https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66251
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jun 1 07:37:52 2015
New Revision: 223911
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223911&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-01 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66358
Bug ID: 66358
Summary: [5/6 Regression] [SH] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn,
at recog.c:2232
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-vali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66358
--- Comment #1 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 35661
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35661&action=edit
reduced test case
FYI, it doesn't fail with -O2 -fpic -mlra.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66357
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66351
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66352
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66349
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66348
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
You can try -fsanitize=undefined and see if it fires.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66340
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66342
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66355
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If you make the constructors and operator+ constexpr and compile with
-std=gnu++14 then you remove the overhead.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66262
--- Comment #6 from Gianfranco ---
Created attachment 35662
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35662&action=edit
"Reduced" testcase
I tried in the last few days to reduce as much as possible the testcase.
I really hope it is en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66359
Bug ID: 66359
Summary: Regex Fails to match
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66359
--- Comment #1 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de ---
The example main.cpp from abouve works on other Compilers like MSVC-2013
(VS12).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66262
--- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Thanks.
I get with gcc-4.9:
...
Linking CXX executable ../../../Binaries/test_runner
CMakeFiles/test_runner.dir/test_runner.cpp.o:test_runner.cpp:function
boost::filesystem::path::path(boost::filesyste
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66262
--- Comment #8 from Gianfranco ---
Thanks to you Markus, I spent almost one entire week in removing code in order
to have something "useful" for you, and this is the maximum I could achieve.
I don't know how much I can help you, your build failu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65832
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Testcase simulating all qi vector cases the vectorizer may create
char a[1024];
char b[1024];
void foobar (int s)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 16; ++i)
{
b[i] = a[s*i];
}
}
void foo (int s)
{
f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66280
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jun 1 10:37:30 2015
New Revision: 223927
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223927&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-01 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/66280
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66262
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66342
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66215
--- Comment #29 from Dominik Vogt ---
As this still seems to work in 4.8, 4.9 and 5.1, is it acceptable to only fix
this on the master?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66215
--- Comment #30 from Jakub Jelinek ---
IMHO it is better to keep the tests in sync between branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65527
--- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich ---
Author: ienkovich
Date: Mon Jun 1 11:24:07 2015
New Revision: 223929
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223929&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/65527
* cgraph.c (cgraph_edge::redirec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66215
--- Comment #31 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Mon Jun 1 11:25:56 2015
New Revision: 223930
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223930&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 66215: S390: Fix placement of post-label NOPs with -mhotpatch
gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66215
--- Comment #32 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Mon Jun 1 11:28:09 2015
New Revision: 223931
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223931&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 66215: S390: Fix placement of post-label NOPs with -mhotpatch
gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66215
--- Comment #33 from Andreas Krebbel ---
Author: krebbel
Date: Mon Jun 1 11:29:46 2015
New Revision: 223932
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223932&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 66215: S390: Fix placement of post-label NOPs with -mhotpatch
gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66262
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66359
Tim Shen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66262
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
Du
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66145
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||costamagnagianfranco@yahoo.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65956
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66262
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'm not convinced this is a duplicate, the test tries to catch a
std::system_error not a std::ios::failure.
On Fedora 22 using the old ABI the test passes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66262
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66262
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66360
Bug ID: 66360
Summary: thread_local variable needs copy constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66358
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo ---
There was this idea of doing some sort of pre-reg-alloc or special case
handling for R0 in an SH specific RTL pass before regular RA -- see PR 64785.
One option could be to have a simple version of that pass for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66262
--- Comment #15 from Gianfranco ---
Thanks to all for the suggestions! Apparently this is what I presumed from the
begin (I read a lot about ABI changes in gcc-5)
I'll try to figure out with doko what is the best approach for fixing this!
thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66361
Bug ID: 66361
Summary: Could not able to compile with
/opt/ELDK42/usr/bin/ppc-linux-g++
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66361
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
GCC is no longer supported or maintained, please use a current release or
report the bug to whoever you got the old GCC from.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66361
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66358
--- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #2)
Defaulting -mlra might be reasonable for gcc 6.
For gcc 5, I thought the patch for prepare_move_operands like
diff --git a/config/sh/sh.c b/config/sh/sh.c
index 1cf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66360
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
This has nothing to do with thread_local. That is removing static thread_local
still causes it to produce an error.
Here is a more reduced testcase:
template
struct wrapper final
{
T value;
template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66361
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
Also you should get support from where you got this binary toolchain from since
that is what is really causing an issue.
That is report this to http://www.denx.de/wiki/DULG/ELDK.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66314
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jun 1 13:55:12 2015
New Revision: 223979
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223979&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-01 Richard Biener
Revert
2015-05-29 Richar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66314
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66349
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66352
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66349
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jun 1 13:58:50 2015
New Revision: 223980
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223980&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-01 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/66349
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66357
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jun 1 13:58:50 2015
New Revision: 223980
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223980&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-01 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/66349
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66352
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jun 1 13:58:50 2015
New Revision: 223980
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223980&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-06-01 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/66349
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66357
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66314
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #10 from Richard B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66340
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66349
Bug 66349 depends on bug 66340, which changed state.
Bug 66340 Summary: [6 Regression] profiledbootstrap failure on x86-64 with LTO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66340
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66358
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66352
Bug 66352 depends on bug 66340, which changed state.
Bug 66340 Summary: [6 Regression] profiledbootstrap failure on x86-64 with LTO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66340
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66360
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66334
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
Should we do something special if a basic block calls BUILT_IN_UNWIND_RESUME?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66362
Bug ID: 66362
Summary: Compiling and linking with option -static-libgcc
breaks pthread library stack (funcs and macroses)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66363
Bug ID: 66363
Summary: ICE in modified test inline-36.c
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #58 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Mon Jun 1 15:18:19 2015
New Revision: 223983
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223983&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65697
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59256
ge...@schorsch-tech.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ge...@schorsch-tech.de
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #59 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Mon Jun 1 15:21:02 2015
New Revision: 223984
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223984&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65697
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59256
--- Comment #6 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de ---
ups ... wrong bug .. please delete that submitted patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66359
--- Comment #4 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de ---
Created attachment 35666
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35666&action=edit
tried backport of 217461
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697
--- Comment #60 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mwahab
Date: Mon Jun 1 15:24:37 2015
New Revision: 223986
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223986&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/65697
* gcc.target/aarch64/sync-com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66359
--- Comment #3 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de ---
I tried to apply that revision to gcc-4.9.2. Now i get the following error.
g++ -DUSE_STD -std=c++11 main.cpp
In file included from
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.9.2/include/g++-v4/regex:58:0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66364
Bug ID: 66364
Summary: poor optimization of packed structs containing
bitfields
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66030
Jouni Roivas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jroivas at iki dot fi
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66030
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jouni Roivas from comment #3)
> Created attachment 35668 [details]
> proposed patch
>
> This patch solves this problem for me. However I'm not sure if it covers all
> the cases.
This is wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66030
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Does this work?
--- a/libstdc++-v3/config/abi/pre/gnu.ver
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/config/abi/pre/gnu.ver
@@ -542,6 +542,9 @@ GLIBCXX_3.4 {
# std::codecvt_byname
_ZNSt14codecvt_bynameI[cw]c11__mbstate_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66365
Bug ID: 66365
Summary: Regression - GCC 5.1.0: Can't convert
std::basic_istream to bool
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66365
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66030
--- Comment #6 from Jouni Roivas ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> Does this work?
Yes, it works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66030
--- Comment #7 from Jouni Roivas ---
(In reply to Jouni Roivas from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> > Does this work?
>
> Yes, it works.
Now I found some more missing symbols:
undefined reference to `std::codecvt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66358
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #1)
> Created attachment 35661 [details]
> reduced test case
>
> FYI, it doesn't fail with -O2 -fpic -mlra.
Somehow the reduced test case seems to work OK on sh-elf eve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66366
Bug ID: 66366
Summary: ICE on invalid with non-allocatable CLASS variable
[OOP]
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66354
--- Comment #4 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> (In reply to Dmitry G. Dyachenko from comment #0)
> > Sorry, I have no compact testcase.
>
> Could you at least use -fno-sanitize-recover=undefined and l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66354
Dmitry G. Dyachenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66275
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66275
--- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Created attachment 35670
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35670&action=edit
Proposed patch
Patch that fixes ix86_function_arg_regno_p and ix86_function_value_regno_p to
follow the ABI attri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66367
Bug ID: 66367
Summary: Objective-C Variadic Method Not Working
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: objc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66275
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Kai, can you please test the patch on x86_64-w64-mingw32 ?
The patch has been bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu, but
there is the comment which I'm not sure still applies:
/* TODO: The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66368
Bug ID: 66368
Summary: [5 Regression] go tool crashes on powerpc-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66369
Bug ID: 66369
Summary: gcc 4.8.3/5.1.0 miss optimisation with vpmovmskb
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66369
Marcus Kool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66370
Bug ID: 66370
Summary: compiler crashes when compiling a function with a huge
number of arguments
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62308
--- Comment #12 from Christophe Lyon ---
(In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #11)
> (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #10)
> > Hello Vladimir,
> > Have you been able to make progress on this bug?
>
> Thanks for the remainder, Cris
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66354
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66358
--- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 35673
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35673&action=edit
original test case
My sh-elf compiler
COLLECT_GCC=../xsh-elf-combined/build/gcc/xgcc
Target: sh-unknown-elf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66030
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66368
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose ---
correction: reverting the changes from PR65787 only helps for the 5.1.0
release, not the gcc-5-branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66367
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124
daniel at imperfectcode dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel at imperfectcode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66367
--- Comment #2 from Chris Loonam ---
I think that being able to use `id` as an argument to va_arg is the expected
behavior, not an extension provided by the compiler.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66367
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Chris Loonam from comment #2)
> I think that being able to use `id` as an argument to va_arg is the expected
> behavior, not an extension provided by the compiler.
This has nothing to do with id
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65942
--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 2 02:28:25 2015
New Revision: 224008
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224008&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/65942
* decl2.c (mark_used): Don't always instanti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44282
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jun 2 02:28:19 2015
New Revision: 224007
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224007&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/44282
gcc/cp/
* mangle.c (attr_strcmp): New.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66371
Bug ID: 66371
Summary: ICE: canonical types differ for identical types
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.0.0 20150601 (experimental) [trunk revision 223995] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O2 small.c; ./a.out
$ gcc-5.1 -O3 small.c; ./a.out
$
$ gcc-trunk -O3 small.c
small.c: In function ‘main’:
small.c:29:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
main
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
