[Bug c++/65920] Not able to compile a code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65920 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/65887] remove va_arg ap copies

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65887 --- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: vries Date: Tue Apr 28 20:58:51 2015 New Revision: 222546 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222546&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Remove ifn_va_arg ap fixup 2015-04-28 Tom de Vries

[Bug tree-optimization/65887] remove va_arg ap copies

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65887 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--

[Bug c++/65896] [5/6 Regression] Erroneous uninitialized variable access error in constexpr function with temporary variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65896 --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Tue Apr 28 21:27:17 2015 New Revision: 222549 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222549&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/65896 * constexpr.c (cxx_eval_store_expression): Do

[Bug fortran/65921] New: GFortran should use __builtin_mul_overflow when checking allocation sizes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65921 Bug ID: 65921 Summary: GFortran should use __builtin_mul_overflow when checking allocation sizes Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhance

[Bug fortran/65548] [5/6 Regression] gfc_conv_procedure_call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548 vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #35318|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug libquadmath/65757] gfortran gives incorrect result for anint with real*16 argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65757 --- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 05:32:11PM +, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65757 > > --- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com dot com> --- > Fixe

[Bug libquadmath/65757] gfortran gives incorrect result for anint with real*16 argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65757 --- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- I don't know what process Jakub and Tobias used (a) to identify relevant files / changes in glibc and (b) to make all the changes to operate on __float128 rather than long double. Roughly

[Bug target/65837] [arm-linux-gnueabihf] lto1 target specific builtin not available

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837 --- Comment #18 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 35420 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35420&action=edit patch to override default options by options in object file Hi, The following untested pat

[Bug fortran/65548] [5/6 Regression] gfc_conv_procedure_call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65548 --- Comment #30 from Jürgen Reuter --- I can apply this patch on r222550 of https://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5-branch/ correct?

[Bug target/65837] [arm-linux-gnueabihf] lto1 target specific builtin not available

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65837 --- Comment #19 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #18) > Created attachment 35420 [details] > patch to override default options by options in object file > > Hi, > > The following untested patch

[Bug c++/65896] [5/6 Regression] Erroneous uninitialized variable access error in constexpr function with temporary variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65896 --- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Wed Apr 29 00:57:50 2015 New Revision: 222557 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222557&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/65896 * constexpr.c (cxx_eval_store_expression): Do

[Bug c++/65896] [5/6 Regression] Erroneous uninitialized variable access error in constexpr function with temporary variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65896 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug middle-end/65922] New: Switch statement with __builtin_unreachable creates a wild branch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65922 Bug ID: 65922 Summary: Switch statement with __builtin_unreachable creates a wild branch Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/65922] Switch statement with __builtin_unreachable creates a wild branch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65922 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||4.7.0 Known to fail|

[Bug tree-optimization/51513] Only partially optimizes away __builtin_unreachable switch default case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51513 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug middle-end/65922] Switch statement with __builtin_unreachable creates a wild branch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65922 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/65903] [5/6 Regression] Line continuation followed by comment character in string fails to compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65903 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/65876] [5/6 Regression] [C++11] ICE in cxx_eval_call_expression, at cp/constexpr.c:1358

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65876 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug middle-end/65922] Switch statement with __builtin_unreachable creates a wild branch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65922 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED --- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner

[Bug tree-optimization/51513] Only partially optimizes away __builtin_unreachable switch default case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51513 --- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner --- (In reply to Emil L from comment #3) > This optimization would be very interesting for interpreter implementators > that use a switch statement to dispatch the next instruction, when they can > guarantee that

[Bug c++/65923] New: False positive for warning about literal operator suffix and using

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65923 Bug ID: 65923 Summary: False positive for warning about literal operator suffix and using Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/65924] New: [6.0 Regression] ICE const_int_operand failed on arm-none-eabi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65924 Bug ID: 65924 Summary: [6.0 Regression] ICE const_int_operand failed on arm-none-eabi Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug target/64835] -fno-ipa-cp is inconsitently supported when attributes optimize or target are used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64835 --- Comment #2 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: chrbr Date: Wed Apr 29 06:52:23 2015 New Revision: 222559 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222559&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-04-29 Christian Bruel PR target/64835 *

<    1   2