https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64163
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This reduced testcase is undefined C++ because of One definition rule
violation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64163
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64163
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 34177
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34177&action=edit
unreduced testcase (without ODR violation)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64163
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
With the unreduced testcase this issue also happens on x86_64 with gold:
markus@x4 /tmp % g++ -w -shared -fPIC -O2 -fvisibility=hidden -std=c++0x
qmimeglobpattern.ii qmimeprovider.ii
markus@x4 /tmp % g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Bug ID: 64164
Summary: [4.9/5 Regression] one more stack slot used due to one
less inlining level
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64110
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64105
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56493
--- Comment #14 from Uroš Bizjak ---
According to Comment #0 and Comment #9, this PR should be confirmed as a
regression from 4.6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63889
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|ipa |middle-end
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64100
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64127
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64035
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56493
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2013-03-01 00:00:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63289
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
--- Comment #3 from Marek Pol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64163
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
That is, it is good
# _30 = PHI <0(2), _10(8), value_33(7), value_33(3), value_33(6)>
return _30;
vs bad
# _30 = PHI <0(2), _10(8), _33(7), _33(3), _33(6)>
return _30;
where it thinks that coales
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64161
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64159
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Component|tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64157
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ra
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64106
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56493
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> We are using that #c13 patch successfully for almost 18 months now in Fedora.
> As type promotion/demotion patch is not (sadly) going to happen for GCC 5, I
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59708
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 34179
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34179&action=edit
gcc5-pr59708.patch
Untested fix for the ppc32 builtin-arith-overflow-14.c failure.
expand_widening_mult somet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56493
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56493
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
Btw, I think that
(int) ((long unsigned int) q + D.2078)
to
(int) ((unsigned int) q + (unsigned int) D.2078)
doesn't look like an always profitable pattern on GIMPLE (more stmts). Also
take into consid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63957
--- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: vries
Date: Wed Dec 3 10:28:25 2014
New Revision: 218305
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218305&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Rename fuse-caller-save
2014-12-03 Tom de Vries
PR rtl-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63957
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64153
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab ---
This fixes all yesterday's testsuite regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64154
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|enable fuse-caller-save for |enable fipa-ra for Thumb1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56493
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17)
> Btw, I think that
>
> (int) ((long unsigned int) q + D.2078)
>
> to
>
> (int) ((unsigned int) q + (unsigned int) D.2078)
>
> doesn't look like an always pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64100
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64106
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64106
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
I have a similar patch:
--- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c
@@ -2581,6 +2581,12 @@ cxx_eval_store_expression (const constexpr_ctx *ctx,
tree t,
probe = TREE_OPERAND (probe, 0);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64106
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Slightly reduced testcase:
void
f (int &c, int &lc)
{
c >> (lc -= 8);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63661
--- Comment #29 from renlin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: renlin
Date: Wed Dec 3 11:13:50 2014
New Revision: 218306
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218306&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
gcc/
2014-12-03 Renlin Li
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64165
Bug ID: 64165
Summary: __builtin_frame_address causes segmentation fault in
__static_initialization_and_destruction_0
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63762
--- Comment #8 from renlin at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: renlin
Date: Wed Dec 3 11:13:50 2014
New Revision: 218306
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218306&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
gcc/
2014-12-03 Renlin Li
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64106
--- Comment #5 from Kai Tietz ---
+ vec_safe_push (refs, TREE_OPERAND (probe, 0));
+ vec_safe_push (refs, TREE_TYPE (probe));
^
This looks to me wrong. INDIRECT_REF has just one argument, and is directly
associated to underlying d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56493
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #18)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17)
> > Btw, I think that
> >
> > (int) ((long unsigned int) q + D.2078)
> >
> > to
> >
> > (int) ((unsigned int)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14541
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Dec 3 11:55:14 2014
New Revision: 218308
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218308&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-03 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/14541
* builtins.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64127
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63558
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64151
Igor Zamyatin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64010
--- Comment #9 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Ulrich,
Thanks - ypur patch does work, and it is certainly better than mine. Will
you be applying it to the gcc mainline sources ? (And maybe the 4.9 branch as
well ?)
Cheers
Nick
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56917
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56917
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.0 |4.8.4
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56917
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
fold looks too much through sign-changing NOP conversions, this makes it
tricky to spot errors in patterns.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63731
--- Comment #20 from Yohei Ueda ---
I noticed a Docker issue saying GC 1.4 does not rebuild the standard library
with -a.
https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/9449
I think the problem is now not limited to GCCGO.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64151
--- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Dec 3 13:16:25 2014
New Revision: 218312
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218312&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Revert r218266
gcc/
PR rtl-optimization/64151
PR rtl-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64156
--- Comment #5 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Dec 3 13:16:25 2014
New Revision: 218312
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218312&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Revert r218266
gcc/
PR rtl-optimization/64151
PR rtl-opti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64156
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64151
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59593
--- Comment #6 from fyang at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: fyang
Date: Wed Dec 3 13:39:56 2014
New Revision: 218314
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218314&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2014-11-20 Ramana Radhakri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64153
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Dec 3 14:05:51 2014
New Revision: 218316
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218316&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-03 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/64153
* ipa-inline-analysis.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61591
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63660
--- Comment #2 from Edward-san ---
Isn't it possible to bailout if the limit is reached?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61591
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Recently I rewrote the implementation of -fsanitize=unreachable and now I get
an Illegal instruction on the testcase attached. So is there anything else to
do?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63660
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Edward-san from comment #2)
> Isn't it possible to bailout if the limit is reached?
I guess the analysis is trying to prove that the variable is indeed initialized
(or that it is never use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64166
Bug ID: 64166
Summary: JIT does not provide a way for verifying dumpfiles
from testcases
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64020
--- Comment #8 from dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to dmalcolm from comment #7)
> (In reply to dmalcolm from comment #5)
> > (In reply to dmalcolm from comment #4)
> > > Am testing a candidate patch for this
> >
> > Patch posted as:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64166
dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64166
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
Huh, I think you rather want a "stable" introspection (plugin) API. Like the
treeish one that was proposed at some point but never was finished up. The
JIT should provide the modification API only.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64153
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Wed Dec 3 15:17:37 2014
New Revision: 218320
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218320&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-03 Martin Jambor
PR ipa/64153
* ipa-inline-analysis.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63551
Bug 63551 depends on bug 64153, which changed state.
Bug 64153 Summary: [5.0 regression] r218205 miscompiles libgomp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64153
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64153
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
. See the HP-UX 11i v3 chatr
manpage for methods to privately map shared library text.
GNU C (GCC) version 4.9.3 20141203 (prerelease) [gcc-4_9-branch revision
218299] (hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11)
compiled by GNU C version 4.9.3 20141203 (prerelease) [gcc-4_9-branch
revision 218299], GMP version
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64167
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin ---
r218104 was ok.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64167
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64100
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sch...@linux-m68k.org
CC: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Target: m68k-*-*, ia64-*-*
Broken by r218255.
sync.exe:
/usr/local/gcc/gcc-20141203/libstdc++-v3/testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64168
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63661
Renlin Li changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64168
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64168
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Dec 3 16:09:21 2014
New Revision: 218321
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218321&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/64168
* include/std/future (_Deferred_state::_M_has_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64017
--- Comment #6 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
AFAIKS, the define of CLOOG_INT_GMP is only used in the cloog headers...
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/cloog-development/IFqcHdgGpM4/UOAXxd00MXIJ
so it
islinc="-DCLOOG_INT_GMP ${i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64166
--- Comment #2 from dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Huh, I think you rather want a "stable" introspection (plugin) API. Like the
> treeish one that was proposed at some point but never was finished u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63731
--- Comment #21 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
I'm confused by the description of -a in the go1.4 documentation.
I asked about this before and the answer was that each invocation of 'go build'
would create a copy of the built package which was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64168
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64127
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63831
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64163
--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Honza, this might well be another gold bug (on x86_64).
With Alan's gold fix the unreduced testcase now compiles fine on ppc64
(with a few "relocation refers to discarded section" warnings).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64169
Bug ID: 64169
Summary: Partial template specialization of reference-qualified
operator templates
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44054
--- Comment #20 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Author: manu
Date: Wed Dec 3 17:50:06 2014
New Revision: 218326
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218326&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2014-12-03 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64056
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/home/sasha/gcc-inst/ --with-arch=native
--with-tune=native --enable-languages=c --enable-lto --enable-gold
--enable-stage1-languages=c
Thread model: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20141203 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-v'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63731
--- Comment #22 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
I'm not sure why you say that it must not be the way it works. It is the way
it works.
The recent change to Go 1.4 is that the -a option does not apply to the
standard library. I don't know whether tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63731
--- Comment #23 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
If I look at this documentation: http://tip.golang.org/doc/go1.4#gocmd
It says this:
The behavior of the go build subcommand's -a flag has been changed for
non-development installations. For inst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42734
Alexander Varnin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fenixk19 at mail dot ru
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64019
--- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner ---
Author: meissner
Date: Wed Dec 3 18:39:22 2014
New Revision: 218327
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218327&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[gcc]
2014-12-03 Michael Meissner
PR target/64019
* conf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63558
--- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Dec 3 18:41:42 2014
New Revision: 218328
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218328&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-12-03 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/63558
* decl.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63558
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64170
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62212
--- Comment #1 from Lewis Hyatt ---
Hello-
FYI this problem still exists on the mainline. I see the bug remains
unconfirmed, please let me know if more information would be useful, the
testcase was pretty simple so I just pasted it inline in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63529
--- Comment #8 from russelldub at gmail dot com ---
Not sure what correct etiquette is for checking on bug status, but this has
been sitting for close to two months now, so I thought I would poke my head in
again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63731
--- Comment #24 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
They would not have been overwritten, unless you used "go install -a". That
line in the doc may be misleading.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64171
Bug ID: 64171
Summary: Hang whilst printing error message on invalid code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13631
--- Comment #33 from François Dumont ---
Author: fdumont
Date: Wed Dec 3 19:47:00 2014
New Revision: 218329
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218329&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-12-03 François Dumont
PR libstdc++/13631
* include/b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64170
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
