https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63260
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60664
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #0)
> I've just built gcc trunk with clang and it looks as if producing
> a similar warning to clang will flush out five bugs in gcc trunk.
Five is now one.
$ fgr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63419
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Oct 13 07:58:05 2014
New Revision: 216138
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216138&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-13 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/63419
* gimp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63419
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63521
Bug ID: 63521
Summary: The AArch64 backend doesn't define REG_ALLOC_ORDER.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63521
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63521
--- Comment #1 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ---
This corresponds to ticket 4402 in the ARM database.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63225
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Oct 13 08:19:45 2014
New Revision: 216139
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216139&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/63225
* uintp.adb (Vector_To_Uint): Move from here to..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63225
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Oct 13 08:20:30 2014
New Revision: 216140
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216140&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/63225
* uintp.adb (Vector_To_Uint): Move from here to..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63225
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Oct 13 08:21:19 2014
New Revision: 216141
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216141&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/63225
* uintp.adb (Vector_To_Uint): Move from here to..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63225
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62127
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60664
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #4 from Manuel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63496
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Yep, the second offset was meant to be tci->offset. I am testing the fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63475
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 33695
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33695&action=edit
Patch that looks into non-canonical VALUEs for AND addresses
Patch in testing.
This patch solves gfortran failur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60664
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
> David, would you mind testing with a recent revision? In those cases where
> Clang warns and GCC doesn't, could you figure out a minimal testcase? Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62127
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
Uff, this is caused by a pasto where I forget to remap TREE_TYPE of array.
Index: tree-inline.c
===
--- tree-inline.c (revision 216141)
+++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60664
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
I am testing the following
Index: tree.c
===
--- tree.c (revision 216141)
+++ tree.c (working copy)
@@ -863,12 +863,12 @@ build_cplus_a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61558
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka ---
It seems that C++ FE do not produce any assembler name for b (because it is not
instantiated?).
(gdb) p debug_tree (node->decl)
unit size
align 32 symtab 0 alias set -1 canonical type 0x7fff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61347
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Mon Oct 13 10:00:27 2014
New Revision: 216142
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216142&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-13 Marc Glisse
PR libstdc++/61347
PR libstdc++/63345
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63345
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Mon Oct 13 10:00:27 2014
New Revision: 216142
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216142&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-13 Marc Glisse
PR libstdc++/61347
PR libstdc++/63345
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63506
--- Comment #5 from Steffen Müthing ---
The exact same problem is present on operator[] :
//---
struct proxy {};
struct iterator
{
proxy operator*() { return proxy(); }
proxy operator[](int i) { return proxy();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63522
Bug ID: 63522
Summary: [4.8/4.9/5.0] ICE: unexpected expression
'ElementIndices' of kind template_parm_index
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11685
Kohei Takahashi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||flast at flast dot jp
--- Comment #9 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63504
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||emsr at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61048
Ilya Palachev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i.palachev at samsung dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61558
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
--- Comment #12 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11685
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63521
--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Ideally, a port should not need to define reg_alloc_order; it's rather a blunt
instrument.
Better would be for the register allocator to have a better understanding of
which registers are being used for p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63523
Bug ID: 63523
Summary: [5.0 regression] gcc/cp/pt.c -Werror=format breaks
bootstrap on sparc-linux
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63523
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63496
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Oct 13 12:44:00 2014
New Revision: 216146
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216146&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/63496
* ipa-polymorphic-call.c (extr_type_from_vtbl_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63260
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #2)
> Kaz, could you please add the proposed patch to your test run and let me
> know of the result? I'd like to sort this out before proceeding with PR
> 53513.
I've j
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63260
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #3)
>
> I've just run "make -k check-gcc" with the patch on my environment and got
> no new failures.
Great. Thanks! I'll try patching GDB sh-sim and check again. If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63523
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60664
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63514
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63512
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60664
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|diagnostic |
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63496
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63260
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #4)
> If the failures on my side go away after that, I'll commit
> the patch from comment #2, OK?
Please go ahead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57350
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Oct 13 14:08:44 2014
New Revision: 216149
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216149&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/57350
* include/std/memory (align): Do not adjust c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57350
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41628
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56109
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63379
clyon at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63524
Bug ID: 63524
Summary: FAIL:
27_io/basic_ostream/inserters_arithmetic/char/hexfloat
.cc (test for excess errors)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63376
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53513
--- Comment #20 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #19)
>
> No I didn't. That was a patch for PR 63260. Sorry for the noise.
Now I have. For both '-m4 -ml' and '-m4 -mb' there are a few new failures:
FAIL: gcc.dg/attr-i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57403
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62127
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Oct 13 14:43:24 2014
New Revision: 216150
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216150&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/62127
* g++.dg/torture/pr62127.C: New testca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62127
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62102
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
Since this testcase also involves VLA, can you, please, test if the patch for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62127
(now in mainline) fixes the problem?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57740
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Since r213922 pthread_create should get linked in, but apparently not
pthread_join.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60519
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57997
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #8 from Jonath
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63442
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57997
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse ---
I'd rather work on improving the warnings so we can tell the user how bad his
code is, but in case, we had a similar request in GMP, a code that was inspired
by libstdc++ valarray:
https://gmplib.org/list-arch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63464
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 33697
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33697&action=edit
gcc5-pr63464.patch
WIP patch. What is missing:
1) the optimize_range_tests_to_bit_test call should be guarded
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #19 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Nobody ever reviewed the changes :(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #27 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Teresa Johnson from comment #24)
> Arg, looks very similar so maybe another instance of the duplicate
> threading is slipping through? My own lto profiled bootstrap succeeded
> with my patch. I will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63464
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 33698
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33698&action=edit
bittest.c
Testcase I've been playing with.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63514
--- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> The fortran frontend must do sth wrong here - it seems to mark the function
> pure itself and either fold or the FE even does the optimization (look at
> t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63523
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57622
lucier at math dot purdue.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lucier at math dot purdue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63442
--- Comment #2 from Jiong Wang ---
Have done a quick investigation, it's caused by the implementation of
TARGET_LIBGCC_CMP_RETURN_MODE
aarch64_libgcc_cmp_return_mode
AArch64 define the return mode to be SImode which seems broken gcc genric co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63475
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #33695|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63475
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> Created attachment 33699 [details]
> Updated patch
I have started native alpha bootstrap with the above attached patch.
The idea implemented the patch is as follows
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63525
Bug ID: 63525
Summary: unnecessary reloads generated in loop
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimizat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63526
Bug ID: 63526
Summary: O1 O2 O3 optimization and inline template constructor
- uninitialized member
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63471
--- Comment #10 from John David Anglin ---
Author: danglin
Date: Mon Oct 13 17:02:35 2014
New Revision: 216152
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216152&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libfortran/63471
* config/pa/pa-hpux11.h (TARGET_OS_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63526
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Why do you think the member should be zero-initialized? Your constructor fails
to initialize it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63471
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63526
--- Comment #2 from Dávid Éles ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Why do you think the member should be zero-initialized? Your constructor
> fails to initialize it.
I uses the default mechanism to initialization of members.
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8340
--- Comment #9 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Mon Oct 13 17:26:49 2014
New Revision: 216154
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216154&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/8340
PR middle-end/47602
PR rtl-optimization/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55458
--- Comment #4 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Mon Oct 13 17:26:49 2014
New Revision: 216154
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216154&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/8340
PR middle-end/47602
PR rtl-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47602
--- Comment #16 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Mon Oct 13 17:26:49 2014
New Revision: 216154
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=216154&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/8340
PR middle-end/47602
PR rtl-optimizatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63288
--- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka ---
The original testcase also fails with a very different set of flags:
$ gcc -Os -fno-if-conversion -fsched2-use-superblocks
--param=tracer-min-branch-probability=14 20140326-1.i
$ valgrind -q ./a.out
==8525==
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63527
Bug ID: 63527
Summary: [5 Regression] -fPIC generates more instructions
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #11 from Rainer Emrich ---
Dear friends this issue seems to become a never ending story.
In my understanding the person causing the issue is responsible for a fix.
There are several hints in this thread how to solve the issue. So plea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #12 from StaffLeavers at arm dot com ---
tony.wang no longer works for ARM.
Your email will be forwarded to their line manager.
Please do not reply to this email.
If you need more information, please email real-postmas...@arm.com
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #13 from StaffLeavers at arm dot com ---
tony.wang no longer works for ARM.
Your email will be forwarded to their line manager.
Please do not reply to this email.
If you need more information, please email real-postmas...@arm.com
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|tony.wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #14 from StaffLeavers at arm dot com ---
tony.wang no longer works for ARM.
Your email will be forwarded to their line manager.
Please do not reply to this email.
If you need more information, please email real-postmas...@arm.com
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #15 from StaffLeavers at arm dot com ---
tony.wang no longer works for ARM.
Your email will be forwarded to their line manager.
Please do not reply to this email.
If you need more information, please email real-postmas...@arm.com
T
ocal/bin/g++
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr/local --enable-languages=c,c++ :
(reconfigured) ../configure --prefix=/usr/local --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20141013 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-std=c++14&#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57622
--- Comment #2 from lucier at math dot purdue.edu ---
This was fixed by the patch for PR61106 and backported to 4.8 and 4.9, so it
should be closed as FIXED.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61106
--- Comment #20 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
*** Bug 57622 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57622
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61106
lucier at math dot purdue.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lucier at math dot purdue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #20 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #19)
> Nobody ever reviewed the changes :(
If precisely you cannot get someone to review your patches, the lack of
manpower in GCC is becoming truly desperate,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63526
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61106
--- Comment #22 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to lucier from comment #21)
> so I think it also affects -Wunused-result.
You can always retest the patches in the 4.8 and 4.9 branches and resubmit. And
ping until someone reviews it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63528
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40958
--- Comment #18 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 33703
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33703&action=edit
Proposed patch to fix module equivalence duplicates
Here is a proposed fix for the problem relate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59401
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo ---
Ugh, there's actually another problem with this thing, I think:
void other (void);
int test0 (void)
{
int x = ((int*)__builtin_thread_pointer ())[2];
other ();
return ((int*)__builtin_thread_pointer ())
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #16 from xur at google dot com ---
I sent a patch to fix this, a few weeks ago, but I have got the review
or approval.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00186.html
Honza, could you take a quick look?
-Rong
On Mon, Oct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
--- Comment #28 from Teresa Johnson ---
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:53 AM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
>
> --- Comment #27 from H.J. Lu ---
> (In reply to Teresa Johnson from comment #24)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #17 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
(In reply to xur from comment #16)
> I sent a patch to fix this, a few weeks ago, but I have got the review
> or approval.
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00186.html
Kai Tietz, min
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
