https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65851
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 28 07:26:41 2015
New Revision: 222510
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222510&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-28 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/65851
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65851
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65875
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> For h we get into the loop PHI handling code which drops to INF-1 if it
> iterates
> "too much". The rest probably ripples down from that.
>
> I can't see wher
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63503
--- Comment #25 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Tue Apr 28 08:10:44 2015
New Revision: 222512
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222512&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-28 Thomas Preud'homme
gcc/
PR target/63503
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65908
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65875
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65875
>
> --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65905
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65911
Bug ID: 65911
Summary: [6 Regression] r222508 breaks clang-tblgen
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65875
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I meant in the first loop.
But we handle:
int b, c, e;
long
foo (int x, int y)
{
long h = 0;
for (b = 0; b < x; b++)
for (c = 0; c < y; c++)
if (e)
h = 1;
return h + 4;
}
correctly,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Apr 28 08:30:44 2015
New Revision: 222514
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222514&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-28 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/62283
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 62283, which changed state.
Bug 62283 Summary: basic-block vectorization fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65901
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Tue Apr 28 08:36:50 2015
New Revision: 222515
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222515&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/65901
* c-typeck.c (c_build_va_arg): Require TYPE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65901
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65832
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Another example where the vectorizer thinks vectorization is profitable:
#define N 16
unsigned int out[N];
unsigned int in[N] = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15};
__attribute__ ((noinline)) int
main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65832
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42033
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Manoj from comment #12)
> I am facing a similar issue. Following is the error that I am facing at run
> time:
This is not similar at all. This bug was about a failure to link, if you are
gett
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65911
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65911
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65910
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Looks obvious to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65911
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The formatting is also wrong, both ? and : shouldn't be at the end of lines,
but at the start. Patch with the formatting fixes included preapproved for
trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65912
Bug ID: 65912
Summary: x_rtl.x_frame_offset not updated after frame related
insn deleted
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65913
Bug ID: 65913
Summary: Linking failure without -latomic
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65911
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Author: trippels
Date: Tue Apr 28 10:09:43 2015
New Revision: 222521
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222521&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix PR65911
2015-04-28 Markus Trippelsdorf
PR other/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65911
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkuvyrkov at gcc dot g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9353
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|pending |spam
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9360
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|pending |spam
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10531
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|pending |spam
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65914
Bug ID: 65914
Summary: [6 Regression] error: unrecognizable insn
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65915
Bug ID: 65915
Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.target/i386/avx512f-vrndscalepd-2.c (internal
compiler error)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65915
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Total reg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #10 from Jürgen Reuter ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #9)
> > With the attached patch your small test case and the test suite runs
> > w/o segfault now. Furthermore does gcc6 bootstrap and regtest ok
> > with the p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62097
Paul Waring changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paul at xk7 dot net
--- Comment #3 from Pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65631
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65631
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Apr 28 12:35:30 2015
New Revision: 222524
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222524&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65631
* include/bits/random.h (seed_seq) Def
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65871
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61645
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Apr 28 13:05:33 2015
New Revision: 222525
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222525&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/61645
* include/bits/forward_list.h (forward
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61645
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65871
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65916
Bug ID: 65916
Summary: Unnecessary floating-point instruction causes runtime
exception on PowerPC
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: crit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65913
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is due to the changes for Bug 65033
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60333
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Apr 28 13:21:54 2015
New Revision: 222526
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222526&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/60333
* include/std/type_traits (__make_unsi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60333
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65902
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||arm-eabi
--- Comment #2 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65917
Bug ID: 65917
Summary: [6.0 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030922-2.c
scan-tree-dump-times dom1 "if " 2
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65917
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65914
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
--- Comment #15 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi,
I am not entirely sure, the issue seems to be in lto-wrapper.
In lto-wrapper.c:run_gcc():
fdecoded_options, which are compiler options contains "-mfpu=neon"
decoded_options, which are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65918
Bug ID: 65918
Summary: Optimized code (> -O0) on 2-dim array iteration
incorrect
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65902
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #2)
> The standard headers should only be defining bool if stdbool.h has been
> included. So this looks more like a build environment error than a bug in
> GCC.
y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65918
J. W. Mitchell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||habanero_pizza at yahoo dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65217
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65914
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Created attachment 35415
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35415&action=edit
Somewhat reduced testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65911
--- Comment #6 from tbsaunde at tbsaunde dot org ---
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 03:59:05AM +, trippels at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65911
>
> Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
>
>What|Remo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65734
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 28 14:43:48 2015
New Revision: 222529
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222529&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65734
gcc/
* stor-layout.c (layout_type): Layout th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50800
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 28 14:43:54 2015
New Revision: 222530
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222530&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/50800
* tree.c (strip_typedefs): Add remove_attrib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65656
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Apr 28 14:43:59 2015
New Revision: 222531
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222531&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65656
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_builtin_function_call
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65918
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65902
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65917
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65914
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Started with r222514 so possibly a latent issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65917
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65734
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11660
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #43 from James Greenhalgh ---
(In reply to torvald from comment #37)
> (In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #35)
> > (In reply to torvald from comment #32)
> > > (In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #28)
> > > > This also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65918
--- Comment #3 from J. W. Mitchell ---
Indeed. Apologies for the submission
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65913
Richard Henderson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894
--- Comment #11 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Here is the small test case for the ICE with the patch provided Andre
Vehreschild:
gfortran -c evaluators.f90
evaluators.f90:40:0:
.or. qn_mask_rest
1
internal compiler error: in gfc_trans_as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #18 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
One thing I've noticed is that the emails to gcc-bugs now use the local time
of the user. So the sorting isn't correct anymore if people from different
time zones comment.
(The same issue also happens
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65917
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
We'll probably need to XFAIL this for now.
This is definitely a case where we were just getting lucky before and the new
code to canonicalize the comparison arguments causes us not to get lucky.
The single
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65912
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gmail dot com ---
> On Apr 27, 2015, at 9:10 PM, jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
>
> Has anyone run into this issue on other architecture like MIPS, PPC?
Yes on both.
> On Apr 27, 2015, at 9:10 PM, jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
> wrote:
>
> Has anyone run into this issue on other architecture like MIPS, PPC?
Yes on both.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #19 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
See for example:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.binutils.bugs/19841/focus=19855
When this thread is displayed in mutt the highlighted messages appears
in the wrong place.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65871
--- Comment #4 from James Almer ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3)
> Please see the patch, attached in Comment #2.
>
> While I can see the use (and benefit) to model the patterns that also set CC
> register internally for BEXTR and BZ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65910
--- Comment #4 from Caroline Tice ---
Has anyone actually committed this fix? I'm not seeing it in my tree yet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65892
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The rule certainly has nothing to do with whether the struct types are
defined inside the union definition, or defined outside and then used
inside via a tag or typedef.
The "it is permitt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65910
--- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn ---
Author: dje
Date: Tue Apr 28 17:16:19 2015
New Revision: 222535
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222535&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-28 Dominique d'Humieres
PR bootstrap/65910
* va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65910
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin14 |x86_64-apple-darwin14,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65913
--- Comment #3 from yan12125 at gmail dot com ---
Sorry, but I don't quite understand. Does that mean for all the future versions
(5.2, 6.0, etc.) -latomic flag is necessary if atomic::is_lock_free() is
used in my program?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65757
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Fixed in glibc (commit 7d0b2575416aec2717e8665287d0ab77826a0ade). I'd
advise merging to trunk GCC libquadmath all relevant glibc changes since
the last merges in 2012, rather than cherry-p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65704
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Making this work requires splitting into smaller pieces so that
std::timed_mutex can depend on std::condition_variable, which depends on
std::mutex.
I'll come back to it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65919
Bug ID: 65919
Summary: Regression - GCC 5.1 with options "-g -std=c++14"
fails to compile multiple lambdas used as default
function parameters
Product: gcc
Versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #20 from Andreas Schwab ---
I don't think this has anything to do with the timezone of the commenter. For
example the mail for comment #19 has the date "Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:28:19 +"
(which is correct), but comment #18 was sent wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65902
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Well, I thought maybe it would not hurt to be more permissive...
At least math.h and stdlib.h include
which contains something like this:
#ifndef __cplusplus
typedef cyg_halbool bool;
# ifndef false
#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55522
Orion Poplawski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||orion at cora dot nwra.com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #21 from Frédéric Buclin ---
Markus, did you change your timezone preference between comments 18 and 19? If
yes, which ones did you select?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #22 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Frédéric Buclin from comment #21)
> Markus, did you change your timezone preference between comments 18 and 19?
> If yes, which ones did you select?
No. But the question makes no sense, b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #23 from Frédéric Buclin ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #22)
> No. But the question makes no sense, because we're talking about mails that
> bugzilla automatically sends to the bug mailing lists on every new comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968
--- Comment #24 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Frédéric Buclin from comment #23)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #22)
> > No. But the question makes no sense, because we're talking about mails that
> > bugzilla automati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
--- Comment #16 from clyon at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #15)
> I am not understanding why vfpv3-d16 appears in collect_gcc_options in
> run_gcc().
Isn't this because you configured GCC --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837
--- Comment #17 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to clyon from comment #16)
> (In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #15)
>
> > I am not understanding why vfpv3-d16 appears in collect_gcc_options in
> > run_gcc().
> Isn't th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65883
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Tue Apr 28 19:35:49 2015
New Revision: 222540
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222540&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-28 Marc Glisse
PR libstdc++/65883
* include/std
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65883
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60014
--- Comment #5 from Fredrik Hallenberg ---
Same results with gcc 5.1.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44282
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65919
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maltsevm at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65920
Bug ID: 65920
Summary: Not able to compile a code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65920
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65920
Imran changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
