignment the access is being done with. Therefore it s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61402
Bug ID: 61402
Summary: [C++1y] Init-capture with side effect not working for
some types
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61402
--- Comment #1 from Thibaut LUTZ ---
I forgot to add that separating declaration and invocation seems to solve the
problem:
--8<8<8<8<8<8<--
#include
template
void foo(T t) {
using namespace std;
cout << endl << "par t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #11)
> > So I am testing the patch right now and should be able to send it tomorrow.
> > However, the code already shall already mark the load with the actual
> > ali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #10)
> So I am testing the patch right now and should be able to send it tomorrow.
> However, the code already shall already mark the load with the actual
> alig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #11)
> > > So I am testing the patch right now and should be able to send it
> > > tomorrow.
> > > However, the code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61398
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.10.0
--- Comment #1 from Richard Bien
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61394
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I think I've seen a dup. The issue is we fail to set DECL_HARD_REGISTER on
this
bogus decl and/or fail to set it up as proper variable. That leaves the symtab
in inconsistent shape.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61391
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, unpatched and with a cross to sparc-linux (didn't figure out a working
solaris triplet that builds) and
unsigned int foo (unsigned short *x)
{
return x[0] << 16 | x[1];
}
I see
32 bit load in host
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61134
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 3 11:55:28 2014
New Revision: 211175
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211175&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/61134
* pt.c (pack_deducible_p): Handle canonicalization.
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61020
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 3 11:55:36 2014
New Revision: 211176
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211176&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/61020
* varpool.c (ctor_for_folding): Handle uninitialized v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61020
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 3 11:56:58 2014
New Revision: 211178
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211178&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/61020
* varpool.c (ctor_for_folding): Handle uninitialized v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61334
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59498
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
And the current development version of clang also rejects this testcase:
wa.C:5:34: error: pack expansion used as argument for non-pack parameter of
alias template
using variadic_alias = alias;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61046
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61134
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.7/4.8/4.9/4.10 |[4.7/4.8 Regression][C++11]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61020
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61294
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61403
Bug ID: 61403
Summary: An opportunity for x86 gcc vectorizer (~40% gain)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60848
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60894
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60092
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61173
--- Comment #7 from Keith Refson ---
Is it possible to say which version of gcc will contain the fix? It is not in
the "gfortran.com" snapshot dated 20140528. Will this go in to the 4.9.1
release?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60848
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 3 14:11:10 2014
New Revision: 211179
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211179&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60848
* call.c (is_std_init_list): Check CLASSTYPE_TEMPLATE_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46235
--- Comment #5 from chris.a.ferguson at gmail dot com ---
This optimization opportunity is still being missed as of GCC 4.9.
Test cases:
bool IsBitSet1(unsigned char byte, int index)
{
return (byte & (1<> index) & 1;
}
>From GCC 4.9:
IsBit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60848
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61381
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61227
--- Comment #6 from FaTony ---
Hi. I'm using Debain Testing and today according to changelog:
* Update to SVN 20140527 (r210956) from the gcc-4_9-branch.
The bug still persists.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61381
--- Comment #2 from vincenzo Innocente ---
I am still at "trunk revision 210507"
will update and test again
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60992
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 3 15:39:20 2014
New Revision: 211188
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211188&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/60992
* pt.c (tsubst_copy) [VAR_DECL]: Try lookup first. Ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61393
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
Alexander, as a temporary workaround, you can use -fno-ipa-cp.
The problem (also present in the trunk) seems to be that the tm_clone
flag of cgrapn_node is not copied over to clones (of tm_clones).
Thus, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61214
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
I wonder why we don't inline Foo::clone, though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61404
Bug ID: 61404
Summary: Incorrect error message when misusing a structure
component + explicit interface
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61405
Bug ID: 61405
Summary: Not emitting "enumeration value not handled in switch"
warning for bit-field enums
Product: gcc
Version: 4.10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61154
--- Comment #9 from christophe.lyon at st dot com ---
I confirm it fixes the regressions I reported.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61405
--- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor ---
The reason why we do not emit is that in c_do_switch_warnings in
c-family/c-common.c we check that:
/* From here on, we only care about about enumerated types. */
if (!type || TREE_CODE (type) != ENUMER
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61340
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2014-6-3
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jamb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
--- Comment #15 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 28 May 2014, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Is any company spending money on GCC Fortran development? That would be
> awesome
> if it were true!
It's true for OpenACC support.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61344
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61396
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61405
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Related to PR53874.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61405
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61340
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Blocks|61344
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61227
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Because nothing changed on the 4.9 branch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61381
vincenzo Innocente changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48062
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60734
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Jun 3 17:26:05 2014
New Revision: 211190
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211190&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-04-15 Jonathan Wakely
PR libstdc++/607
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61227
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Jun 3 17:26:24 2014
New Revision: 211192
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211192&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-05-20 Tim Shen
PR libstdc++/61227
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61227
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60102
--- Comment #12 from Ulrich Weigand ---
(In reply to Sandra Loosemore from comment #9)
> I've been looking at this a little bit more.
>
> DWARF_FRAME_REGNUM is specifically documented to take a hard register number
> as its operand, so the asser
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60439
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Jun 3 17:35:34 2014
New Revision: 211194
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211194&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/60439
* doc/invoke.texi: Document -Wswitch-bool.
* func
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60439
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52174
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Jun 3 17:48:36 2014
New Revision: 211195
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211195&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/cp
2014-06-03 Paolo Carlini
DR 1423
PR c++/52174
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52174
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60734
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Jun 3 17:58:51 2014
New Revision: 211197
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211197&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-04-15 Jonathan Wakely
PR libstdc++/607
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60966
--- Comment #30 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Jun 3 17:58:56 2014
New Revision: 211198
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=211198&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-05-16 Jonathan Wakely
PR libstdc++/60
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60734
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60966
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59483
--- Comment #2 from Ville Voutilainen ---
It seems that 58972 is a duplicate, and is fixed by the same patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29383
Walter Spector changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||w6ws at earthlink dot net
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38612
--- Comment #6 from Michael Bruck ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
>
> What do you think?
>
Looks great. My main beef was that the two errors were merged into one
diagnostic.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51311
Michael Bruck changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou ---
> unsigned int foo (unsigned short *x)
> {
> return x[0] << 16 | x[1];
> }
>
> [...]
> gets you
>
> foo:
> lduh[%o0], %g1
> lduh[%o0+2], %o0
> sll %g1, 16, %g1
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51976
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30020
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58972
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58972
--- Comment #3 from Ville Voutilainen ---
[ville@localhost ~]$ g++ --std=c++11 -c dan.cpp
dan.cpp: In instantiation of ‘struct derive::foo(base::type) [with T = char;
base::type = int]::f_t’:
dan.cpp:18:5: required from ‘void derive::foo(base:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61406
Bug ID: 61406
Summary: ICE on ASSOCIATE construct to literal array expression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56166
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think __gnu_cxx::__rc_string has the same problem
There's a patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg00278.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61318
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bardeau at iram dot fr
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61404
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61382
Thibaut LUTZ changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thibaut.lutz at googlemail dot
com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61382
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Thibaut LUTZ from comment #2)
> @Jonathan: you might be referring to 56774. 59716 was a similar issue.
They don't look related. I meant PR 51253
> However I think this case is definitely NOT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51253
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Trunk still gives -Wsequence-point warnings, and PR 61382 has an example that
still fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #17 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
>
> I'd say
>
> Index: tree-ssa-math-opts.c
> ===
> --- tree-ssa-math-opts.c(revis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #18 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #16)
> > unsigned int foo (unsigned short *x)
> > {
> > return x[0] << 16 | x[1];
> > }
> >
> > [...]
> > gets you
> >
> > foo:
> > lduh[%o0], %g1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61173
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I will backport to 4.9 in the next few days so it will get into 4.9.1
I am not sure how your snapshot is set up. If it is using dynamically loaded
library, you may be getting the newer gfortran calling an o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61407
Bug ID: 61407
Summary: Build errors on latest OS X 10.10 Yosemite with Xcode
6 on GCC 4.8.3
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58483
--- Comment #7 from dennis luehring ---
clang got now support for
(see:
http://clang-developers.42468.n3.nabble.com/missing-optimization-opportunity-for-const-std-vector-compared-to-std-array-td4034587.html#none)
void *__builtin_operator_new(s
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
