https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46164
--- Comment #9 from Hale Wang ---
Hi Tim,
Your testcase is caused by the combine. It's not the same with Siarhei's test
case. So I think we should divide your test case to another bug.
And my patch is only used to fix the bug with your test cas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64766
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 27 08:13:45 2015
New Revision: 220152
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220152&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/64766
* c-typeck.c (store_init_value): Don't overwrite DECL_I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64779
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I guess the question is why the freebsd specific code (freebsd.S etc.) has been
removed, if it is really not needed anymore, or if it got due to a mistake.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64807
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 27 08:26:13 2015
New Revision: 220153
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220153&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/64807
* wide-int.cc (wi::divmod_internal): Cl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64818
Bug ID: 64818
Summary: User specified register don't work correctly in
inline-asm operands.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57748
--- Comment #65 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #64)
> (In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #63)
> > The backport request has been posted:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg02192.htm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64807
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64819
Bug ID: 64819
Summary: [5 Regression] undefined symbol in libstdc++.so.6.0.21
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64766
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.8/4.9/5 Regression] |[4.8/4.9 Regression]
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64805
Ilya Enkovich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||enkovich.gnu at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64817
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
--- Comment #28 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62173
>
> --- Comment #26 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64809
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61058
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 27 09:19:30 2015
New Revision: 220155
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220155&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/61058
* jump.c (cleanup_barriers): Update bas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64776
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 27 09:21:26 2015
New Revision: 220156
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220156&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/64776
* cgraphunit.c (cgraph_node::expand_thunk): If not t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64764
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61058
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9/5 Regres
able-multilib
--enable-checking --target=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
--host=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu --build=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
--prefix=/home/max/install/master --disable-bootstrap --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 5.0.0 20150127 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64776
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64809
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Please note that the testcase is nondeterministic. That is also the reason
why it is hard to reduce. You may need to run gcc several times to hit the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64820
Yury Gribov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||y.gribov at samsung dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64821
Bug ID: 64821
Summary: [AArch64] Improve target folding for vsqrt_f64
intrinsic
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56273
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9/5 regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56273
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9/5 regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 27 09:49:29 2015
New Revision: 220157
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220157&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-27 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/56273
PR tre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64277
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Jan 27 09:49:29 2015
New Revision: 220157
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220157&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-27 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/56273
PR tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64277
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Summary|[4.9/5 Regressio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64819
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64741
--- Comment #3 from ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ygribov
Date: Tue Jan 27 09:58:00 2015
New Revision: 220159
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220159&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-01-27 Jakub Jelinek
Yury Gribov
PR ub
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64277
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #13)
> Ranges have to be used for maxiter computations to have consistent analysis
> in complete unroll and vrp. Following patch allows to refine maxiter
> estimatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64809
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 34590
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34590&action=edit
gcc5-pr64809.patch
IMHO in any case we should apply something like the attached patch, there is no
point to eve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 34591
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34591&action=edit
patch
Ok, so it was bogus to assume size_t would cover the largest alignment needed.
Can test check the atta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64813
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
It's not a libstdc++ bug if it's an ICE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
The testcase in comment #2 is fixed for GCC 5 but the original testcase still
warns.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56273
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64277
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64368
--- Comment #21 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> On x86_64-apple-darwin14, the failures are now reduced to...
> FAIL: 22_locale/conversions/string/2.cc execution test
> FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_map/requirements/explicit_instantiation/2.cc
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64817
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64812
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64368
--- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to howarth from comment #20)
> On x86_64-apple-darwin14, the failures are now reduced to...
>
> FAIL: 22_locale/conversions/string/2.cc execution test
PR 64797
> FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64809
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #15)
> I think we need to get a suppression into valgrind:
>
> ==21268== Memcheck, a memory error detector
> ==21268== Copyright (C) 2002-2013, and GNU GPL'd, by J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64813
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Ah, I assumed the lack of destructor was intentional, so we can still deal with
exceptions while destroying globals. Otherwise an exception could try to
allocate from the pool after the destructor has run.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64781
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64814
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64813
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> Revision r219696 is OK, r219776 gives the ICE, likely r219737.
Unlikely, the only file changed by r219737 isn't even included in the failing
tests, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64779
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535
>
> --- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely --- Ah, I
> assumed the lack of destructor was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64612
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 34573
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34573&action=edit
> gcc5-pr64612.patch
>
> Lightly tested patc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64796
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64817
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64810
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
> Created attachment 34591
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34591&action=edit
> patch
>
> Ok, so it was bogus to assume siz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
We can make it extra-safe but still deallocate in most common cases:
pool::~pool ()
{
__gnu_cxx::__scoped_lock sentry(emergency_mutex);
if (arena
&& arena == reinterpret_cast (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64368
--- Comment #24 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > ...
> > FAIL: 30_threads/shared_timed_mutex/try_lock/2.cc (test for excess errors)
>
> Fixed by r220161
Confirmed. PR fixed before being opened!-)
> > FAIL: experimental/feat-cxx14.cc (test for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64810
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Can't you use a .bss object for the initial case, so you don't malloc anything
in the ctor unless user requests something larger than that?
That way "freeing" that would be handled in most cases. And I assu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #34591|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
__BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT__ has nothing to do with alignment of malloc returned
memory.
The union I've mentioned is a reasonable guess (something actually mandated by
the standard), glibc right now guarantees 2 *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535
--- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535
>
> --- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Can't you use a .bss object for the initia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64799
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Henderson ---
> Created attachment 34583
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34583&action=edit
> proposed patch
>
> That does seem likely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
>
> --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> __BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT__ has nothing to do wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #23)
> Is there a non-zeroed .bss section?
No.
> I think using dynamically allocated
> memory might be cheaper.
I very much doubt it.
> > That way "freeing" th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 34593
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34593&action=edit
further updated patch
Ceases use of __BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT__.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think aligned attribute is similarly useless for this, I'd really go for
testing alignments you need, rather than expecting some magic value. I'm not
aware of any target that would have bigger alignment f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64816
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535
--- Comment #25 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #18)
> But again - where can you catch exceptions thrown from global
> initializers / destructors?
Within those global constructors/destructors themselves:
str
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64658
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64791
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
>
> --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek --- I
> think aligned attribute is similarly us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64798
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If _Unwind_Exception already uses it, sure. Sorry, didn't know that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64791
--- Comment #4 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Oh, wait a minute, with trunk, I see an incorrect warning:
prog.cc: In function 'int main()':
prog.cc:7:15: warning: variable 'a' set but not used
[-Wunused-but-set-variable]
const int a = 2;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535
--- Comment #26 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64535
>
> --- Comment #25 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64368
--- Comment #25 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Great, thanks for confirming it. As you say, let's leave this open for now in
case HP or Rainer still sees some of these failures.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64822
Bug ID: 64822
Summary: tree-ssa-sccvn miscompile union containing bitfield
for big-endian targets
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64822
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64822
--- Comment #2 from Jiong Wang ---
And I verified, the problem is here at least since 4.8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64810
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Both the compiler and libgccjit were configured with:
> --with-tune=cortex-a8 --with-arch=armv7-a --with-float=hard
> --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 --with-abi=aapcs-linux
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64368
--- Comment #26 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #25)
> Great, thanks for confirming it. As you say, let's leave this open for now
> in case HP or Rainer still sees some of these failures.
JFTR, for cris-elf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64421
Andrew Senkevich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64780
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
We seem to have two choices here:
(A) default to --enable-host-shared when jit is an enabled language
(B) have the toplevel configure reject jit as language if --enable-host-shared
is not supplied.
FWIW app
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64810
--- Comment #4 from ramana.radhakrishnan at arm dot com ---
On 27/01/15 12:27, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64810
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
> What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64814
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think the behaviour you're seeing is correct (and Clang gives the same
result). The problem is that increments to the input iterator happen inside the
copy_n call, to a copy of the iterator not to readIte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64814
--- Comment #2 from Anquietas ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> The problem is that increments to the input iterator happen inside
> the copy_n call, to a copy of the iterator not to readIter itself.
The copy_n implementation I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64796
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> That is wrong for x32. X32 is ILP32 and should support bswap64.
And wrong for MIPS N32 and even AARCH64 ILP32. We need to special case those
three targets.
Even wr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64814
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Actually it's nothing to do with operating on a copy of the iterator, it's due
to this in the implementation of copy_n:
if (--__n > 0)
++__first;
So as you observe we don't increment the input
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63889
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64779
--- Comment #9 from Richard Henderson ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> I guess the question is why the freebsd specific code (freebsd.S etc.) has
> been removed, if it is really not needed anymore, or if it got due to a
> mistake
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64814
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The current behaviour is decades old, coming from the copy_n in the SGI STL,
and like the standard https://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/copy_n.html says nothing
about postconditions for the input iterator.
Note ht
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64779
--- Comment #10 from Richard Henderson ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
That will probably break small structure return.
See
case FFI_TYPE_STRUCT:
#ifndef X86
/* ??? This should be a different ABI rather than an ifdef. */
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64814
--- Comment #5 from Anquietas ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> However, I don't see any requirement in the standard that says we're
> supposed to do so. All that is required is n assignments, there is no
> guarantee that the in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64809
Yuri Rumyantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ysrumyan at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64814
--- Comment #6 from Anquietas ---
(In reply to Anquietas from comment #5)
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4296.pdf
The working copy for C++14, page 902 has the same specification as the other
PDF.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63863
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64282
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Tue Jan 27 16:59:31 2015
New Revision: 220177
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220177&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/64282
* gimple-fold.c (gimple_get_virt_method_for_vtable):
1 - 100 of 177 matches
Mail list logo
